"没有物质的爱情只是一盘沙,都不用风吹走两步路就散了"
“love without materialism is just a pile of sand, even without the flowing wind, it will spill after a couple of steps"
The trend in my INGS debates have largely been centralised around this idea of the irrevocable permeation of Capitalist ideology within our frameworks of governance, thought - everything. I don't necessarily think that Capitalism is a bad thing, but I am acknowledging that I have had no reason to think otherwise.
The ongoing dialogue of what constitutes a 'modern woman' has in the past fairly disinterested me given that I don't particularly think any one generalised term can even begin to encompass the nuances that make a 'woman', or associate with the archaic level of thinking that promotes gender binaries; but for some reason there's something about it that has got me thinking.
I read somewhere, that the 'modern woman' wants to pay her bills, be self-supported, but also wants her man to open the door for her. These paradoxes of traditional 'gentlemanly' masculinity with the ideal of independent career-driven womanhood seem to make up the dialogue of what constitutes 'woman'. More so, there appears to be this continual reliance, or desire for a 'partner'. By no means am I advocating for 'cat lady status', but in a world populated by individuals, we're awfully concerned with trying to find others before we find ourselves. It's all a bit corny and lame, I'll give you that, but as always, bear with me.
So the above quote comes from this lovely little Chinese film called《小时代》, or Tiny Times, and you should disregard the terrible IMDb rating and just hear me out for a second. Yes the plot is absurdly absurd (there is no other way for me to put it) and the acting is at time pretty shoddy, but there are some provoking messages dotted in the script. One of them being the above quote.
Materialism is so unfairly correlated to woman in a negative way, where all woman care about is what brands we own, how expensive our clothes are; how our material possessions are an indication of our own status, worth and meaning. I could never say that I am not the embodiment of what I just stated, but rather, should I, or you, be considered any less of an individual without our materialistic desires? Capitalism runs on materialism. There is no capitalism if there no continual ebb of supply and demand, over over and under accumulation of goods, of commodity chains, of product development.
How can anyone make verbose claims that they're 'better than us', that we're 'superficial' because we embody materialism and Capitalism; when in reality, we are all the same. Everything, as we know it, runs on an active acknowledgement of the Capitalism. Materialism bonds us to this Capitalistic ideology and keeps us functioning in this world, or else we need a radicalised ideological revolution to shift the way we think.
Food for thought (also, though not entirely relevant, thought I might share the below video)
xx
The trend in my INGS debates have largely been centralised around this idea of the irrevocable permeation of Capitalist ideology within our frameworks of governance, thought - everything. I don't necessarily think that Capitalism is a bad thing, but I am acknowledging that I have had no reason to think otherwise.
The ongoing dialogue of what constitutes a 'modern woman' has in the past fairly disinterested me given that I don't particularly think any one generalised term can even begin to encompass the nuances that make a 'woman', or associate with the archaic level of thinking that promotes gender binaries; but for some reason there's something about it that has got me thinking.
I read somewhere, that the 'modern woman' wants to pay her bills, be self-supported, but also wants her man to open the door for her. These paradoxes of traditional 'gentlemanly' masculinity with the ideal of independent career-driven womanhood seem to make up the dialogue of what constitutes 'woman'. More so, there appears to be this continual reliance, or desire for a 'partner'. By no means am I advocating for 'cat lady status', but in a world populated by individuals, we're awfully concerned with trying to find others before we find ourselves. It's all a bit corny and lame, I'll give you that, but as always, bear with me.
So the above quote comes from this lovely little Chinese film called《小时代》, or Tiny Times, and you should disregard the terrible IMDb rating and just hear me out for a second. Yes the plot is absurdly absurd (there is no other way for me to put it) and the acting is at time pretty shoddy, but there are some provoking messages dotted in the script. One of them being the above quote.
Materialism is so unfairly correlated to woman in a negative way, where all woman care about is what brands we own, how expensive our clothes are; how our material possessions are an indication of our own status, worth and meaning. I could never say that I am not the embodiment of what I just stated, but rather, should I, or you, be considered any less of an individual without our materialistic desires? Capitalism runs on materialism. There is no capitalism if there no continual ebb of supply and demand, over over and under accumulation of goods, of commodity chains, of product development.
How can anyone make verbose claims that they're 'better than us', that we're 'superficial' because we embody materialism and Capitalism; when in reality, we are all the same. Everything, as we know it, runs on an active acknowledgement of the Capitalism. Materialism bonds us to this Capitalistic ideology and keeps us functioning in this world, or else we need a radicalised ideological revolution to shift the way we think.
Food for thought (also, though not entirely relevant, thought I might share the below video)
xx





