Thursday, April 28, 2005

Dolan's offbeat obituary for Andrea Dworkin and my thoughts on feminism

The Exile's cranky prof. John Dolan "eulogizes" Andrea Dworkin and explains why everyone else hated her in this article. For those of you for whom Dworkin's name doesn't ring the bell, she was the author of that infamous book "Intercourse" wherein she advanced 'heterosexual intercourse as rape' theory.
As to the article I wouldn't say that Dolan 'eulogizes" Dworkin but rather explains that she was in fact a misguided and naive fighter for the cause who couldn't get that all that 'radical feminism' was nothing but self-serving posturing.
Incidentally, Dolan provides a neat explanation why Russian women have failed to embrace feminism (it's absolutely true I must tell ya):

The reason is fairly simple: Russians haven't quite learned the Western art of sloganeering for radical philosophy without meaning a word of what they say. A Russian woman would assume that if you're a feminist, you'd actually have to live out the philosophy.


As to Dolan's argument, I can't help but cringe at phrases such as
"feminist intellectual history" - if anything feminist, and more broadly post-modernist philosophy is profoundly anti-intellectual as it defies reason as the main epistemological tool of academic inquiry. But that's entirely another matter and overall I found his article entertaining, if not plausible (I don't know really).

Dolan explains that was finally made Dworkin an outcast within 'the movement' was not when she was talking about 'male oppression' or advocating lesbianism but when she concluded, quite logically, that sleeping with men were akin to 'sleeping with the enemy'

That was where she went too far in the views of her more flexible colleagues. They didn't like having their options reduced. That, in the view of an American striver, was the worst thing you could do to anybody.


It sounds true to me. In the hedonistic, consumerist culture of ours the worst thing you can ever commit is to limit one's choices. That's the mortal sin.

The most intriguing part of feminism to me is the way it appropriated, I would even say stole, the Marxist notion of 'opression'. Of course, feminists themselves don't deny their intellectual roots in Marxism but they argue that feminism merely extents the definition of oppression from class to other categories such as gender, race, age etc. Marion Young's "five forms of oppression' in her Justice and the Politics of Difference serves as a good example of this. (some reviews can be found here). I find it baffling to say the least.
Marx's radical break with the previous religious, Judeo-Christian, tradition that argued that the source of human misery and 'oppression' lie in sins and human vices, was manifested in his central thesis that it's economic relations between people that determine how's to suffer and who's to benefit from suffering. Nothing personal, and thus even the most 'socially conscious' capitalist is still 'objectively' an oppressor. This is of course his argument in a nutshell and Marx wrote thw two volume "Das Kapital" to demostrate how private property on the means of production is the sourse of all evil. But to use his notion of 'objective oppression' having discarded the economic basis of it is a blatant theft of his intellectual idea. I'm sure Marx would have died a second time from a heart attack if he had found about the feminist exploitation of his theory.

Sunday, April 24, 2005

Movie review: Der Untergang/The Downfall

I was bound to see it. The media lauded it as the truest account of Hitler’s last days, thoughtful and not cheesy, unlike so many ‘history’ flicks (ditto: Pearl Harbor, Troy).

Finally I saw it yesterday and although I would not consider it a waste of time, it didn’t rise up to my high expectations.

It’s hard to say what exactly the problem with the Downfall. It’s got some good war scenes, Hitler’s portrayal as a mad lunatic willing to spare his beloved German people but to admit his utter failure, German generals, subservient in their blind obedience to him – all of that was probably true, historically speaking and was craftily done.

Yet, there were too many plot lines to follow and some, such as the little boy line, seemed to be there on purpose to provide an implausible happy ending. In the movie, Traudl Junge, a Hitler secretary, the one who took down his testament, walks with the boy through the crowd of Soviet soldiers and amazingly manages to escape. In reality, however, After the war, Junge was taken into custody by the Red Army, then the Americans. After being interrogated and spending about six months in prison, she was released (according to this Guardian article).

Apart from this fake happy ending, there are other little cheap tricks: officers at the bunker start smoking once it’s said that Hitler committed suicide (Junge recalled that People began to smoke in the F?hrer's presence.), when in the Goebbels poisoning scene the camera focuses on the children’s feet too conspicuously etc, Soviet soldiers are dancing drunk just a few meters from Hitler’s bunker full of SS guys who don’t want to surrender (we hear the talks about it in the movie, but such a possibility must’ve been obvious to Soviet forces as well), Keitel speaks Russian etc.

