Complicity in Un Prophète

image from BFI

Jaques Audiard’s film Un Prophète has already received rave reviews, high accolades, comparisons to the Godfather, and the Grand Prix at Cannes.

Although there are warnings of some gruesome content, what gives the films its strength, and stomach-churning discomfort, is the complicity that Audiard forces upon the audience.

We see Malik El Djebena (Tahar Rahim) first as he enters the grim prison, and throughout the film, although he begins to go outside, there is only one reference to his pre-criminal life, in a brief reference to childhood neglect.

What this means for the audience, then, is that we are immediately placed within a world without the moral code that applies to normal life. Audiard emphasizes the outsider status of prisoners as well as immigrants in France, but this perspective also forces the viewer, as part of the implicit compassion created by filming from Malik’s point of view, to root for the violent and cruel actions that ensure his survival.

By placing the audience in an amoral context, with an anti-hero who must, as we learn at the beginning of the film, kill or be killed, Audiard forces us to think about our role in a society that creates space for this necessary violence, which is naturally self-perpetuating, and our own instinctive reaction to his actions – we want the bursts of violence to be over quickly, but we must also squirm in acknowledging that without such behavior, death is the only possible alternative.

We are forced into the psychological reality of someone who, as a result of a small handful of misfortunes that could happen to anyone, is forced to live by a different set of rules if he would live at all.

Audiard’s genius here is to make us complicit in a fictional situation, which in turn reveals our true complicity in a society where there is, by virtue of its existence and moral structure, creates and maintains an amoral shadow.

Talking to the Taliban?

The UN has had “secret peace talks” with the Taliban.

An official statement from the Taliban leadership in response to today’s conference warned that “attempts by the enemy to bribe the mujahideen, offering them money and employment to abandon jihad, are futile”. However, it added what appeared to be a conciliatory note, saying that it was waging a jihad only to “liberate” Afghan territory and posed “no threat to neighbouring countries or anyone else”.

I understand that after nine years of war, peaceful solutions must be found. However, there should and must be an option between constant presence of foreign troops and the Taliban controlling Afghanistan.

Why?

Because their laws include (but are not limited to):
1. Restricting the attire and freedom of movement women and men
2. Prohibiting the education of women after the age of 8
3. Prohibiting the employment of women
4. Prohibiting women from seeing male physicians, and (see rule two) limiting the ability of women to be physicians (if they must see a male physician, the male is not allowed to touch the female, the hijab must be worn, and vocal interactions are limited).
5. Prohibiting music, British and American hairstyles (?), dancing at weddings, sorcery, washing clothes in streams, shaving, kite-flying, and keeping pigeons
6. Requiring prayer

Bearing in mind that there are Muslims who believe in Sharia law but think any punishment is in the hands of God, I am drawing a line between the Taliban means of enforcing Sharia law and whether or not that is justified within Sharia law. What matters is their interpretation and what happens to the people of Afghanistan, legally, when they break or are convicted of breaking any of the laws. Women Aid has a brief précis of the rise of the Taliban and how their laws and, critically, extreme punishment, differs from the usual.

Taliban law is enforced by religious police. Stoning, beating, and execution are all accepted punishments under the Taliban. They do not believe in democrat process. Human rights agencies have reported repeatedly on lack of fair trial and a corrupt justice system.

In 2000, the UN condemned human rights violations under the Taliban, including mass abductions and forced prostitution and marriage of women.

At present life is not that much better.

But is the choice really between warlords and religious police? Is there not a third, peaceful way that legislates basic human liberties and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment?

The right to life supersedes all others, and the ongoing war is brutal for much of the country, but basic human and women’s rights should not be compromised in an attempt to reconcile the Taliban and the current government.

Given that this is directly in conflict with the laws they sought to enforce, I don’t see how it’s possible.

Politics of Attraction

Studies have shown that people attribute all sorts of positive traits to people who are attractive (link includes a general definition of ‘attractiveness’ in a broad sense). Interestingly, the inverse seems to hold true – that people with good personalities are perceived as more attractive.

This is related to the Halo effect, whereby one positive trait (physical or character) suggests to the person making the observation a raft of other positive traits.

