June 03, 2003 - 7:34 p.m.
kooky lady
On this site "body in mind", which, by the way, i'm not sure what i think of... the credo runs...:
"Down through history female beauty has been seen as superficial and sleazy, with inner workings that are suspicious and sinister in nature. Beautiful women have paid the price for this view. They have been ridiculed and butchered, both by individual madmen and by entire civilizations.
We have a different idea.
We believe that female beauty is, in fact, a grand and glorious thing to which every one of us owes our lives, and that beautiful women are often, but not always, among God's sweetest and noblest creatures, inspiring love, not violence, morality, not depravity, braving derision and sometimes overwhelming condemnation in order to share with us a simple, but priceless gift: their beauty. "
They talk about celebrating female beauty, but seem to really oversimplify it.. as in, certain cultures are bad, others good etc. and approach beauty from a totally hetero perspective... i'm not sure where beautiful women who don't suck cock fit in...
yeahmmmm.
Then i come across this article, a tryin'- to - be - agumentative article about the Columbine shooting, talking about value vs. anti-value.. this part was interesting although i'm not entirely sold. The thesis was weak..."the boys specifically targeted those who uphold or have strong value systems because they feel deficient in value" ...
Young men barely into their teens are left with no real values, nothing but a desire for an end to life itself. They want to destroy themselves. They do so because they hate the world and everyone in it and see no prospects for themselves and no possible meaning to life in the future.
So they choose to commit suicide. But they do not quietly kill themselves as anyone with integrity would. (that's my favourite quote, maybe she's the crazy one) They resent being brought to this state, so instead they decide to take as many of those responsible with them as possible.
One of the Trenchcoat Mafia's slogans was "Insanity is healthy".
And so on.
The writer continues...
"On the other hand, here are some pro-value philosophies, such as are condusive to human life:
In politics - capitalism or any other system which makes protecting individual rights the government's highest priority and only purpose.
In morality - individualism or any other philosophy which says a man's life is his own and the good is to live it.
In art - Idealism (invented by me)(that's her quote not mine, not quite sure what she's trying to say) or any other movement which depicts values.
In epistomology - reason, logic, and any science dedicated to discovering reality.
In metaphysics - the concept of reality, the logical consistency of nature and the primary goodness of Man."
Basically the only valuable part of the piece, in my opinion, was her sem�- dissection of value systems...
"There are the value-oriented who work towards the achievement of their values here on earth, and then there are the anti-value-oriented who try to destroy those values and those who pursue them.
In fact, looking at things in terms of value and anti-value allows us to explain all human behaviour.
But to understand value vs anti-value you first have to understand philosophically what is a value and what is not.
A value is something which is good for human life. A non-value is something destructive to it.
Some examples of anti-value philosophies, philosophies which are destructive of human life, are:
In politics: Communism, Socialism, Fascism, Feminism, The United Nations, or any other form of collectivism or belief that a group - any group - of people has the right to take away the rights of any individual.
In morality: Altruism, Egalitarianism, Environmentalism, tolerance, or any other form of self-sacrifice.
In epistomology: mysticism, religion, belief in a collective brain or consciousness, faith, or any other kind of unthinking irrationality.
In metaphysics - Nihilism, Cynicism, Existentialism, or any other form of belief in a supernatural or an unknowable and malevolent universe.
In art: non-representation, de-constructivism or any other movement which attempts to depict anything and everything except values".
woah... them be fightin words... then i find this next part of the site, with articles on a paper presented at some women's convention about the problems associated with the school girl uniform and how it (duh) promotes the sexual objectification of young girls and makes them the target of unwanted attention in a fetishistic sorta way... interesting. oh, and last but not least... the theory that fashion is histories longest striptease...Fashion, for the last 8 years, has been doing the slowest striptease in history. First, we saw models coming down the runway with their bras showing. Shirts were left with only one strategic button. Then they discarded their shirts altogether and wore their bras as tops. Then came the dance of the 7 veils. Translucent layers were all the rage. When the veils were off, bustiers pressed the models's breasts so tightly to their chests that nipples began popping out right and left. Then came totally see-through bras, tops, chain mail etc. Whole breasts began to appear uncovered, by design. And, finally, at the last John Galiano show, we saw a model walk around almost completely naked". I guess this is what Vivienne Westwood means when she says: "Fashion is about eventually being naked."
