By Tom Kando
The titillation du jour is New York Congressman Anthony Weiner’s “sex scandal.” Comedians (Jay Leno, Jimmy Fallon, etc.) are having a heyday. It’s the number one topic of conversation around the water cooler.
How moronic! A politician sent a picture of his crotch to a woman. Big deal! Our obsession with such pseudo-issues is a reflection of ourselves. The disease is in the beholder - our media culture.
Men do certain things, some of which are not cool, and some of which are downright bad. But most of the so-called scandals which crop up so often only belong to the not-cool category:
President Clinton had his Lewinsky moment.
John Edward and Arnold Schwartzenegger have love children.
Eliot Spitzer frequented a prostitute.
Congressman Christopher Lee sent a picture of his torso to a woman.
Now Congressman Anthony Weiner sent a picture of his crotch to a woman.
On and on.
Note that I did not include Former French IMF Chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s misbehavior in my list. His (alleged) actions belong to the “bad” category. They should not be trivialized.
But the other ones, and dozens like them? They should be trivialized.
Why?
Because you see, our culture’s inordinate preoccupation with these events means two things:
1. As a society, we are still hung up on sex, in a less than fully healthy way. I don’t know where this comes from. Maybe our Puritan origins. For whatever reason, our culture’s attitude towards sex is still hypocritical and unhealthy. Marlene Dietrich summed it up superbly a long time ago, when she said that sex is “a fact everywhere, an obsession in America.”
Now don’t misunderstand me: We are by no means the most screwed up culture in this regard:
In regions where archaic Islam still dominates (e.g. rural Pakistan) men’s attitudes are disastrous. Catholicism also generates grotesque sexual situations - from pandemic pedophilia among the clergy to the proscription of birth control. And at the other end of the spectrum, little progressive countries like Denmark and Holland go too far with their laissez-faire, which can also lead to sexual exploitation.
But back to America:
2. In our country, these so-called sex scandals serve as convenient distractions for the power structure. We argue over, and vote politicians in and out of office, on the basis of their private behaviors more than their public effectiveness. Doesn’t make sense! Surely brilliant presidents such as John Kennedy and Bill Clinton were not less effective as a result of their private dalliances?
Our political leaders can lead us into illegal wars, crash the world economy, steal billions, engage in illegal torture, ruin entire countries. No problem. But woe unto them if they send a dirty picture. Nuts. leave comment here
9 comments:
Allow me to play the Devil's advocate...
When comparing males and females of the human sort, males take the "make a fool of yourself" prize. Should this fact alone disqualify males from holding high office?
According to Shakespeare, poor Mark Antony blew two kingdoms out of lust for the duplicitous Cleo. His dying words:
"I am dying, Egypt, dying; only
I here importune death awhile, until
Of many thousand kisses the poor last
I lay up thy lips."
Silly boy. He was definitely not qualified to be running the show.
In my experience at least, testosterone does tend to put wrinkles in reason.
Then again, Cleopatra was pretty jacked up on hormones as well.
Ha!
Marc is right on.
I have long been asking: "Why have men been in charge, throughout history and pre-history?" (I believe that it was Marx's protagonist Ludwig Feuerbach who postulated the existence of primitive matriarchy, but he was wrong. There have been no matriarchal or "Amazon" societies).
...but there should have been. After all, we men are more screwed up and dysfunctional than women. We aren't even built as well, we don't even live as long.
Of course, my question is rhetorical. Men have more brute force, women until recently spent most of their lives being pregnant, etc.
But by some logic, wouldn't it be nice if woman were in charge, less war, etc.?
Whoa Tom! Maybe we should think on this a bit before surrendering our male prerogatives! (Wink, wink)
You are right Tom.
I agree that the media focus on these things, and things women do too. Think of all the time given to Anna Nicole Smith for marrying an older billionaire.
Those who pull the strings in Washington and New York want a bunch of passive consumers who do not ask questions about what is really going on living in their illusions. The movie The Matrix, pretty much described this phenomenon.
Bravo Tom! you should send this piece to "Le Monde" and to some other serious opponants of Fox News.
Thank you for your comments, Marc, Gordon and Csaba.
We seem to be (somewhat) on the same page...although I worry that all the comments are by males...oh well, maybe just a coincidence...
Tom
Why the assumption “if woman were in charge, less war, etc? Maggie Thatcher, Golda Meir, and Indira Gandhi, the three most famous female heads of state of the 20th century, don’t fit that model.
Anonymous,
That thought crossed my mind as well. As a business consultant, my experience with women in business who occupy positions of power is that they tend to be as ruthless as their male counterparts.
Does the person, whatever their personal characteristics, make the job or does the job make the person?
Well, I still think that there are differences, ON THE AVERAGE. You know, statistically, larger between-group variance than within-group variance and all that. In other words, SOME/MANY women are more aggressive than SOME men (plus there is the whole issue of what FORM aggression takes - physical, or verbal, or something else), but ON THE WHOLE, I do believe that women are "gentler and kinder" than men. Sorry, very un-PC. This will also piss off feminist women...
Post a Comment
Please limit your comment to 300 words at the most!