This study shows that people are more likely to trust attractive people more (and, conversely, be more disappointed if they prove unworthy of trust).

This suggests that people, in general, are more likely to consider seriously ideas presented by an attractive person that they would not otherwise. For example, if one is speaking to someone who holds a point of view with which they disagree, one would, theoretically, be more likely to consider whatever arguments they presented, whether or not they were intelligently discussed, than if they subconsciously found the person plain or were listening to them on the radio.

In contemplating this, I wondered about how much influence this has on politics. In the debate between JFK and Nixon, those who listened on the radio thought Nixon won, whereas the television audience thought JFK did, clearly affected by the discrepancy in appearance, as Nixon was recovering from illness and JFK had been campaigning in California, and had a nice tan.

At present, there is the discussion of Obama’s first year in the media, and the lead up to the UK elections which will include televised debate for the first time.

In the former case, I think we can see, to some extent, the greater ‘disappointment/punishment’ factor for the trust given (excessively?) to attractive people. Not necessarily that Obama has failed, but that he is perhaps being unduly castigated by people who assumed, for example, because he is tall and well-spoken he agreed with all of their personal viewpoints and would be capable of enacting laws in accordance with them.

In the latter instance, I think the debates will provide an interesting opportunity to observe this tendency. Obviously the current Labour government is in an awkward position because of the recession, but leaving that consideration aside, the three key debaters are Gordon Brown (Labour), David Cameron (Tory), and Nick Clegg (Liberal Democrat). Clegg is the most tv ready, and being from the smallest party, will probably gain the most simply from wide exposure. Cameron is prettier that Brown, certainly, although the Labour campaign is currently mocking the Tory campaign for having an airbrushed photo of Cameron staring down from billboards. Whether bringing that into the discussion negates the effect remains to be seen.

One would, of course, hope that in any election, the populace makes an effort to be informed about the various candidates and party platforms and vote for that which most closely represents what they feel is best for themselves and their community.

Success and Accomplishment

How do we define success and accomplishment?

Historically, accomplishment was tied to education (the sort befitting the sex of the person in question) and financial success. A man might, after receiving a classical education, study law or religion, then inherit a political or ecumenical position, and/or a series of estates, which would require some management but essentially bring significant income from the rent on these properties, or a return on any standing investments with financial institutions.

Women, should their family have the means and inclination, would be taught in subjects such as foreign languages, and various forms of ‘refined’ entertainment like singing and playing instruments, painting, and needlework. Information on how to run a household would also be forthcoming.

However, both of these types of accomplishment are based on class. Obviously, one’s family would have to have money and something like a title in society to provide this sort of life and education. So what of everyone else? Men could perhaps find glory in the armed forces, or the church, and women would, again, have to run households (however small), and perhaps work as a seamstress or milliner, and everyone else would work on one of the farms owned by the upper classes.

But did they think of success differently? These people with fewer opportunities to become wealthy or ‘cultured’? One must assume so, otherwise, what goals and satisfactions could be had if all accomplishments was left to the few wealthy families? Perhaps a well run farm, or a thriving small business, or in general an aptitude for the position into which they were, for all intents and purposes, born, or a talent for self-edification and pleasing society.

Most western societies now, have the same general concept of success – financial and educational (the latter being related to the former, at least ideally) and are, theoretically, at least, more socially mobile. The US prides itself on being a country where a person of the meanest origins can become a multi-millionaire. Education and health care are more readily available – heavily funded federally in Canada and most of Europe, although the quality of such does still largely depend on where you can afford to live and if you can afford insurance.

And, generally, we have more choices. Though the majority of people still have to fall into the lower section of society, simply by virtue of statistics, there are more types of business, more industry, and the implication (if perhaps not the fact), that anyone with enough determination can reach the top, regardless of class, colour, or creed, in a career that interests them beyond the potential for remuneration.

It is this last assumption with which I take issue, having recently sparred with someone over the truth of it. They iterated that some young upper class women of their acquaintance were in law school, and had done very well for themselves, in contrast to the slightly older people he knew at work (a store), where he and his coworkers all believed themselves to be unaccomplished, unmotivated people who, though not necessarily unhappy, could not claim the kind of success these young women appeared to have.

