Miss Malaysia Toy Boy - 7 views

• 
  #1 juliet huang on 08 Oct 09

   

  I'm sure all of you have read about the Miss Malaysia controversy. Basically, the pageant organizers created a campaign where a beautiful female dominatrix domineers the "toy boy" by doing stuns like lead him on a leash around the shopping centre, seat on him, etc. On the website itself, you could choose severe ways to "punish" your toyboy, for example, whip him.
  
  In the light of complains though about men's rights, the website creators had to issue an apology http://www.missworldmalaysia.com.my/toy_boy.asp
  
  Inside the apology letter, they wrote "Let us now move on and harness the transformational power of beauty for the good of all"
  
  Firstly, I believe this is a consequentialist approach, and it also fits our argument today about how commodification has led to liberation. Beauty is commodified here, and it becomes "power". A beautiful woman is a powerful woman as her beauty has high value as a commodity. This power accorded to her beauty changes boundaries and experiences, which may benefit both men and women.
  
  Some questions raised during the presentation pertained to online spending. Online spending is starting to drive the new economy, as stats have proven. I believe that just like beauty, money is also power, and it is women who are starting to gain power to influence consumption patterns.
  
  The Miss Malaysia campaign is the best example to sum up what's been happening: there is a redefinition of the gender divide, and yes, change might be slow and gradual, but it is happening.
  
  Any thoughts ?

   

  <div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">I'm sure all of you have read about the Miss Malaysia controversy. Basically, the pageant organizers created a campaign where a beautiful female dominatrix domineers the "toy boy" by doing stuns like lead him on a leash around the shopping centre, seat on him, etc. On the website itself, you could choose severe ways to "punish" your toyboy, for example, whip him. <br /> <br /> In the light of complains though about men's rights, the website creators had to issue an apology <a href="http://www.missworldmalaysia.com.my/toy_boy.asp" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.missworldmalaysia.com.my/toy_boy.asp</a> <br /> <br /> Inside the apology letter, they wrote "Let us now move on and harness the transformational power of beauty for the good of all" <br /> <br /> Firstly, I believe this is a consequentialist approach, and it also fits our argument today about how commodification has led to liberation. Beauty is commodified here, and it becomes "power". A beautiful woman is a powerful woman as her beauty has high value as a commodity. This power accorded to her beauty changes boundaries and experiences, which may benefit both men and women. <br /> <br /> Some questions raised during the presentation pertained to online spending. Online spending is starting to drive the new economy, as stats have proven. I believe that just like beauty, money is also power, and it is women who are starting to gain power to influence consumption patterns. <br /> <br /> The Miss Malaysia campaign is the best example to sum up what's been happening: there is a redefinition of the gender divide, and yes, change might be slow and gradual, but it is happening. <br /> <br /> Any thoughts ?</div>

  ...

  Cancel
• 
  #2 Weiye Loh on 09 Oct 09

   

  Yes, commodification has led to liberation. After all, capitalism is all about creating new markets for more production and consumption. Beauty has all along been commodified since the oldest trade of prostitution, and probably before. Likewise, we have the capitalist promise of the pretty boys. Plastic surgery is probably the most telling example of commodified beauty.
  
  However, it is important to note that such commodified liberation (in every sense of the word since liberation is also a commodity nowadays) is withal a form of (capitalist) oppression. Buy this and you will be free. Buy that and you will be who you want to be. Think education.
  
  "Imagine the Possibilities", Apple tells you. But you can only realize them if you buy a Mac. Burger King tells you to "Have it your way", but what they didn't tell you is that your way is the Burger King way. Nike asked you to "Express yourself", but only with their approval (Source:http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blnike.htm).
  
  Capitalism is communism commodified.
  
  Everyone can be who they want to be, be equal, express individuality, but only if they consume. But what they don't know is that this individuality, this equality, is still chosen by a selected group of people. Million others probably own the same iPod you exert your individuality with.
  
  In the words of Miranda Priestly in "Devil wears Prada",
  
  "Oh. Okay. I see. You think this has nothing to do with you. you go to your closet... and you select - I don't know - that lumpy blue sweater, for instance... because you're trying to tell the world that you take yourself too seriously... to care about what you put on your back. But what you don't know is that that sweater is not just blue. It's not turquoise. It's not lapis. It's actually cerulean. And you're also blithely unaware of the fact... that in 2002, Oscar de la Renta did a collection of cerulean gowns. And then I think it was Yves Saint Laurent - wasn't it? - who showed cerulean military jackets... And then cerulean quickly showed up in the collections of eight different designers. And then it, uh, filtered down through the department stores... and then trickled on down into some tragic Casual Corner, where you, no doubt, fished it out of some clearance bin. However, that blue represents millions of dollars... and countless jobs... and it's sort of comical how you think that you've made a choice that exempts you from the fashion industry when, in fact... you're wearing a sweater that was selected for you by the people in this room... from a pile of stuff."
  
  Are we truly more equal now? More liberated? Or more oppressed?

   

  <div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">Yes, commodification has led to liberation. After all, capitalism is all about creating new markets for more production and consumption. Beauty has all along been commodified since the oldest trade of prostitution, and probably before. Likewise, we have the capitalist promise of the pretty boys. Plastic surgery is probably the most telling example of commodified beauty. <br /> <br /> However, it is important to note that such commodified liberation (in every sense of the word since liberation is also a commodity nowadays) is withal a form of (capitalist) oppression. Buy this and you will be free. Buy that and you will be who you want to be. Think education. <br /> <br /> "Imagine the Possibilities", Apple tells you. But you can only realize them if you buy a Mac. Burger King tells you to "Have it your way", but what they didn't tell you is that your way is the Burger King way. Nike asked you to "Express yourself", but only with their approval (Source:<a href="http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blnike.htm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blnike.htm</a>). <br /> <br /> Capitalism is communism commodified. <br /> <br /> Everyone can be who they want to be, be equal, express individuality, but only if they consume. But what they don't know is that this individuality, this equality, is still chosen by a selected group of people. Million others probably own the same iPod you exert your individuality with. <br /> <br /> In the words of Miranda Priestly in "Devil wears Prada", <br /> <br /> "Oh. Okay. I see. You think this has nothing to do with you. you go to your closet... and you select - I don't know - that lumpy blue sweater, for instance... because you're trying to tell the world that you take yourself too seriously... to care about what you put on your back. But what you don't know is that that sweater is not just blue. It's not turquoise. It's not lapis. It's actually cerulean. And you're also blithely unaware of the fact... that in 2002, Oscar de la Renta did a collection of cerulean gowns. And then I think it was Yves Saint Laurent - wasn't it? - who showed cerulean military jackets... And then cerulean quickly showed up in the collections of eight different designers. And then it, uh, filtered down through the department stores... and then trickled on down into some tragic Casual Corner, where you, no doubt, fished it out of some clearance bin. However, that blue represents millions of dollars... and countless jobs... and it's sort of comical how you think that you've made a choice that exempts you from the fashion industry when, in fact... you're wearing a sweater that was selected for you by the people in this room... from a pile of stuff." <br /> <br /> Are we truly more equal now? More liberated? Or more oppressed?</div>

  ...

  Cancel

To Top