May be, it’s nit picking and readily concede that it didn’t totally ruin my impression about the movie but overall it left a strange aftertaste of something not very genuine.

P.S. Another observation, perhaps unrelated to the movie itself, is about the post war fate of the characters shown in the movie. Those who didn’t commit suicide or weren’t sentenced to death at Nuremberg actually lived very long, probably longer than most of their Soviet captors. And those who in the movie are shown to be more decent persons actually died sooner. Amazingly, one guy (I don’t remember who) is still alive!!!



P.S. I've just read some IMBD users reviews and there seems to be nothing but high praise for the movie. Don't get me wrong, the movie is a must-see but perhaps, I'll change my mind when I see it again but for now I got the impression that it fell flat sometimes.

Saturday, April 23, 2005

tales of a women's shelter

I dropped out of college too many times to count, and during one of my more pathetic attempts to be “authentic” I moved back in with my parents. They lived in a sleepy Texas town which I despised for not being Austin. At the time, I was a feminist who saw White patriarchy as the root of all human evil. I happened to have a lot of time on my hands as I was under-employed due to the fact that I had no need to pay for rent or food. I wanted to do my small part for the revolution and to free women from the shackles of their oppression, so I volunteered at the local battered women’s shelter.


Read it all

via The ussian Dillettante

Wednesday, April 20, 2005

elusive intricacies of Russian politics

On my last day in Russia I got lucky. I bought Andrei Kolesnikov's latest book "The First Ukrainian(Front). Notes from the Frontline" which is devoted to the Orange Revolution.
The book mostly contains his Kommersant columns but also it includes some info that was not published at the time. From the exceprt below you might get an idea why:
After the first round of the Kuchma-Putin meeting with businessmen from both countries at Yalta, one Russian businessman told that they had been summoned for a secret meeting whereupon they were told how much each of them should contribute to Yanukovych's campaign. The source told me that the sum was meticuously calculated, depending on the size of each participant's business....

dictionary entry

Aloof


word that comes to mind while talking to those who spend their lives on the Upper West Side, Manhattan.

apt description of Canada

Canada had the opportunity of combining English government, French culture and American know-how, instead it ended up with French government, English know-how and American culture.


Came to my mind when I was watching TV swithing channels between the Gomery inquiry and the Canadian Idol.

pope elections. part II (ratzineger's words)

So, cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has become pope Benedict XVI.

Here's an exceprt from his speech:
"Having a clear faith, based on the Creed of the Church, is often labelled today as a fundamentalism. Whereas relativism...looks like the only acceptable attitude of our times. We are moving towards a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as certain and which has as its highest goal one's own ego and one's own desires."


I bow my head. How true!

P.S.
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Mat 16:18

pope elections. part I (how media don't get the church)

The media coverage of the pope elections was as predictable, as it was sad. CNN, CBC and I am sure countless other media outlets around the Western world speculated on whether the next Pope could be more 'representative' , either of the Catholic majority in Latin America, or the growing church in Africa etc.
It's bad enough that such line of thinking has thoroughly permeated our perceptions of politics. Candidates are no longer judged on their merits but whether they 'represent' their constitutiences, be it Quebec, women, Asian-Americans.
But in the words of Paul
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Ga3:28)

Therefore all those mundane characteristics are at best secondary and the most important criterion in selecting of a new pope is his ability to lead the church and his authority in ecclesiastical matters.
And that's how the choice was made, I believe.

Saturday, April 16, 2005

just a trifle note

blogging at the Columbia campus, making use of their free wireless internet, on a sunny day in Manhattan, NYC - isn't that one of those little moments in life you should cherish?

Gomery inquiry and (mis)fortunes of the Liberal Party

The sponsorship scandal continues to rock otherwise placid Canadian political landscape. It might as well be that the CPC will finally win the elections which are rumored to take place this summer or fall...
But what to make of it? It's tempting for someone like myself, a Conservative supporter, to suggest that Liberals' problems can be ulitmately link to their political positions. There's something to it of course. For a party the politicial phylosophy of which is based on the premise that government is most likely the best solution for any problem is all so natural to make a step forward and decide that it might as well be good to solve their own problems, including financial ones.