To me, this is immediately problematic as the people in question were already favoured by access to the best education possible, in all likelihood because of, yes, inherent aptitude, but also because of the best schools they were able to attend due to their family’s financial privilege, whether it be the cause of living in a nice neighborhood with a better local school, or the ability to pay for a private school and exam review courses and the like.

Does this mean that people from lower quality schools never achieve the same thing? Of course not, but while I salute the women for knowing what they wanted and achieving it, but to insist that it had absolutely nothing to do with social advantages is foolish. Moreover, the implication that anyone who works in a shop or some other working class position is somehow unmotivated and less accomplished than these women is insulting.

Yes, perhaps the individuals to whom this person referred consider themselves capable of greater things, but they both haven’t quite decided what that is, nor seen the kinds of opportunities (often provided by familial or school connections) that might suggest a particular line. These are people who do genuinely have to start at the bottom, of whatever industry or industries they think might being them the most enjoyment. And, particularly in an economic climate where millions of people are unemployed, the competition for the few positions available is going to be steep.

In the meantime, of course, people have to eat. (This is leaving aside, for the moment, the idea that some people might actually want to work in a shop, with perhaps the aim of having their own some day). Success, in this case, would be finding the money to pay for basic necessities and having enough left over for a satisfying social life.

Additionally, of course, everyone defines success and accomplishment differently. Not all accomplishment has to cost thousands of (insert appropriate currency here). Some goals are more personal – traveling, creating art, self-edification, buying property, having a family, etc. And although society at large likes to have an easy way of judging the success of other people, bank balance and the job title on a business card seem ultimately quite shallow.

While I do hope that one day we live in a society where everyone truly does have equal opportunity to achieve whatever dream they have for themselves, and there isn’t such a gross gap between the highest and lowest earners in society (there is no reason for anyone in the West to live below the poverty line. Not when CEOs could drop their salary by half, still be millionaires, and all of their employees could make 10K more per annum), any estimation of accomplishment and success, of oneself or others, should take into account both what that person wants for themselves, and where they’re starting from. It’s a lot harder to reach the top from the bottom than from the middle.

Or maybe we shouldn’t judge at all. But then, I suppose we need things to admire in others to inspire ourselves.

If you don’t recycle, you are kind of a jerk

Recently, I was drawn into an argument (of sorts) at work, on the nature of climate change. My interlocutor insisted that he did not recycle because:

a) the whole climate change thing is not man made but a big conspiracy by scientists who are making money from supporting the claims and would be out of work if they didn’t

and

b) the zealotry of environmentalists is akin to that of fundamentalist religion, in that anyone who doesn’t agree is ostracized and condemned.

This individual, who, according to a recent poll, is one of about half the population of the UK who holds such an opinion, was brought to this point of view by Nigel Lawson (whose book on the subject is favourably reviewed here and by a climatologist here), not, unsurprisingly, a scientist, but a conservative politician.

To address point a), here is a thorough list of the arguments against climate change and the appropriate scientific proof refuting them.

I want to skip quickly past that point, since I think it’s been handled adequately elsewhere. It boils down to a refusal to understand the scientific method, the water cycle, and the carbon cycle.

Moreover, the idea that there is some evil consortium of mustache-twisting scientists bent on filling the world with windmills, rather than a varied group of climatologists, oceanographers, entomologists, meteorologists, geologists, biologists, microbiologists, astronauts, rocket scientists, ecologists, and other ‘ists’ and ‘auts’, who spent several years in school learning about how science works, stumbling across information in their research which all points to the same conclusion, is as absurd as thinking that the whole ‘world is round’ thing was a conspiracy of cartographers and sailors bent on making millions with new and more complicated maps rather than a discovery of something already extant.

Which brings me to his point b. While at first blush one can see the same kind of passion in really enthusiastic environmentalists as one sees in evangelical Christians or Mormons – people who desperately try to convert you because they really, honestly think that you will suffer endless torment if they don’t – a little more attention uncovers the problem with the comparison, which is the same problem that religious people come across when railing against atheists:

Religion is based on faith. Science is based on observation, tests, and adequate repetition proving causation. Religion is about convincing yourself, science is about letting the data convince you.

