Well, what I learned from a day trip is that I am not to trust the love of my partner unless 3 months wages are spent on a ring, and if girls do science, it can only be feel-good products.
Taking all of these messages in the images above seriously, they tell me:
– My love can and should be monetised and commodified,
– My security and trust in another human being can be represented in an item (does this not feel flimsy!?)
– And that the best item to do this with is largely illegal, might have funded wars and usually relies on the suffering of other human beings,
– And, just top it off, if I have a girl child, her interest will channelled from a young age into economic areas with lower wages.
Have we forgotten how global economics work? Have we forgotten that women should not be systematically disadvantaged? Have we forgotten that love is not “stuff”?
I am reminded of a quote I read from Bauman – he’s talking about people who do not/cannot compete economically in contemporary consumer society:
“In a society of consumers – a world that evaluates anyone and anything by their commodity value – they are people with no market value; they are the uncommoditised men and women, and their failure to obtain the status of proper commodity coincides with (indeed, stems from) their failure to engage in a fully fledged consumer activity. They are failed consumers, walking symbols of the disasters awaiting fallen consumers, and of the ultimate destiny of anyone failing to acquit herself or himself in the consumer’s duties. All in all, they are the ‘end is nigh’ or the ‘memento mori’ … walking the streets to alert or frighten the bona fide consumers.” (Consuming life).
And this is what we risk if we do not participate – we risk being socially-ostracised scapegoats. But if we do not risk it, we sell ourselves short (metaphorically speaking), and hem in our hopes and interests.
What choice is that?
(And yes, it is good to know that we don’t need feminism anymore).
Beth's Food and Sociology Blog 