Punk Rock isn't just for Anarchists anymore

I just found out that Michale Graves, famous as one of the singers for punk band the Misfits, is a conservative and a Republican. I also found this video from the Daily Show where they make fun of... pretty much everyone.

"Most Improved" and other burning instead of beauty

Last week I saw an advertisement for a permanent make-up company in Salt Lake, and I was going to write a post about it, but I got lazy and didn't do it. This week I found a new catalyst in that the young women in my ward are having a presentation on make-up as part of their weekly activity night.

Before I get into the particulars of my catalysts, let me just explain why I have a problem with make-up. I know there's a lot of potential issues with make-up or even with fashion in general, especially when you try to reconcile it with religion, but I think the thing that sets make-up apart from other fashions is how intertwined it becomes with a woman's self-esteem. If it were treated the same way as picking a belt or a pair of shoes, then I don't think I would care. But it's not treated the same. It becomes such a part of a woman's identity that she is convinced that she is not pretty without it, and she's uncomfortable being seen in public until after she has her face painted.

Cultural traditions are complicated and I know there's probably a lot of factors that have gone into making and keeping make-up so connected to self-esteem as it is. I don't know what's to blame for that, but I do see that the make-up companies realize this connection and that they prey on women because of it, taking advantage of self-esteem issues to sell their products. You could probably make an example out of any number of advertising campaigns, but one that is particularly obvious to me is Mary Kay. When they have their little make-up parties to sell the product in women's homes, they actually vote on who is the "most improved" because of the new make-up.

I don't really know what my ward's agenda is with this activity for the young women or how they're going to present it. I think it's entirely possible that they're going to have a very tasteful presentation and try to teach the girls to be moderate in how they wear their make-up. Even that, though, I think is potentially damaging to the young women.

I've seen those reality shows where they give a woman a make-over, which usually involves teaching her how to properly use her make-up. I haven't seen a lot of these shows, but every one that I have seen tells the woman to be more moderate and more sparing in how she applies her make-up. That's fine. The problem is that even this approach (or especially this approach?) teaches the woman that this is the way that her face is meant to be painted. The make-over teaches her what clothes are in style, and maybe what is flattering to her out of that style, but with the make-up it teaches her what matches her, as though it is something permanent that her face needs and not something that changes with the seasons and her moods like other fashions. It teaches her that this is the right look for her features and complexion. Even if the end result is that she wears less make-up than before, it still emphasizes the idea that there is a correct look for this particular woman and that it is only achievable through the application of make-up.

So regardless of the intent, I'd just be afraid that by teaching the young women to use make-up, you're really just teaching them that they need make-up.

Maybe it's an extension of that idea that there is a single correct look for a woman's face and that make-up achieves it that has led our society to the idea of permanent make-up. Anything permanent and unchangeable makes me nervous and I think the fact that there are women who are willing to have their make-up permanently attached just emphasizes how much the industry has convinced them of their inadequacy without it.

There is an additional thing that bothers me about permanent make-up. I'm sure that Salt Lake has more ads for tattoo removal than for tattoo parlors, but permanent make-up has no problem fitting in with all of the other ads for permanently changing a person's body to fit some arbitrary image of beauty. The part of this that really bothers me is that some of the same people who have religious reasons for thinking that tattoos are immoral can think that permanent make-up is just fine. You do realize that they are the same thing, right? The only difference is the shape of the tattoo that you're getting, but it's still a tattoo. I think the women who find themselves in favor of permanent make-up but against traditional tattoos have forgotten why they are against tattoos in the first place. It's so easy to be swept up in a cultural stereotype, but before long we forget our values and just start thinking that the definition of our religion is the same as our niche in that culture.

I guess it makes sense that the cultural associations blur the lines between make-up and tattoos for some women. After all, it's only because of cultural associations that permanent make-up could ever have an appeal in the first place. Women have been taught that they don't look good without it, and that they should always wear it whenever they are visible to anyone else, so it seems like an inconsequential step to have it permanently attached. Societal pressures have already permanently inked the make-up to our identity, so why not to skin?

Worlds Collide

Last week we had dinner with some newly-made friends and the subject of politics came up. We found out what each other's viewpoint was, and then when we realized that they were opposite of each other, we simply moved on to other topics and we continued to have a good time hanging out and talking.

I have some other friends that I also disagree with on politics, but I still enjoy discussing the subject with them because we can see each other's point of view and disagree without becoming disagreeable, and overall I think we both grow from discussing alternate view points.

I'm not bringing up this difference to say that one way is better than another. I don't need to discuss every subject with every friend that I have. It doesn't matter if it's because we wouldn't disagree in a friendly way or if it's just because we have different passions and the same subjects don't appeal to both my friend and me. My point in bringing this up is that I can choose what to talk about with my friends based on their interests, their passions, and the situation; not just based on my own passions and interests. I think that choice is a good thing.