People who accept (rather than ‘believe’) climate change is man made and harmful react negatively towards those who don’t not because of some religious fervor, but because the deniers’ behavior (voting, not recycling, driving SUVs) affects them.

Deniers aren’t skeptics, looking askance at meager and poorly conveyed dogma, they are jerks who don’t want the hassle of changing their behavior, or people who don’t like or ‘believe in’ science.

But the thing with science is, you don’t have to believe in it, it’s there whether you like it or not. No matter how confusing math might be to any given person, 2 + 2 = 4. The world is round even if you’re not high enough up to see.

On (Seasonal) Generosity

Whatever ones position on the existence of Jesus C and his supposed birthday, the holiday season brings with it an inevitable attention on generosity. Some might be inclined to wave this off as mere consumerism, and given the panic and bedlam that can be inspired by a single popular toy, they may not be far off.

Much ink is spent on the creation of suggested gift lists, and many spend hours pondering what might be the perfect present, feeling something like euphoria if an idea is hit upon, and despair if one ends up settling for a sweater; not to mention the embarrassment if one receives a gift without having one to give, or one of vastly different value.

But there is something behind the mania for tchotchkes, electronic doodads, and various fine comestibles – the idea that at bottom, the holiday is about showing appreciation for those we care for (or, possibly, to whom we feel obligated), which has evolved into a spree of orgiastic spending as a result of capitalism, consumerism, and marketing.

In a culture where identity is so closely tied with our belongings, the value and brand identity (or lack thereof) of our gifts can translate into a declaration of an understanding of our gift recipient’s personality (real or aspirational).

However, in light of the recent economic downturn, many, if not all, have been either crushed or encroached upon. With limited resources and ongoing financial anxiety, the enjoyment of finding and delivering gifts can becomes less complete, polluted by resentment (if one feels one must provide something and has not the means to do so), or regret and shame (if one gives something of lesser value than one deems appropriate).

It is all well and good to suggest, at this point, that a box of homemade cookies, with love in every bite, would be just as appreciated as a new video game or first edition, but, as much as I love cookies, sometimes it’s just not enough. For friends from work? Absolutely. For Mom and Dad, who would rather have a box of cereal than cause you financial anxiety? Clearly.

But, if one is aware that someone between those two ends of the list will or has already dropped a large sum on something carefully considered, how can they refuse to do the same if it is at all possible? How can they allow themselves to be so miserly? And yet, if they do make whatever financial sacrifice is necessary, how to avoid those aforementioned sullen feelings?

The less one has, the more mercenary one can become. Some can maintain the emotional and intellectual equilibrium and fortitude to remember that money is just money – something to be spent on necessities and enjoyment, that if they were to die tomorrow, having a small sum for a rainy day would be worse than useless, and that making the smallest amount of happiness in the world is (scientifically proven) contagious.

The less equable will be tormented by the bills expected in January, wanting to be kind and thoughtful, but unable to turn off that evolutionary advantage of thinking ahead to avoid danger and difficulty.

Perhaps the best than can be hoped for these sorts, of which I fear I may be one, is that the anticipation of shame and unkindness will create more anxiety than a temporary (one hopes…) reduction in funds.

XX, XY, and ‘Other’

Ariel Levy writes in the New Yorker an article about Caster Semenya which, along with discussing the mismanagement and insensitivity of the testing she underwent, and the various politics influencing said manhandling, also examines the difficulty of establishing gender in any irrefutable way; when one reaches the point where there is a degree of crossover, there is no clear binary distinction – however specific and scientific the tests may be, all they reveal is a greater muddle.

There is no absolute – not everyone is either XX or XY, not everyone has the biological, chemical, and/or hormonal capacity to create and obey various cues which develop what we consider to be the markers of a particular gender.

What is interesting, though Levy does not go into this point in detail, are the implications this ambiguity holds for the rest of us.

