Where props are due

Saturday, and i have been around most of the day with this season's specialty - a cold. Have had much time to think about several trains of thought rolling around my head. First things first, as i am told is the custom in the world of blogs, is giving props to who lead the way for you. In this nature, i want to thank sashay for being my mentor. She has been blogging for quite some time, always get a kick digging through her archives. =)

www.i-space.blogspot.com

More Procrastination

I had a conversation with kathleen the other day, and we were talking about power issues etc. Been reading more Foucault in my contemporary class, we were talking about concepts of power, that is not something one possesses over another but more like the thing that is between two people that creates the tension towards possession. No matter who seems to have the power, the power is actually a two way street of sorts. Example: If i punish my daughter to two days of staying in the house, i am exerting power over her - but in order for her punishment to be followed through i have to stay home with her - house-ridden as well. And so, my question is, who really has the power? With this, i see power as a ciclycle form.

Another issue that sprung from this, something i watched in a documentary recently

www.www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/cool



The idea that young girls are encouraged to use their sexuality as an empowering tool that is theirs to control. In one way, one could be convinced that sexuality is indeed a tool (like wit and intelligence - that no one seems to mind if a girl uses that to get ahead..) that is ok to use as long as the girl using it is in control - as long as she maintains the power - this is common in the sex as a weapon mentality that women like Madonna made famous in the 90's. Anyways - Point is, these girls arent using "THEIR" sexuality but a socially constructed version of beauty and sexuality - so who is it that really has the power???

On this note, thoughts shifted to concepts and images of beauty - and its social construction.. there are people who are attempting to [radically] question and redefine the concepts of beauty.

www.orlan.net

Again, my question is this - if by altering one's body in a way that is not acceptable in the mainstream consciousness - to make people aware that there is potentially other concepts of beauty - how can anyone criticize someone like Pamela Lee Anderson for her breast implants - if she has made the decision to make herself 'beautiful' - even if the idea of beauty in question is one of the mainstream, is it still not altering one's natural beauty regardless? My point is, Orlan, although one can clearly say that her idea of body modification towards a redefined concept of beauty, is still about changing your body for beauty... so, the final question is, does it make it any different then Pamela Lee? Not saying i dont agree Orlan's theory [for as much as i understand it mind you] just that, i want to understand what makes one person right and one person wrong...
Does going against the mainstream for the sake of it alone, make it right?
And really, who has the power in all of it?