Viva Forever

So Tim and I watched SiCKO the day before yesterday. I actually really wanted to see it, as I’ve seen clips of it online, and even though I’m not American, it does concern me to know how the health care system is over there.

And it seems absolutely ATROCIOUS. At one point, one of the Senators were doing his impassioned parliamentary speech on some sort of deregulation of drugs bill for senior citizens, said something along the lines of “I *love* my mother just as much as any of you love YOUR mothers!!!” And Tim pointed out, that he never said that he loved OUR mothers. And that’s kinda the crux of the mentality that drives private health care. Everyone is out for themselves (and their family) and not for each other.

The movie does seem to present the health care system of Canada, England, Cuba and France a little too positively, but there were practical time restraints for that. No health care system is perfect, but I strongly believe that universal health care is a gzillion times better than private health care. Good universal health care IS expensive mind you, and these countries (and Australia’s!) pay heaps of tax, depending on how much you earn. I have no problems with the idea of paying more tax if you earn more. It makes me happy to know that at least part of it is going to someone who needs it. Capitalist mentality would all be like “you should do whatever with what you earn! It’s YOURS!” That kinda ties in with what one of my clever economics friend told me recently. Lowering tax means that people would spend more money. Spending more money would mean that inflation goes up which means the interest rates for housing goes up. While this might be a simplification of the issue, it nonetheless sounds like a lose-lose situation.

I looked up what critics of the movie said and here’s two gems I found.

1. SiCKO mentioned that in the WHO report of the quality of health care globally, America does amazing poorly. One critic said,

   “The WHO report doesn’t just rank health care systems according to how well they cure you when you’re sick. Indeed, 25% of the WHO report’s scoring is based on the “fairness” of a country’s health care financing as measured by how redistributionist - socialist - it is.”

   Oh noes! A criteria based on the FAIRNESS of how health care is distributed! That’s… bad? What do people have against socialism anyway? Why is the idea of helping someone in need such an oddly feared and hated idea? Does 1950s propaganda about communism and socialism still effective to this day? Jesus Christ, freaking out over a socialist criteria is not a problem with the criteria, but with your paranoia about socialism.

2. One thing that SiCKO failed to mention was that in places with universal health care, one common down side is waiting time. For non-emergency dental work, my grandparents here had to wait months on the list. I hear horror stories on our news of patients dying because they had to wait too long. And that DOES freaking suck. That’s a problem with the availability of resources though at the institutionalised level It might freaking suck to have to wait for months/years for something but at least you would eventually get it. If you’re poor in a system with private health care… you’ll never get it. As claimed by this critic:
   

   “Browning tells the tale of Lindsay McCreith, a retired body shop owner from Ontario who was forced to wait four months for an MRI to determine whether he had a brain tumor. Banned by Canadian law from seeking private care, he finally got the MRI in Buffalo, New York, whereupon he discovered that the tumor was indeed real. But he still needed surgery. In Canada, he would have been required to wait six to eight months — by which time the tumor might have proved fatal. In the United States, he got surgery within a week.”

   Note the convenient use of the word “got”. If you’ve got PLENTY of money, of course private health care would be awesome. You’ll be set back however many tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars that you have lying around anyway, but hey no waiting! In a system with only a limited amount of resources, if you’ve made more money than the guy next to you, you DESERVE to get better more right? We’re all worth according to how much is in our bank account and stock portfolio right?

It seems to me that in a capitalistic system with private health care, there’s no intrinsic human rights, the market tells you how much you are worth and subsequently, what rights you get. That friggin’ sucks. Universal health care at least has its heart in the right place, although the practical lack of resources (money, trained professionals, etc) make it seem like an imperfect system with sometimes tragic results. As a system though, I don’t see how that’s possibly worse than private health insurance.

I think most people that see these sort of documentaries would generally come out pretty glum. What can WE do about it? We’re not in Parliament, making the decisions, or a CEO of an insurance company. But as that British guy in the movie said, what people have is the power to vote. Governments love to keep people apathetic, frightened, poor, demoralised and cynical about what change they themselves can make. That makes people easy to control. But if people are aware of the changes they can make, if they go vote for policies that would affect their lives, all this can change.

But then again… I say this with a liberal dose of sad idealism. There’s just too many people out there who ARE cynics of government, who work three jobs a week to keep a family together and food on the table. Why would they even BEGIN to care about things like health care when they barely know where to find the money to pay the week’s rent?

And completely off-topic: HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO TIM! He turned 22 today. :3

Goes to… Bill Maher.

Now, I’ve only heard of this “comedian” very recently. From seeing his stand up routines on youtube, I personally found his jokes to be mostly sub par; lots of Bush jokes (the “George Bush can’t read LULZ” variety), lots of appealing to stereotypes regarding men/women that I guess to some people might be funny. Each to their own I suppose, but not to my taste. He’s apparently relatively popular though, and has his own talk show.

