Viva Forever

Watched Avatar a few days ago and enjoyed the film very much. One of the reasons I wanted to watch it, besides the hype from almost everyone I know who’ve seen it and who’ve gushed about it, is that lately I’ve seen many articles posted on the internet about Avatar that opine about the various -isms that the movie apparently did or did not handle well. For example, people have issues with the movie’s apparent racism, ableism, “liberal white guilt” and a bunch of other -isms.

I, for one, didn’t find any of the above criticisms particularly persuasive, especially the assertion that Avatar is white guilt fantasy. I think this article said it best in how it points out that the protagonist at the start of the movie is a lonely ex-marine who’ve lost the ability to walk and have no money to get his legs back. He is very far from the trope of the dashing white guy who brazenly saunters into a land occupied by indigenous people to teach them the ways of the white, ala John Smith.

But what got me was the comment on the article from a guy who asserts that the article and the movie is ableist (see previous link to article about ableism in Avatar). The comment postulates that people with disabilities shouldn’t be made to feel incomplete just because of their disabilities. The comment and the article implies that the movie is ableist in having the protagonist seem preoccupied and unhappy about being disabled and that he wants to be “fixed”.

I have a lot of issues with that sentiment because of how slippery-slope it is. I agree that there should be more media that portrays people with disabilities as being capable, independent people, and I’d be more than happy if there would be more movies made about people with disabilities who are absolutely comfortable with it. However, I have issue with it being a blanket statement that all people with disabilities should simply accept their disabilities and try to be happy with alternative means of living. Because that means silencing all those people who are unhappy with being disabled because they don’t want to be and telling them they should feel guilty about wanting to be different. Should the protagonist in Avatar be silenced for wanting to walk again, just so that he isn’t ableist?

I think a wider problem is our society’s preoccupation with the notion of “be yourself” and that incongruity what the ideal “yourself” (as molded by societal and media values) is. At face value, it seems like such a nice sentiment, to “be yourself”, in contrast to the evidently bad sentiment of “be what society say you should be”. However, both sentiments impose a command, an order. To compel someone who has a disability who wants to be different from that, so that they can “be themselves” does not seem any better than to compel someone who is comfortable with their disability to want to be “fixed”.

The conflict between the two societal “commands” manifest in more common ways and further hypocrisies become evident. It seems that the following are socially acceptable; dying hair, using coloured contacts, using makeup, dressing in particular ways (e.g. push-up bras), using perfumes and colognes etc. However, plastic surgery such as breast implants and face lifts are not socially acceptable. Outside the arguments that surgery is obviously more intrusive and dangerous, people are quick to jump to the accusations that the latter is “unnatural”, that it’s deceitful i.e. bad (some people in fact get very offended by plastic surgery, see some of the comments to this article). But isn’t cosmetic surgery just part of the self-enhancement spectrum that makeup and hair dying is on? They’re all about making yourself look a certain way, to be more appealing in a way that you want. Why is some of that okay but others not?

IMO, there is nothing wrong with putting on makeup, or getting plastic surgery or wanting to walk again if you’ve lost your legs, if that would truly make one happier, after having eliminated the possibility of peer pressure or any other incidental reason (psychological or otherwise) for such desire. One shouldn’t be guilted into not doing something out of fear of condemnation or shaming because their wants do not fit the “be yourself” mantra. Because “yourself” does not necessarily mean it’s statically who you are currently, but it also encompasses who you want to be. And if “being yourself” means wanting change, then why not?

In a hypothetical perfect world where getting cosmetic surgery have zero surgical risk, is 100% reliable, cheap, painless and quick, would you condemn someone who’ve got a boob job or a face lift? And if you do, do you feel the same way about them having dyed their hair, wears cleverly flattering clothing and makeup?

I’m currently clearing out all the papers and work books that I hadn’t had the heart to throw out since I started attending school. In front of me is evidence of about 17 years of schooling and it pains me to throw out work books from so many years ago (I’m very attached to my intellectual property).

