Some Morning Thoughts From the Bottom of the Coffee Mug

For those who have been coming here somewhat regularly, you may have noticed a significant drop off in activity over the course of the last few days. For this, I am sorry; real life trumps my cyberlife. But, I feel a strong week coming your way. For now, here are some things I have been thinking or wondering about:

Should the Dems just go all in? They were elected, theoretically, to change the course the Republicans had set for 12 years. Instead, they have become unnerved by the Tea Baggers, the Palins of the world, and their own shadows. Why does liberalism have no backbone?

Why do scholars/academics think we are in a "post" anything society? Post-structural; post-industrial; post-modern. None of these seem that fitting, because modernity itself is such an ambiguous label for a society, and while I agree the predominant American industries have changed tremendously, there is nothing really that different about our class structure or our economic system.

Herbert Spencer, who lends us our quote for the day below, provides a perfect sociological statement: a great person, or any person for that matter, is nothing more or less than their social and historical context. A Buddha, for instance, cannot be Buddha in India c.  800 BCE. The conditions weren't right. If this is true, and I believe the data overwhelming support it, why do people insist on being unique snowflakes even in the face of objective evidence contrary to their position?

I have been thinking a lot, because of the classes I teach, about the Women's Liberation Movement and its success vis-a-vis failure. Well, on the plus sides women have much more control over their bodies, their career trajectories, and their life chances and opportunities. All of this is good. But, have they really come all the way? Men still overwhelming occupy seats in Congress; men still dominate the MBA programs in the US and, perhaps spuriously, the vast majority of CEO positions; men still dominate the military high command; men still make about 25 cents more for the same labor with the same degree/education. But, more concerning than this, is the way sexuality has been packaged and sold to younger women. The "Britney Spears" model, as I have labeled it, is a sort of false ideology. On the one hand, it offers "sexual freedom" to women through dressing slutty, emphasizing their sexuality over other aspects of their identity, and pushes looks over talent. Now, women have nearly always been treated this way by society, and I will not deny my own ideology when I say women do embody the essence of beauty. But, women have worked hard to get a seat at the table, and I am not sure if this model of womanness is the right path. I am not a puritan by any means, but when did it become acceptable for teenage girls to wear thongs to highschool? 

What capitalism does so effectively is package and sell ideas with material objects. Selling sex is cliche, but is true. What really seems to be happening is the sale of "freedom" through sexual expression, material possession, and objectification; this is not freedom, but actually a more constraining cage. Women who have internalized the Britney Spears model are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past and reproduce misogyny on levels previously normal. And capitalism, which has no morality because business is business, is willing to sell it if it means bigger profit margins.

On a lighter note, I just learned that dogs are capable of learning up to 500 words. It appears that any animal with a brain is capable of far greater things that we previously afforded them. Very strange indeed...