But here’s what really boils my blood. Wiki states that,

‘He [Bill Maher] has expressed disdain for many of the liberal positions regarding hate crime, sexual harassment, etc. as being “things that make women nod.”‘

Assuming that the quote is accurate, that’s the most… insulting idea I’ve heard all week. Not just for women, but for EVERYONE. That idea suggests that:

1. There are some liberal positions considered “aimed” at women;
2. These positions are somehow less significant than other causes because they are aimed to appease a certain demographic (women) rather than existing in their own right;
3. These causes are implicitly less important than other ones because, these causes almost seem to be meant to “entertain” women and hence if any men were to be involved, it might be implicitly emasculating;
4. The women are not even really engaging with the causes, as implied from the very passive act of “nodding” and
5. Other causes (presumably ones that are more “for men”) are better than the ones that “make women nod”.

I can’t get out of my head, this utterly smug and demeaning idea that in this day and age, Maher implies that issues like sexual harassment as merely select topics that women can feel “comfortable” with knowing. It’s the idea that Maher considers there are some discussions of social problems are tailored for women to mindlessly agree with as they sip tea during the commercial breaks of Oprah. That there are particular categories of human suffering or injustice (such as those stemming from hate crimes) that are merely those so generously donated as subjects by the wise and clever men in the world, for women to blunder and fumble with, or at least, to nod to.

As I said above, such idea is an insult to intelligent men AND women. It’s an insult to the men out there who don’t see certain issues, especially those that concern the suffering of other human beings, as being unimportant enough to dismiss. It’s an insult to the women out there who don’t simply “nod” at ANY issue, but can come to an independent conclusion of their own. It’s an insult to the victims of these particular social problems to have their problems, if not totally dismissed, then at least drastically diminished in importance. None of this should be the case, and I’m appalled that someone who calls himself a liberal would have such shallow and sexist take on things. What a douche!

I don’t usually ask my readers to do anything, but can you guys do a favour for me, just this once? Tim’s currently in his honours year and on the path to writing a psychology thesis and he needs as many participants to do his survey as possible. So…

Do the survey!

… Pretty please?

The survey would take you about 30 minutes to complete. It’s completely anonymous, absolutely no identifying data is collected so please be truthful! And here’s the best part: all participants can enter into a draw to win a US$30 Amazon gift certificate (and if you live in Australia, you can alternatively choose between that or a double movie pass). The email address you leave for the draw is sent separately from the survey data so you won’t be in any way linked back to what feedback you give. The prize would be drawn randomly, not by me, probably by Tim’s supervisor or something, so there’ll be impartiality. So how about it? Not only do you get to help further a scientific study, you also might win something for yourself! So please take the survey!

But wait, there’s more! If you have a blog/LJ/whatever and link to the survey on one or more posts, I’ll personally plug every site that links to the survey on every new entry I make until the end of data collection (until the beginning of October). So just by posting about the survey once (or more) on your site, you can get about two months of extra hits from this blog. Please consider it! It’s for a good cause! You can drop me a comment on any post if you’ve linked to the survey, or you can contact me privately. Basically just tell me:
Your name:
Where you’ve linked the survey:
What URL you want me to plug:
You don’t have to nominate your journal for the plug if you don’t want to, it could be any site (or none if you’re just promoting the survey out of kindness).

Edit: I was informed that this test is technically for people 18 years and over. For those under 18 and have already done the survey, your data might not be used but your email address provided WILL be still counted in the competition draw, so you’ll still have the chance to win. For those who haven’t done the quiz, unfortunately the ethics committee require participants to have stated their age as being 18 or over.

You know what’s been bugging me lately? People complaining that others should boycott buying cheap goods (e.g. stuff from Walmart) from nations like China etc, because that’s encouraging incredibly bad work conditions, child labour etc. Instead it’s optimal to buy things made in your own country to support it economically. You know what? The world doesn’t work optimally. That’s why there’s even such a problem for them to complain about in the first place.

You know what happens when people en masse stop buying things like 50 pairs of socks for $2 a packet from Walmart? Someone in China, probably entire factory full of people in China, are out of work. Instead of getting their pittance of US$3.1/AU$3.8 a month they’re going to be unemployed, dependent on measly state welfare, and even poorer than they were. Upset about hungry children having to work? How about instead a starving child, having to find alternative work (maybe in the form of child prostitution, begging) like the rest of the family?

On the other side of things, some Americans have criticised other Americans from not “wanting” to buy US products because they expensive. I don’t think the problem is not “wanting” but that they simply CAN’T. Americans have a terrible welfare system and there’s so many people living in poverty. They don’t care about where their next meal is Chinese or American, sometimes it’s good enough that they have a next meal.

