Capitalism

– Gabriel’s Inferno, Romance –

26beb7173c296ee3e86a7ca7a88982d74a7856651ac1c7a883252d4324ddecad 3466559_orig imagesa2065e614f44f06d8a34ae2f67d8c712e3279c9e5eb3fdd053c168832afe32eb

708fcb2b54517fb74b7e7ca8013a976b d657f2818e0693067429a83e81efb54a f435bb4cdcdb01717b54dda160353d09

(pictures provided in Pinterest)

Ever since I got back into Pinterest, I have found myself looping my way through different pins of things I was interested in.

My latest interest was Romance and Capitalism (plus a bit of gender studies?), the pattern of the two in different romance novels.

You see (anyone reading this), if you have read novels from Jane Austen, Jane Eyre (up to the very end) to modern ones such as the wealthy background of Edward Cullen and the wealthy position of Christian Grey. Men in the romance novel if you notice, seemed devided into either a very powerful position or a man with wealth and taste. Of course Gabriel Emerson was one of the type, he was a man with authority and academic success (He in the novel was University Professor on studies of Dante).

Women on the other hand in romance novel, often positioned (despite how strong they are character rise etc) with a strong sense of femininity and fragility, some were even virgin (just look at Anastasia Steele) – someone inexperienced and therefore posted very little to no threat toward the men. This therefore posted a questionable matter on many things, the especial interest I have had was the distinction of sincere love, or were those women still carrying the ideal to have men who are powerful in many levels like sugar babes and sugar daddies? The novels seemed implying that wealth was very much the only thing women would stay for a man? Despite women are free in some ways such as choices to how to live, we were bombarded everyday from internet to commercials on having many options available, which left people rather fearful for commitment. (http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2012/feb/12/love-marriage-romance-valentine)

“Pre-modern people made a decision to marry based on a sense of social duty and convention. Modern people tend to do it out of a desire to realise our inner self, to be validated. Pre-modern people felt bound by a simple declaration of love; modern people prefer to keep their options always open, even after getting married.”

This shown that modern capitalism and the modernization had not freed us entirely, instead it left us panic over “would we have missed the better options?”. I would like to explore if possible in the future, was to why such patterns exist – hopefully I feel it would be something to do with the historical process of gender roles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel%27s_Inferno (Gabriel’s Inferno)

Advertisements

– Feminism, Inequalities –

62p per an hour???? You gotta be fucking kidding!

Advance apologies for criticizing about feminism, but as I grown older it became an unfortunate situation for me to discover more of their flaws. (sigh)

benedict-cumberbatch-elle-feminism-t-shirt__large elle_3088885b emma-watson-elle-feminism-t-shirt__large hiddles-feminism john-rocha-elle-feminism-t-shirt__large joss-whedon-elle-feminism-t-shirt__large

 

According to DailyMail (despite the credibility remain questionable for their histories), women who made the t-shirts with “This is what a feminist looks like” were paid with 62p per hour only only, which is very much below the British minimum wages. Their conditions weren’t hugely better, despite photographs shown that their company was in good conditions (e.g. floor was clean). Yet for me – if we really care for feminism and the women’s right in labouring, shouldn’t they pay more effort to help the women in factories to improve better working conditions – For example increase of wages and enable them to have a hobby or something outside their work lives? Instead the Pig-smelled capitalists decided to have most of the money to themselves – made the t-shirt for 9.00GBP, then sell it to the world for 45.00GBP! 

Just “lean in.” And if leaning in leaves no time for marriage or kids, here’s a free freezer for your eggs

I couldn’t help feeling angry whenever I hear Sheryl Sandberg’s “Lean in” theories and stories about any corporate feminism, while they were so busy to “improve” their own issues such as more women to be in power, they often neglect women who are in less advantaged positions – from women who works in factories to sex workers. They are often people who need a great deal of helps compared to women in Sandberg’s position, for example the chances and abilities of negotiating for their own rights and safety.

If feminism is really for all women, trying to drum up the sounds of women’s right for people to hear, then why so many women’s rights being dismissed, or not being taken into concerns even people see it? I believe feminism, if to win the heart of others, they indeed need to work on this section even more.