If we were to admit that at some level we don’t know the difference between men and women, we might start to wonder about the way we’ve organized our entire world. (Currently, the United States government recognizes the marriage of a woman to a female-to-male transsexual who has had a double mastectomy and takes testosterone tablets but still has a vagina, but not to a woman who hasn’t done those things.) We depend on gender to make sense of sexuality, society, and ourselves. We do not wish to see it dissolve.

emphasis mine

What would it mean if people accepted that gender existed on a spectrum rather than as a binary trait? So much of how society is arranged is determined by gender (and by extension, sexuality, since that is another assumed binary that evidence suggests is also more of a spectrum), however much gender roles have evolved over time. Would an acknowledgement of this gray area assist in the deconstruction of gender roles? Would it allow people to be more tolerant and accepting of the variety of ability and inclination, and would culture and social infrastructure come to reflect that?

At present, what exists is, I think, more of a third category, with most people assigning themselves and others to either A or B, and relegating a small percentage of the population to a ‘neither A nor B’ category, and not considering it beyond that. The only people for whom the idea must be complicated are those in that third category.

And why? Because there are value judgments placed on people based on how much or little they correspond to their gendered categories. However much one might be completely at peace with their body, sexuality, voice, wardrobe, haircut, weight, walk, and interests, the rest of the world, when it bothers to pay attention, makes assumptions and judgments about that person’s value, attractiveness, propriety, and intelligence (however wrongly), based on such information.

Can there be a world where people are more or less masculine or feminine without a value being assigned to that quality? Or where everything is deemed gender-neutral and therefore a matter of inclination or biology, something personal rather than a way of organizing people and society?

Hopefully, as people are periodically confronted with the necessity of thinking about such things, as unfair as it is to whomever is in the spotlight, there will be a consideration of the individual, and as the ambiguity on a scientific level is manifest, there will be a movement away from judging such things cruelly, and more acceptance of such variation as just that, a variation, like hair colour or eye colour.

Hopefully.

On Aging and Sex

[Roth’s novels] were also paeans to masculine sexuality, which remains potent long after the ravages of the body have removed the ability to do anything about it.

That Shakespearean Rag’s review of Philip Roth’s The Humbling made me think of the notable old white guys whose work addresses the perceived injustice of the failing body with the active sex drive, whether through wish-fulfilling narrative fantasy or cruel mockery, and contrast them with the fewer instances of older female writers exploring the same situation.

Simone de Beauvoir’s The Mandarins looks at (among many other things) the fading sexuality of an older women who cannot enjoy the present without a painful awareness of her own age and future asexuality. Diana Athill’s latest biography, Somewhere Towards the End, deliberately takes a rather sensible and unapologetic view about her own independent sexuality, its final flowering (if you will pardon the phrase) and its ultimate and total disappearance.

Which is crueler? The male body that, once developed (over, on average, eight gawky and masturbation-filled years), never loses its sexuality and urges, only weakens their potency and lessens their frequency, or the female body, that enters fecundity in a maelstrom of hormones (the rapid four years of sudden breasts and awareness of the lunar calendar), whose development is quicker but whose peak is later, and who later returns to the asexuality of youth, but for the memory of experience, after another short and unpleasant hormonal battle?

Ultimately, the desire is for the same thing – the possession of the young body. I was going to say the young female body, but one must except the homosexual men in this case. However old the male body becomes, it is still capable of arousal, still, then, susceptible to the attractions of the young and nubile. The female body, on the other hand, has a greater disconnection between the mind and body. While the mind may crave or pine or what have you, the body cannot respond.

One sex has an ever-responsive libido (however incapable of action the rest of the corpus might be), and the other with a body that returns to the disinterest of childhood, without the curiosity.

Of course, the medical community has found ways to work around this – with the male, rendering him capable of performance, and with the female, producing a steady dose of hormones that stave off the rapid aging that comes with the stoppage of natural hormone production.

One could ask why aren’t we all on the same timeline, and be met with the biological determinists who would point out that the male body producing viable sperm until death is more likely to succeed genetically, whereas the female body, who, with age, is less and less capable of enduring pregnancy and childbirth, is better off without the strain after a certain point.

But I want to know which is better or worse – or if we must simply shrug our shoulders and label it different. On the one hand, one always has hope, and on the other, one has a kind of freedom, but a freedom that entails exclusion.