People have also surmised that Americans would never work in the conditions that many Chinese have to endure in sweatshops because the Chinese would get gaoled/killed if they were to protest against the conditions. Actually I believe that many such Chinese sweatshop owners have embraced capitalism at its core; don’t want to work for us? You’re fired, there’s twenty other people desperate enough for our money anyway. Not only is this a problem concerning the amazingly (and by “amazingly” I mean “terribly”) deregulated market in China, but also with an huge lack of resources for its burgeoning population. There’s simply not enough money to go around.

What I’m trying to say, is stop freaking blaming the victim. The victims are the poor workers in China (and whatever other nations that are exploited for their goods) and poor consumers in more well-off nations. Boycott goods that both groups of people depend on would ultimately serve to do nothing but harm those involved. Yes it is a terrible situation, but not all solutions are good ones, and may actually cause more harm than good. It would at least help to recognise that it’s not the fault of the victims for what is going on. Of course, I’m optimistic that a few digg members aren’t representative of the general population. :P

While I’m ranting, God Giuliani pisses me off. The most WTFery for me was when he said,

“We don’t want socialized medicine. Maybe you should go see ‘Sicko,’ see if you agree with Michael Moore that we should have the Cuban health care system. That’s where the Democrats are taking us… All the places that have government-run health care, it’s inferior to us. We’ve got to preserve our private system. People will have to earn some of that access. Let’s not become a nanny state. You don’t help somebody when you make them dependent. You make it within their realm to do it, but give them a chance to earn it. The system gets destroyed when you start making big promises.”

Of course, those who are poor simply aren’t “earning” their access. What, holding down three minimum-wage jobs to try to support your kids? Not good enough, slacker. What, you have some sort of illness that makes you not be able to work properly? That’s totally non-American, freaking leecher. Now get back out there and work like everyone else. I also loved how he spun the example of the Cuban health care system. Michael Moore saw it that EVEN an “inferior nation” has better healthcare, however, Giuliani suggests that Cuban economy collapsed or something because they have healthcare. Sure, that’s what happened. Ugh. I really hope he doesn’t become president, and I’m not even American. :(

I do NOT have a history of reading comics. I’ve read a lot of manga in my life, but not comics that are produced in the US, for example, by the likes of Marvel and DC. The only comic I’ve read is the three volumes of Spider-man Loves Mary Jane which so freaking awesome and adorable. The only other contact I have with comics is via movie adaptations such as the Spider-man trilogy, The Fantastic Four etc. However, lately I’ve been lurking extensively in the wonderful world of comic fandom and then invariably feminist discussions, thanks to two fandom kerfluffles that have occurred (months ago actually, but I’ve had this typed up partially for a while now and have only just completed it). Hopefully I can use these two examples to illustrate the importance of choice when it comes to deeming things as misogynistic or not.

#1 - Mary Jane Statue
On your left is a statue produced (and subsequently sold very well) by Marvel, of Mary Jane from Spider-man. I first saw this image linked from fandom wank and even without reading the comments, I definitely winced. Many outraged comments from both communities echoed my sentiments. There she was, impossibly bent over, g-strings showing, bending very provocatively over a washing basin. It just seemed to scream “objectification! misogyny!!” While Mary Jane from the movies was by no means a strong woman, she seemed independent in her angst/teary way. And here she was, portrayed as some sort of oversexualised, out of character and completely one dimensional object.

However, further perusal of the comments revealed a small but persuasive camp, mainly people who’ve read the comics. I found out that comic book Mary Jane is nothing like movie Mary Jane. Doing a bit of research I found that comic book Mary Jane was a brash, confident woman who was an actress, a model and a go-go dancer. This camp of people argued that in such a context, it’s not so surprising that this Mary Jane would dress provocatively. She’s a woman who’s in control of her sexuality and circumstance. I could see that the statue representing a woman who may flirtatiously says to Peter Parker “face it, Tiger… you just hit the jackpot!” while pretending to be washing his costume. It’s plausible that the statue’s sultry looks is implicitly a well-practiced one, and the scenario suggests something kinky rather than servitude.

The key to all this is choice. Is it believable that movie Mary Jane would dress up like that? Not really. She’s an aspiring actress, trying to “discover herself” I suppose, who is still unsure of herself whilst struggling for independence (and stardom). Interpreted in such a way the statue is a failed forcing of superficial sexuality on a character whom do not have these traits at all. There stems the idea that women, no matter what their personality or approaches to relations with others, would love to dress up as a barefooted housewife in a g-string, mechanically grinning while doing household chores to please her husband. There is no realm for choice. This would be pure sexism and infuriating misogyny.