That brings me to problem I've been feeling about my blog. My blog doesn't give me that same choice as a regular conversation does. My blog isn't individual. In my blog I don't just write to one person and so it's not custom-tailored to how I best communicate with anyone. My blog is written generally to everyone, whether I know them or not, whether they hate me or not. I'm writing simultaneously to my mom and my boss, to the kid that's hated me since the 5th grade and to the friend that lives too far away to in person very often, to my best friend and to the stranger that doesn't know me at all but hates me anyway. Not that those people necessarily read my blog, but they can read it just as easily as someone that I specifically target with any post that I write.

I realize that this is the nature of blogs and of the Internet in general, and for most of my blog's lifespan there's been no problem with that. The most that I've ever had to censor myself with it was to be sure that any references to my crushes were sufficiently disguised that I wouldn't cause myself any public embarrassment. Most of my posts are just silly and stupid, and the worst thing that can happen about someone unexpected reading them is that they won't think I'm as funny as I think I am.

Maybe my life is just different than it once was and that's why my blog has become different, too. If nothing else, my current crush is well-known and she's happy to have me publicly confess it. Maybe the only thing that's really changed is the frequency and passion in recent political discussions. Or maybe nothing's changed at all, and it's just the fact that I'm a multi-faceted person, and that sometimes I want to write about something that I feel more deeply than a burrito. (I mean that metaphorically. I feel burritos all of the way down.)

I think that if I were to have my way then I'd just write about everything that I think and feel, regardless of how personal or controversial or humorous the subject is or isn't. I'd just write open and honestly about myself and all of my facets and not worry about how my reader might judge me. Sometimes that's been fine for me, but I don't know if I'm brave enough to really open myself up to every person that might wander across my blog. I'm afraid of how I might limit my life by doing that. I've realized recently that I can't be open about every facet of myself with every person that I'm friends with. Some people simply aren't comfortable with all of my facets, and unfortunately relationships change or get ruined when they're forced to see me from a point of view that they hadn't previously.

So here I am, at the end of this post, not knowing what to do with my blog and my friends. It'd be nice if I could just separate my digital persona from my real-life image so that I could still use my blog as an outlet for all of my multi-faceted thoughts, or maybe I could separate all of my facets into separate identities and blogs that wouldn't have to collide or interfere with each other. (I could keep just my food-related blogs tied to my real identity, since anyone that looks at me will know that I like food.) I'm afraid it's probably too late for any kind of separation like that for the people that already know me and read my blog, and instead I just feel sad to feel that I've already ruined both my blog and some relationships.

Or maybe I should stop taking the oxycodone so that I can stop feeling so melodramatic about the whole stupid thing.

(I should probably point out that the oxycodone is a joke for the sake of anyone that might think that I'm addicted to painkillers, but the fact that I'd have to point that out just makes me feel like I'm talking in circles.)

A Bad Week for Poetry

I'm not an expert on poetry or anything, but I do like poetry. I even took a poetry class in high school (that I've mostly forgotten). I just want it understood that I'm not a poetry-hater before I say what needs to be said.

About that poetry after Obama's speech on Tuesday: it sucked.

Ok, I don't really know if the poem itself sucked, because it was so boring that I have no idea what the heck the poem was even about. It might be a perfectly good and thought-provoking poem when read on paper. I don't really know. Either the poem sucked, or the delivery sucked, but something definitely sucked.

Wouldn't you be trying to get some kind of message across in a political poem? Well what good is your message if no one can stand listening to you read it? Did the author really need to give a two-second-long pause between every word of the poem? She should have just had Captain Kirk read it. At least his uncomfortably-long-pauses are spaced out enough to make it seem dramatic. Seriously, I couldn't even pay attention to her long enough to hear a whole sentence, let alone to understand what the poem was about. If they really needed that poem to be read after Obama's speech then they should have just typed it into a Speak & Spell and I think it'd be easier to understand.

Moore stuff

I went to see Michael Moore yesterday. I went with the Democrat club--not because I'm a Democrat (or a Republican) but because I thought it would be fun to out protest the protesters. It turns out there weren't that many protesters anyway, so I just made a sign that said, "John 3:16". That'll teach 'em.
I was pretty disappointed with Moore's speech. I'm rather undecided still on the whole election thing, so I was hoping for him to give me a unique point of view and try to persuade me, but really all he did was make fun of Republicans the whole time, and didn't really address the issues. I guess I should have expected that from him: "Bowling for Columbine" was just a long string of contradicting rhetoric that didn't go anywhere. Maybe that's just his style.
The highlight, by far, was that Rosanne Barr showed up. I think that woman is about the funniest thing ever. In UVSC. Yesterday. Um, well, she's funny, ok? Someone should find a transcript of what she said yesterday and put it on the internet so I can enjoy it over and over.

Tyranny and Apathy

Utah's electoral votes are pretty much set already, right? I mean, no matter what I do, it seems, they're going to vote for Bush. What, then, is my motivation for voting? Everyone I talk to seems to either not care who wins or they think that their vote is impotent to make a difference. I hate the idea of not caring who wins, because it seems like that takes away from my right to self-governance, but if my vote doesn't matter, then maybe that right has already been taken away.