With the literary evidence mentioned, I have to say it is the women who seem the most calm and accepting, whereas the men seem to be in the grip of an epic tragedy which involves a significant amount of embarrassment. And yet, what is there but acceptance when hope is gone?

Lie back and think of England

I cannot buy the Times today. Jezebel found this stunning piece of advice from Suzi Godson in yesterday’s paper.

Godson answers the query of a recent divorcee back in the dating scene, whose current beau expressed shock that she had pubic hair. It being so uncommon in grown women and all. This woman, rather sensibly, has no interest in ripping the hair from her genitals, and wonders if it is expected.

Rather than the obvious reply – your boyfriend is clearly an insensitive chauvinist for a) expressing anything other than delight when you drop your panties and b) suggesting that you do anything you find painful/uncomfortable for his viewing pleasure, Gordon, supporting her answer with a brief history of pornography, says that men are now ‘instinctively’ attracted to bare pudenda and must therefore be gratified, preferably by waxing, since shaving can leave unsightly stubble.

Aside from revealing a complete misunderstanding of the word ‘instinct’, Godson reveals herself to be a useless advice columnist, particularly for women. If she can justify bikini waxing exclusively with the prevalence of porn, what would she make of anything else? This is taking the idea of general grooming to a point of absurdity.

Does her beau look like a porn star? Does his grooming involve waxing, fake-tanning, and bull-like penile dimensions?

Any man who expects real sex to be like porn has, probably, never actually had real sex.

In a rather asinine final line, Godson says ‘at least’ the Sicilian is the latest trend, so ”you are left with a neat little Sicily-shaped triangle, which at least means that you still look like a woman.” Yes, that little triangle makes all the difference. No way do you look like an adolescent.

Godson should be ashamed of herself, and I hope the letter-writer has the good sense to ignore her stupid advice (advice which I suspect comes from Godson’s own decisions as regards her pubic hair, which may in turn have come from a similar scenario to the letter writer’s), and either tell her young man to appreciate her body or get the hell out of Dodge.

The Times should be heartily embarrassed.

No Vaccine for Men, Women Will Do It…

Safe Sex is for Men

Birth Control is for Women

Wouldn’t it be nice if men and women were assumed to be equally responsible for the various costs that come with being sexually active?

Although condoms are generally assumed to be a standard male purchase – about 70% of the market, (while women face slut-shaming if they make such a promiscuous purchase), women are generally assumed to be held responsible for preventing pregnancy, and avoiding STIs, and any health problems that could arise from either, by (paying for and) taking the pill, wearing an IUD, abstaining, and, since condoms are so embarrassing, only having sex with disease-free or condom-carrying persons.

Case in point – this statement from researchers saying vaccinating boys against HPV wouldn’t be “cost effective.” And why is that?

“Assuming all girls get the shot, adding boys to a national vaccination program may not be worth the expense, (…) the study assumes that 75 percent of girls will get the vaccine and be protected from cervical cancer.
(emphasis mine)

That’s right – in creating a cost/benefit analysis of this vaccine, the researchers begin by assuming that the entire female population has already been successfully vaccinated.

This is in the US, too, remember, where they still don’t have national healthcare, the uninsured are estimated at anywhere between 20-30% of the population under 65, which might lead a professional medical researcher to assumer that a large percentage of the target population might not even be able to afford to get the vaccine.

“If coverage in girls ends up being low, then vaccinating boys became much more attractive,”

It would make more sense to assume a non-vaccinated population, except that it’s really about sexually active women, and clearly, the ladies are supposed to fend for themselves. Why should guys take responsibility for preventing cervical cancer? (Even though HPV causes cancer in men, too, it’s far less common).

Keep in mind that the pill costs between 15-50$/month (up to 600$ annually), and IUD costs 250$ plus the doctor’s fee for insertion and removal.

Condoms cost .50-1$ a pop – to even equal the cost of an IUD, that’s sex 4.8 times a week (with no side effects).

The cost of the vaccine? 360$ for all three shots.

And men still make 25% more than women.

thanks to slate for the head’s up