Anyway, I stumbled across my year 6 (I was about 10 at the time) work book and I found a short story in it titled, “The Antique Shop”. Here’s how it goes (bad grammar and spelling retained):

While I was visiting an Indian Market, I wandered into an Indian Antique shop. To my surprise the owner of the shop knew how to speak English. “Hello”, he said with a deep accent, “Can I help you?” “No, I’m just looking.” I replied. The items in the shop is very queer. There was a bull’s head, some black and strangely shaped balloons and a silver crown which I wanted to buy. The man came out and with a pen. “20 pounds.” He said. “20 pounds! That’s way to much for a pen!” I exclaimed. “This pen comes froms Greece. It is very valuable.” He said. “What about 10 pounds?” I argued. “Sold” He said. I went back to England very proud of my pen. I was about to write a letter to my aunt in Australia. Thats when I realized that there is no ink and no place to put ink. I have been ripped-off!

Worst story ever.

Yesterday I wrote a marriage proposal.

For work.

MOST AWKWARD LETTER. EVER.

Some guy came to our office and asked us to write a marriage proposal letter to a woman he wanted to propose to. The letter was to contain a number of conditions he’d meet if she agreed to marry him, including agreeing to sign a pre-nuputial and arranging for her parents to visit them. The letter also had to ask her to “forget about their past”. The solicitor in charge didn’t want to write the letter, so he got me to draft the whole thing. Obviously I had to make it sound as professional as standard legal correspondences but goddamn, it was difficult balancing the cold, formal language while trying to sneak a little sincerity in “on behalf of our client”.

Apparently the woman had already rejected the guy’s marriage proposal before when she found out that the only property he owned was owned jointly between himself and his sister (in the event of a divorce between the dude and the woman, it would mean the woman would have a hard time getting a piece of that property because a third party owns half of it). So he’s trying again after also agreeing to transfer the property directly into his own name, along with a number of sweet deals in the pre-nup. Why he thought the best way to propose again is to pay hundreds of dollars to a solicitor to write the proposal for him, that’s anyone’s guess.

Even if they did get married, I wonder how long it would last if she’s so preoccupied with what she could get from him if they divorced. =/

On the way home from work last Friday, I saw a poster ad for the Van Heusen brand on the side of a bus. The image I saw happens to be the same one that’s on the front page of their website (i.e. the blueish one with the dude on the foreground and the blurry swimsuited woman in the background) that got my thoughts rolling long after the bus had driven past.

Here’s a couple of thoughts that flitted through my brain.

1. Argh, get away from the pool, man! She looks like she’s going to slink seductively towards you and probably drape herself on you, which would then make your suit and shirt all soggy with chlorinated water. Do you want to have to go get that dry cleaned? I realise I hate seeing people fully dressed next to pools!!
2. What’s that woman doing there anyway? Not only does that brand not sell woman’s swimwear, but that she’s too blurry to be advertising anything.
3. Is that what the advertising is trying to tell us? “Wear our clothes and you too can get near to blurry, scantily clad women!” Sexist undertones? The ideal man = wearing suits, ideal woman = wearing swimsuits in pools?
4. Why is he holding a thin, girly, necklace/bracelet? Is that HER jewelry? WHY IS HE STEALING HER SHIT? Is he actually a petty thief? Is that the only way he could afford these undoubtedly expensive clothes?

And so forth.

Hmm probably shouldn’t make it a habit posting at four in the morning.

A few weeks back I had to go work on a daily basis to the heart of the city by train. On the first day, while I was jostling around with the hundreds of professionals and white-collared workers, it was a startling observation that everyone was clothed in almost entirely monochromatic shades of grey and black, with the occasional coloured scarf or work shirt peeking out (this was more or less in the middle of winter). Even I was decked out to blend with my black coat, white sweater, grey woollen pants and sensible black shoes. Then it hit me; this throng of people and I, riding expressionless on the crowded trains, are the very epitome of the man of the Clapham omnibus!

The man on the Clapham omnibus was one of the first legal analogies that I learnt in law school and forms a significant foundation for the notion of “reasonableness”, a yardstick and standard used in countless legal principles. In no way do I think it’s a perfect way to measure reasonableness, but it certainly is the measure used in law, even though it is probably a little less elitist now.

And here I, and the monochromatic travellers around me, were the modern versions of such a “man”. We were the potential equivalent brought to the minds of judges when picturing the reasonable person. I wondered, would a law student back in the days when such a concept was fresh and newly taught, whom travelled on the Clapham omnibus, would he have felt the excitement that I did, to know that such an important legal concept referred to an activity that he habitually engaged in? Either way, such thoughts certainly brightened my day.

It’s good to know that I’m not the only law student who has wondered about this legal concept.

Argh so hungry now. Must microwave some pizza from last night.