Blinded by “modern” social constructs
Britney Spears, Shakira, whoever – doesn’t matter who they are, the motif’s the same:
The Colombian-born singer said it was a ”privilege” to be speaking in front of the 400 Oxford University students at the world-famous debating society, as others including the Dalai Lama have done.
She kept the students, many of whom had queued in the rain for more than an hour to catch a glimpse of the 5ft 3in singer, waiting for 20 minutes before her half-hour appearance.
The 32-year-old Grammy Award winner, wrapped up for the cold weather in a coral pink dress and black cardigan, said: ”It is a privilege to be here today, that you have afforded me this opportunity for me to speak to you.”
To laughter and mock booing from the audience, Shakira, known for her dancing, added: ”I must admit I am somewhat mystified as to why you are here, as there won’t be any singing or any hip shaking whatsoever.
”So how do I go from Barranquilla, Colombia, to occupy the same stage as Newton and Churchill? Lord knows I’m no Mother Teresa.”
The singer, who has hinted at wanting to start a family with boyfriend Antonio De La Rua, spoke of the importance of children and told the audience she hoped to have her own within the next 10 years.
Responding to an audience member who asked what she wanted to do in the next decade, she said she was willing to embrace ”new artistic challenges”, adding with a smile: ”And maybe one day have babies of my own.”
Right, her dancing might be fine and what else does she do – sing? That might be fine too, people might like it. Was the Lindyhopping presented here last evening any better or worse?
As she said though and she was right, she didn’t deserve to be on that stage, in that situation, based on what she has achieved, any more than, as he admitted, Obama deserved the Nobel Prize.
This was a debasing of the event, in line with everything else being cheapened these days, debased, having dirt done on it.
That doesn’t make her a bad person and it wasn’t her doing – she was invited, wasn’t she? It is a reflection on those who invited her in that they have so little sense of history and so little regard for what that event was about that they didn’t mind cheapening it.
Also, you can see the same things coming out – talk of babies, talk of her moral position, this constant concern that she’s not seen as cheap, a very strong motivation for women. At the one time, they want to be able to be liberated, to sleep around, to be “without complexes” but at the same time, the way they’re seen morally by peers and the wider public is important to them.
It’s the “will you still respect me” syndrome.
They create constructs and use all the contemporary weasel words to self-justify, to be accepted for their failings, as they see them deep down. Men have this constant motif, this constant tendency which comes out in the locker room talk, in the porn, in everything, to put it about. And they get for it the knowing smile of other men, the “son of a gun” backslap.
A woman has this constant conflict about how it is seen. When WN2 and I were going through the death throes, guess what she threw at me? She’d built up to the great final insult and delivered, “Male whore,” based on WN1, the way I acted in bed and the way I got on with women. Now sex had not even been on the agenda in that final battle – there were so many other issues, petty grievances, deep annoyances, demands and so on.
I remember stopping in mid-anger and smiling. It actually killed the whole scene and we ended up seeing each other a few more times. She was projecting onto me the same thing my stalker delights in posting on, the same thing my ex-gf said – I know you have a lot of friends, meaning women but … and so on.
This started a discussion which appears in my first book. In Russia, apparently, if you go out with women and those women go out with you, then it means you’ll sleep with them. It never meant that with me. Going out with a woman and taking her for a meal and dancing meant just that.
This society today seems to have completely forgotten the old way it was done.
You took her out, you gave her your undivided attention, you made her feel special and then you took her to her doorstep by 11 p.m. [10 p.m. was always too early] and if you were lucky, you stole that kiss but if she turned her head, you just accepted it and took your leave. She usually said, “Thanks for a lovely evening.”
That was it.
If she took it further, that was her business. Either way, no girl I knew would have taken it further that first night. Twice in my whole life did I sleep with someone I had no intention of being my partner. This is a far cry from what is expected today and in the case of the average person who is neither satyr nor nympho, when it happens, I don’t feel any moral outrage, I just feel that they’re being a bit misguided.
Tiger Woods is misguided in what he did. Elin Woods is misguided in money being a major factor. My stalker who was constantly trying to justify sleeping about in his writing was misguided because he wants everyone to be the same. Like the fox who lost his tail and wanted all the other foxes he knew to cut off their tails, there’s this tendency to want what you do to be the norm.
How many times, when people are picked up for something, especially children, do they say, “Well everyone else was doing it too.” As if that makes it right.
