h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

The more women get into positions of power around the world, the more that might change (as their image saturates the media). Though greater proportion of women in the media will continue to be "attractive". About 99.99% of the women on TV at the moment are attractive, try and find one that isn't.

A point I sort of wanted to make earlier about women's magazines is that they are largely concerned with selling a certain image and products or ideas designed to help you attain that image. I disagree that the women's magazines are necessarily "pushing" the stick-thin model bit, otherwise they wouldn't give Calista Flockhart so much flak. Or perhaps they do this to throw attention away from themselves by pointing to an extreme case. Which reminds me of another facet of the women's magazine - gossip. Post-feminism allows them to get away from the "Sisterhood" ideal and be, well, bitchy. And you can't get rich if you aren't willing to exploit your fellow woman's vanity.

What about men in all of this. Is this new age of post-feminist tank girl, new laddettes, assertiveness leading men into a crisis of identity? As we enter the new millenium has the feminisation of culture in general (which I believe is happenning)left men in a muddle over their role in society and male/female relationships.

Is this just men allowing women a certain degree of power and faking surrender or is this a real shift in roles. Will there be a backlash? what might be the outcome? Where are we heading?

0/~ Old enough to know what's right, young enough not to choose it 0/~
0/~ Wise enough to win the world, but fool enough to lose it 0/~
0/~ He's the neewwwww aaaaaaage maaaaannnn 0/~

Relax, man-friend, and take some solace in the fact that whatever happens it won't be all our fault anymore!

Am I the only one with a very different view of Postmodernity here? I've read a lot about how Postmodernism is a way of trying to say something when you have nothing left to say (a broad generalisation, but that's the impression I'm getting) and as the movement that came after modernism.

But my usage of "post-modern" isn't just about the "self-referential" or "multi-genre writing" or "That movie Scream, cos it kept reminding you it was a film and that was clever".

I'm a big fan of Postmodernism. You can tell, can't you?

When I use the word "modernism" I'm referring to that period of human ("western") history where it was believed that there was a Truth, a Grand Narrative that could be expressed, explored and discovered. It was an absolute and could (except for the expressionists perhaps) be communicated. This period spans from the Renascence to the present. Societies began to move, in all aspects of human expression and thought, from a "medieval" frame of mind to a "modern" frame of mind. I'm generalising in a huge, ugly way, but I hope you understand what I mean.

Hence, Postmodernism is not another modernist movement. It's a different relationship to Grand Narrative, Truth and... well.. Life, the Universe and Everything. A postmodernist is not just a pop-artist or pop-philosopher, arguing that even the trivial is important. A Postmodernist is someone who doesn't believe in an Absolute Truth. This might be in Morality, Art, taste in furniture... whatever you like.

This doesn't mean you suddenly lose the ability to function; rather you realise that instead of a TRUTH you have a "truth" - a personal model of the universe, a system of patterns and guidelines that YOU adopt to get by. But - and here's the important bit - they're exactly as valid as everyone else's.

I call myself a postmodernist but I live by a certain series of codes, ethics and beliefs. I have to. The universe is huge and vast and really really big. and I'm just person sized. Some are deeply conditioned beliefs, some are conscious choices. But they need not be True.

Put it this way; there are over 5 billion people on this planet (no, don't all wave at once). They do not all agree with each other about, well, anything. If there is such a thing as Absolute Truth, then some of them must be wrong. The trick is, how do you know which you are? The wrong believe they're right. If it was obviously Wrong to eat people, cannibalistic tribes would never have existed. What if you're not one of the Right?

What if there is no Right?

By the way, you don't have to agree with a word I'm writing. Or even like it. I was just concerned that I couldn't see my definition of "Post-modern" anywhere in there. Unfortunately, all of the ideas of postmodernism I've just refuted are as true as this one. This is the central problem with postmodernism.

My flat-mate tells me it's all got to do with how many bottles of wine you've drunk.

Am I the only one with a very different view of Postmodernity here? I've read a lot about how Postmodernism is a way of trying to say something when you have nothing left to say (a broad generalisation, but that's the impression I'm getting) and as the movement that came after modernism.

But my usage of "post-modern" isn't just about the "self-referential" or "multi-genre writing" or "That movie Scream, cos it kept reminding you it was a film and that was clever".

I'm a big fan of Postmodernism. You can tell, can't you?

When I use the word "modernism" I'm referring to that period of human ("western") history where it was believed that there was a Truth, a Grand Narrative that could be expressed, explored and discovered. It was an absolute and could (except for the expressionists perhaps) be communicated. This period spans from the Renascence to the present. Societies began to move, in all aspects of human expression and thought, from a "medieval" frame of mind to a "modern" frame of mind. I'm generalising in a huge, ugly way, but I hope you understand what I mean.