But honestly, I admit it's not the whole story. I think that the main source of corruption in the Liberal Party can be found not in ideology but in the fact that they have been in power for way too long and for most time, largely unchallenged.
That created the sense of impunity that led to the abuse of privileges and corruption.
For the same reason I'm actually not very happy with the Republicans winning another term after Bush's gone. It's not healthy for the political system as a whole. Unfortunately, the present dismal state of the Democrats, their left wing leanings and other delusions don't give one much hope that the party can produce a legitimate contender in 2008. Hillary Clinton? Ok, we shall see first what she's got...

Friday, April 15, 2005

media bias in Sweden (roots of anti-Americanism)

Thanks to Damian Penny I came across this article.
Here's some excerpts I especially liked:

As liberal pundit Josh Marshall observed, “Europe doesn’t have the death penalty because its political systems are less democratic, or at least more insulated from populist impulses, than the U.S. government.”

Susan Sontag observed in the late 1960’s, "the ideas and attitudes of, say, The Village Voice, are ‘establishment’ opinions in Sweden.” Thirty years later and little has changed.


Read it all.

Thursday, April 14, 2005

Gomery inquiry

Globe and Mail article

Hard to be a Liberal these days, eh? :-)

Saturday, April 09, 2005

political situation: doomsday visions

So, now, after the Brault testimony was made public, we can say for sure what most people in Western Canada have known all along: the Liberal Party is full of croocks, liars and shameless political opportunists who were lining their pockets while playing 'savior of the country' shtick.

The Canadian right often make sweeping generalizations that the entire
political system in Canada is fundamentally corrupted. Mark Steyn likes to call Canada the 'deranged Dominion'. I can certainly sympathize with their point.
But invariably comes to my mind that roughly the same sentiment is
shared by the U.S. liberals in regard to Bush's America.
In Russia, government officials warn that the country is on the brink of collapse while Western-oriented politians speak of the totalitarian threat (half-seriously, half-jokingly they refer to the Putin administration as the bloody chekist regime).

My point here is that even if there's some truth in those evalutions and the emotive part is greatly exaggerated. Indeed, if Canada is a 'deranged' dominion then Russia must be a hell hole. If the U.S. is being swept by totalitarian bastards (as the loony Left often claim), why then people in NY can still enjoy their decadent lifestyle and attend the 'Bush is Hitler' rallies with impunity.
Even in Russia, things ain't THAT bad. At least, comparing to some previous times in her history, take for example the Stalin era.

I find this self-induced hysteria plain stupid and even dangerous for it obfuscates the true problems by making relativistic judgements regarding their degree.
One wouldn't try to fix a chair if the house is going to be swept by a flood.

Friday, April 08, 2005

Mark Steyn on liberal media's perplexity in regard to John Paul II

MS: No, I haven't. You see occasionally someone who will speak with a priest and attempt to deal with it. What we have here is, if you compare, for example, basically the grievance that the New York Times and Christiana Ammanpour and everyone have with the Pope, is that he didn't accommodate their views on homosexuality, abortion and contraception. You know, fair enough. But they wouldn't dream of making that same critique of Islam. They wouldn't, for example, demand that Islam introduce female Imams. You just don't see stuff like that. So in a sense, that proves the point that the world we live in, regardless of where you are in it, is essentially a Judeo-Christian world. And in that sense, the Christian Church, and the Catholic Church in particular, is supposed to be the Church for the whole world. And so these people seem to think they can just go to the Pope and say get with it, man. You've got to come up to speed on gays and condoms and all the rest of it. And they would never dream of making that same critique of Islam.


How true. Read it all

Tuesday, April 05, 2005

Stalin's apologists in Russia and abroad

RIA Novosti report:

MONUMENT TO STALIN TO BE ERECTED IN YAKUTIA

YAKUTSK, March 30 (RIA Novosti, Pyotr Vasilyev) - Yakutia's deputies decided to erect a bust of Joseph Stalin in the city of Mirny's Victory Square on May 9.

The municipal administration said they made the decision after the mayor's office received numerous requests from local veterans and youth organization representatives.

"We could not leave a request made by participants in the Great Patriotic War, especially during the anniversary year, unattended to or satisfied. It is no secret that our front-line soldiers fought under the slogan 'For the Homeland! For Stalin!' I believe that the deputies were right in displaying their civic position," Anatoly Popov, Mirny mayor and chairman of the District Assembly, told the local media.


It's a somewhat old news and it's been discussed on the Russian Live Journal here and here but only now I've come up with something to say about the matter.