Shakira wants babies. She said so on stage. She is worried about her loose image being not up to “Oxford standards” as she sees them. Deep inside, what she has is the desire for the normal family with the loving man but she also has the fear of losing her independence, her control over her own life.
No doubt she likes the company of men, as I like individual women, not en masse. This fear of loss of independence is sad. If you care, if you love someone, then you voluntarily give up a lot of that. You don’t go out with other women, not because you’re not allowed but because you don’t want.
If you do go out, then it is unwritten that you don’t take it further. I’m suggesting that emotional maturity means having the sense to be able to relate to women as fellow human beings and enjoy their company but that’s it. For the one special person, it’s far more and it is her knowledge inside that she doesn’t have a Tiger Woods on her hands, a secret wick-dipper, which is important.
Kylie Minogue said it, Angelina Jolie said it, Madonna said it – it’s the drive for the family and the best place for the family is with two loving parents and the best place for children is inside a marriage which reduces the chances of final splits and used to mean that the two parents had the maturity to put aside their own demands for the good of the family unit.
The older they get, the better the chances – everyone knows the stats on young marriages and childbearing.
However, the social constructs which have beset us today, Marxist in origin, prevent people from accepting that simple, natural social construct of ages – if you want a steady partner and kids, then marriage is the best place for them.
So fine, express your sexuality publicly, if that’s your bag, as Shakira wants to do but when the urge comes for man and family, why fight that desire? Marry the right one, someone emotionally mature if you can find him and then have the kid.
Simple.
Filed under: Society & human issues
Before you go on too much about Shakira I should tell you I really think you are picking on the wrong person!
Surely the main reason she got invited was all the work she has done to further education at her own expense? This would include endowing schools.
She has lobbied the US Congress on the subject and put plenty of her own cash where her mouth is. Founding the Barefoot Foundation at 18, which has built at least six schools for poor children
Done a lot more in fact than some who get invited.
And she was there at Oxford to promote education. She put herself thru high school, attended UCLA and is being amusing and modest.
She is something of an expert in the cause for early education, knows what she is talking about and pushes for it amongst the high and mighty. She has written in the Economist and speaks as a Chairwoman of the Global Campaign for education.
I admire her.
All that might be true, Moggs and she had the sense to admit she shouldn’t have been there. As you see, I did not get stuck into her at all, as I have got stuck into, say, innocent little Ms Knox because – you will have noticed that I said that it was not her fault or did you not actually read that part of the post, in your rush to condemn me?
So yes – she might be all you say but that was not the point of the post. The point of the post in the early part was that they shouldn’t have invited her for that particular event which usually has people of intellectual note.
SHe sounded as if she was humbled bing at Oxford – standing on the shoulders of giants so to speak. Still if she had something to add to teh debate given what Moggs has said about her, then why not
they want to be able to be liberated, to sleep around, to be “without complexes” but at the same time, the way they’re seen morally by peers and the wider public is important to them.
Who is they?
I was not attacking you. I generally agree with the trust of your peice, except I figured you had picked the worse possible example to illustrate it with in shakira, and it was probably her that made you think of it in the first place.
The fact is Shakira is probably one of the few celebraties and politicians who actually derserves to be there and certainly would have an appreciation for a world renowned seat of learning. So it does matter who they are if it is Shakira. Anyone with a grounded personality and a reasonable sized ego could be forgiven for feeling a little unworthy under those circumstances.
You say “Right, her dancing might be fine and what else does she do – sing?” You say “she didn’t deserve to be on that stage, in that situation, based on what she has achieved”
Well I think the facts show that she did in fact deserve to be there, based on what she has done. She has put millions of her own bucks into education and persuaded others to do the same.
She feeds clothes and provides equipment to school kids. She uses her fame and money to do good.
You say “So fine, express your sexuality publicly, if that’s your bag, as Shakira wants to do but when the urge comes for man and family, why fight that desire? Marry the right one, someone emotionally mature if you can find him and then have the kid.”
Shakira is female and expresses herself within the contexct of modern society, she is no more wrong to do it than a 40s movie star. It is part of her job. In any case all men and women do it to some extent. That is some of what manliness and femininity is about.
And why not talk of babies? She was asked, the discussion was of children’s education, she was saying she hoped to settle down and have children of her own, as most women would hope.
Like I said. I think you have a point, in general, but you were the one used shakira as a specific example throughout your piece and she was probably as bad a one use to make your point as you could have picked.
I felt it was unfair to use her and pointed out why is all.