Hence, Postmodernism is not another modernist movement. It's a different relationship to Grand Narrative, Truth and... well.. Life, the Universe and Everything. A postmodernist is not just a pop-artist or pop-philosopher, arguing that even the trivial is important. A Postmodernist is someone who doesn't believe in an Absolute Truth. This might be in Morality, Art, taste in furniture... whatever you like.

This doesn't mean you suddenly lose the ability to function; rather you realise that instead of a TRUTH you have a "truth" - a personal model of the universe, a system of patterns and guidelines that YOU adopt to get by. But - and here's the important bit - they're exactly as valid as everyone else's.

I call myself a postmodernist but I live by a certain series of codes, ethics and beliefs. I have to. The universe is huge and vast and really really big. and I'm just person sized. Some are deeply conditioned beliefs, some are conscious choices. But they need not be True.

Put it this way; there are over 5 billion people on this planet (no, don't all wave at once). They do not all agree with each other about, well, anything. If there is such a thing as Absolute Truth, then some of them must be wrong. The trick is, how do you know which you are? The wrong believe they're right. If it was obviously Wrong to eat people, cannibalistic tribes would never have existed. What if you're not one of the Right?

What if there is no Right?

By the way, you don't have to agree with a word I'm writing. Or even like it. I was just concerned that I couldn't see my definition of "Post-modern" anywhere in there. Unfortunately, all of the ideas of postmodernism I've just refuted are as true as this one. This is the central problem with postmodernism.

My flat-mate tells me it's all got to do with how many bottles of wine you've drunk.

>>I've read a lot about how Postmodernism is a way of trying to say something when you have nothing left to say

Postmodern man can not tell a woman "I love you", because he knows this phrase has been used countless times before, especially in all greater and lesser works of romantic fiction. To do so would appear disingenuous. What postmodern should say is "As Dame Barbara Cartland would say, 'I love you'".

>>Postmodern man can not tell a woman "I love you", because he knows this phrase has been used countless times before, especially in all greater and lesser works of romantic fiction. To do so would appear disingenuous

I think a postmodern man CAN say I Love you - Postmodernism need not be about trying to avoid be disingenuous (which is a fantastic word and one I shall start using a lot from now on, by the way.)

What a postmodern man can NOT do is say "I lobe you" and be sure that (a)what he means by love is what anyone else means by love (b) this will be true for all time and (c) that time, space, emotion, lanugage and everything function in the way he perceives. A postmodernist will believe a certain set of rules to make functioning possible. the fact that he realises that these "rules" are arbitrary guidleines is what makes him a postmodernist. And also a lousy physicist.

I meant to say he can't say "I love you" obviously. Writing that no-one understanding what he means by "I lobe you" seems pretty obvious.

Whether it be love or lobe, I'm sure you'll agree, context is everything.

yes, M. - and the correction has to one of the funniest in a long time.

But perhaps - and I am typing off the top of my head here (and it is Friday night post chucking out time so draw your own conclusions). the particular phrase "I love you" is one of the most difficult to deal with.

not only is there the numerous different defintions of the word love but the infinite variety of contexts in which the phrase hs already been used and the weight with which it is still imbued (is that the right word?). And in this postmodern ironic world, can it have any sincere meaning? Does anyone *trust* it to mean anything powerful in the conventional relationahip sense. Has it EVER (ie in the modern world) been acceptable on face value?

Speaking as a romantic at heart, I find it sad that such a "simple" expression - what should reflect a simple and honest emotion - has been questioned so often as to make the phrase almost meaningless in a postmodern sense - but in the same breath would agree with anyone raising issues of its amibiguity and 'irrelevance' - but what else is there? I don't think post-modernisn negates the concept of love (note - I didn't put it in quotes) - but accepts all and any interpretations of what love can mean to any one person or between any number of people.

I've forgotten what my point was exactly....

I admit I got sidetracked by the idea of love and "any number of people"...

For once, Mustapha and I are in perfect agreement. I vote Mustapha writes an article entitled "Loving any number of people"

Take a number and have a seat. The "Doctor" will see you shortly...

I concur - and will be willing to contribute any personal ramblings on "loving any number of people" (the more you read it, the more it sounds like a totally random proposition.)
It certainly should be investigated more fully - perhaps we should try and solicit come help from the people who select the front page topics.
If today's relationships are compared to those of the 1950s/early 1960s ("modern"), then there is an interesting topic for comparison in terms of postmodern approach (post 1965ish) to relationships and love.

Anyone know who is in charge of things round here?

In the abscence of anyone else, I vote I be put in charge. And with a postmodernist slant, this is a true statement. All things are true.

They do say power creates a vacuum and boy, does it suck!

I shall adopt a passive stance (so as not to appear power-hungry or unnecessarily aggressive), and will offer to undertake the office should anyone else be unwilling or unable to do so.