The ironic genius of modern Russian literature, belated Sergey Dovlatov, once wrote upon emigrating from the USSR to the U.S., that in America he's realized that "under the sun of freedom, both marijuana and tulips blossom equally well.." (he wrote about 20 years ago when even in America pot was still considered 'bad').

the late Soviet Union was a bad, bad country in many respects but I have no doubt that such a thing would've had happened for the Brezhenev regime would deal very quickly with any attempt to rehabilitate Stalin.
I am a moderate libertarian (show me any young conservative who isn't :-)) so I don't think Putin should intervene and stall the project. Even though what those people in far away Yakutia are doing would be fully tantamount to an attempt to have a Hitler statue somewhere in Bavaria.
But I'm not angry at those people. God forgive those little ones for they don't know what they're doing...

But again, Western apologists for Stalin evoke nothing but disgust and loathing in me. I remember talking to a Canadian commie who told me that the collectivization was good for the USSSR because it prepared th country to fight the Nazis. He also said that those who perished in the process would've died anyway if Hitler had been successful.
Now I know what to tell him. How about sacrificing your own life for a higher (and distant) goal. You're afraid that Canada is gonna be taken over by the U.S.? Well, we shall kill you now it might as well help to save Canadian independence....

Me saw Putin!

here must be few jobs more fascinating and, ultimately, more frustrating than that of a Kremlin correspondent -- being so close and yet so far away, seeing so much and yet able to say so little.

In Andrei Kolesnikov's two-volume collection of reports from the first four years of Vladimir Putin's presidency, "I Saw Putin!" ( Ya Putina Videl!) and "Putin Saw Me!" (Menya Putin Videl!), the Kremlin correspondent for Kommersant uses a peculiar, pithy narrative style, telling the story between the lines while staying faithful to his subjects' words.


writes Guy Faulconbridge at the Moscow Times.

I thought it would be funnier not because his Russian is broken but coz the Russian title sounds much less formal than the regular English translation of it.
I don't buy books, except dictionaries. It's kinda shameful to admit but I'm just not used to it. But these ones, I've bouught them both.

Thought I must say that the title is somewhat misleading. The main source of entertaintment is not Putin himself but the people he gets in contact with. Ranging from his ministers to regional bosses, WWII veterans and foreign presidents.
Especially, regional officials and other bureaucrats.

"Minister of Agriculture spoke right after the general.
- Agricultural producers have begun to exprience difficulties since winter. Since when the snow covered the ground, unexpected events have started."

"President Putin told us that Russia has learnt a lot from Canada and went on to explain what exactly. Who would think, for example, that we've been utilizing Canadian experience in the realm of federalism by waging a war in Chechnia..."

Friday, April 01, 2005

Terrry Schiavo case: my (quite nugatory) take

Being in Russia, I feel somewhat shielded from the media frenzy that is apparently going on in North America regarding Ms. Schiavo's life and eventual death by the court ordered cutting her feeding tube off.
It's not very typical of me that I am quite reluctant to take sides.
As usual, I tend to agree with what Mark Steyn has to say but I would like to comment on the following paragraph:

Until a year or two back, I spent a lot of my summer Saturdays manning the historical society booth at the flea markets on the town common, and I passed many a pleasant quarter-hour or so chit-chatting with elderly ladies leading some now middle-aged simpleton child around. Both parties seemed to enjoy the occasion. The child is no doubt a ‘burden’: he was born because he just was; there was no ‘choice’ about it in those days.


That's right, Mr. Steyn. But in those days doctors had much less means in their disposal to keep someone alive indefinitely without even a slim chance that such person would ever get his/her faculties intact. How we should approach this new situation is another matter and I am not saying here to offer any particular solutions. But at least it's got to be recognizes as an issue worth discussing.

Russian Superleague playoff final

It's now official: Dynamo Moscow will meet Lada Togliatti in the final round of the Russian Hockey Superleague.
Basically, these teams are Russian equivalent of Detroit and New Jersey, especially Lada which is the most defensive minded team in the whole league - no easy feat on the big European ice.
On the other hand, Dynamo is the balanced one. And it has Pavel Datsyuk (a Detroit player, Scotty Bowman's favorite) on the roster.
Neither team has any big foreign NHL star, Heatley and Lecavalier are gone so is Jagr.
My bet is on Dynamo. They are as orderly as Lada but skill-wise have more depth than Lada.
Prognosis: Dynamo wins the best of five series: 3:1.