However, the context proves to be vital in this case. This is a statue of comic book Mary Jane. She’s a go-go dancer and model with a confidence of her sexuality to boot. Being in revealing clothing and a g-string would be something she could be comfortable with. Giving Marvel the benefit of the doubt, it’s much easier to conclude that such a pose could be something that comic book Mary Jane chose to do. The statue has the smirk that alludes to confidence. The more plausible presence of choice here makes claims of sexism much weaker.

I firmly believe that if women want to be go-go dancers, or if they want to dress up as housewives (or even be housewives), or conversely, that they strive for total independence etc, they damn well should. Feminism is not and should not be about women HAVING to be the opposite of what they were traditionally seen, that they HAVE to appeal to traditionally “masculine” traits. As Simone de Beauvoir proposed, women aren’t “abnormal” creatures that need to strive to be more “normal” like men, but that women are capable of choice and hence capable of choosing their own brand of freedom, whatever that may be (note, I admit, beyond wiki I don’t really know much more about de Beauvoir, though I would like to get to know more about her philosophy).

Does this mean comic book Mary Jane HAS to dress and act like that just because she has modeling and go-go dancing as professions? Absolutely not. But it’s to my knowledge that she CHOSE those careers and her personality would suggest that she could very well do something as cheeky as that which the statue implies. Does it mean that movie Mary Jane isn’t capable of doing something kinky? Also no, but it’s just implausible from how the character is portrayed so far. Every step of the way, we need to keep in mind the choices of people based on who they are as a person, not what gender they are. While the comic book industry isn’t known for their enlightened feminism, knowing the context, I don’t think this particular artifact is as sexist and objectifying as many people claim it is.

#2 - Heroes for Hire Cover
Also first seen on Fandom Wank. Thought it was sexist on first view and still do. How is this different from the above case? Well firstly, all the women (all superheroes by the way) are tied up yet drawn incredibly provocatively. For some reason their suits are zipped halfway down, they appear to be in weak distress (facial expressions) and their wrists are limp. A much better analysis is found here.

But heroes get into risky situations all the time, you might say. But this is the COVER, the selling point of the comic. Sure comic covers use images of heroes in danger to evoke curiosity all the time. However, I don’t think that the comic artist was merely evoking “curiosity” in the viewer of the heroines’ fate, it’s not difficult to conclude that the heaving, half-exposed bosoms and all the other signs point to the other obvious aim of the cover; to titillate. To sell their wares, Marvel have sexualised an image of women being potentially assaulted.

I would have less of a problem if the women were looking more fierce or actively distressed. Rather, they look defeated and weak WHILE looking highly sexualised. If they chose to look like this (e.g. some sort of consensual bondage activity; this is highly unlikely) and contextually they were like that then I would have less of a problem with it. However, they’re not. They are heroines, not models or porn stars. They save people, they are supposed to be role models. Yet this cover has made a mockery of all that, swept it away and instead Marvel had decided that objectification via sexy strung up women is a better message to send out than heroes in trouble who just happened to be women. The cover says that no matter what traits or personalities you have, if you’re a woman, you’re there to titillate. It doesn’t even matter if you want to save the world or help people, or don’t want to rely on your appearance and sexuality at all, you’re really only good to look at. You don’t really have a choice at all.

Of course, not all comics are that bad. But that particular cover… I don’t see how its redeemable unless there’s some completely different context that I’m unaware of. Incidentally, the artist of the cover is a woman. However, I don’t think women are necessarily any more or less sexist than men could be, so I think that’s a moot point.

I find it sad that some women out there would call themselves “feminists” while insisting that women SHOULD be a certain way. There are “feminists” out there that insist that if a woman is anything but a completely independent, corporate-ladder climbing person that they are somehow worse than those that are like that. The opposite also exists. There are some feminists that insist that women should indulge in their sexuality whereas others say that that self-respect come from dressing and behaving more conservatively. When are we going to reach that middle ground that happiness and proper freedom from gender-shackles come from choice? That whatever a woman wants to be, whether to be a housewife or a CEO or a model or a superhero, they should have the freedom to choose without backlash? That if they don’t want to dress skimpily that they aren’t considered some sort of “prude” or if they want to dress/act more explicitly sexuality that they aren’t negatively branded as a “slut” or a “ho”? It’s amazing how many people still think women “should” be a certain way (in a traditional or more modern sense) just because they are female and any derivation to their standards is some sort of terrible flaw. And I guess more generally, why do people cast judgment on people who do things that make them happy, just because they behave in a way that is different from your own?

My research into feminism and my own thoughts on it are still somewhat in its infancy. I’m learning (and thinking!) more every day about this fascinating topic. And yet, in a different sense though, gender really isn’t as important as it currently is held to be yet.

But anyway, I’m getting off-topic. Here’s the last bit of gender related tidbit that I thought was interesting; Men are just as chatty as women.