Addressing the notion of Gender Inequality

I have been hearing a lot of talk in the media about the persistence of gender inequality and I thought I should add my part to this great debate. While walking the streets of Jamaica I witnessed a scene where a man was upbraiding his woman, a working woman, telling her to ‘guh a yuh yaad!’ or ‘go home’. The woman was telling the man to stop following her  and to leave her alone but the man persisted in his attempt to control her. His demeanour suggested that in a more private setting he might have hit her. It must have been a relationship gone bad. I didn’t hang around to see the conclusion as the woman stood her ground as the man stared down at her ominously saying that this was typical of her theatrics. Such a scene made me realize that gender inequality is a real thing and not a myth as Beyonce claims. There are men who still believe that women should be dominated in such a manner which is typical of the old patriarchal mode of existence which is the historical basis for many societies throughout the globe. Even if a woman is working it is considered of a lesser value than the work done by man in the same occupation. But why is this? There is a historical basis for it and it would help to explain why ‘It’s a Man’s world.’ I hope that after this argument I am not considered sexist or a chauvinist or an old fashioned cave man. I thoroughly detest the old patriarchal system which is another system of economic exploitation. When those bonds were, or are, shattered women have been able to engage in most activities that were normally exclusive to men. Women need to have the means to express themselves and be who they want to be but it is still a man’s world. This is why so called gender inequality persists although men and women will never be equal in a lot of respects unless most males are emasculated or most females are injected with huge amounts of testosterone. Beyonce is incorrect when she says that gender inequality is a myth. Gender inequality is rooted in our natural history and has influenced our perceptions in the social sphere  where humans have risen above the level of pure instinct.

Biology

Firstly, men are superior, physically, on average, to women. Based on our progression throughout natural history we have been designed with larger bodies, bigger brains, and high levels of testosterone that makes us  generally more pugnacious, commandeering, equipped with better motor skills and more courageous than the average female.  The argument for this is sexual selection where the males and females are assigned specific roles in nature. The males are the primary competitors for females so that they can  sow their seed in the female and so perpetuate their line. There is an element of choice because women generally go for the victorious male who must prove himself in some form of competition with another male to claim her (or several females at once), as his own. Females do not generally engage in such activities in nature. Sexual selection on the part of the female plays an important role in perpetuating the structure of male dominance because the most beautiful woman will attract the more attractive males or the stronger males. Some females might love the ugly duckling but, by and large, they prefer the male who is stronger and more attractive than his rivals. I am not speaking about the social sphere as yet.  It has been argued by Darwin, in The Descent of Man, that over time some females in some variants of species do adopt certain characteristics of the male rendering the two almost equal in nature although this is not a general trend. It does apply, however, to the social sphere of man which I will discuss in the next section.  The primary function of the female, biologically, is her reproductive function.  The females, on average, are therefore not designed with the various capabilities of the males although I have read where the females are indeed the more flamboyant, vociferous and physically dominant in certain variants of particular species. If women were able to remove this reproductive function it would not make them equal with the males because of the line of descent. This can be altered, socially, through sex operations, an injection of testosterone etc but that is merely putting the female on par with the male and so male physical characteristics still represent the highest physical standard in humans although women are beautiful and more flamboyant in their physical appearance. This flamboyance however can be traced back to the original male progenitor that passed on these genes to the female. The high physical standard begins with the male and overtime some elements are transmitted to the female unless some new measure will require a new physical standard to be set based on the natural requirements of the environment. This new physical standard is more than often attributed to the male. On a general, average basis men are superior physically when considering the capacity required for certain undertakings in nature and this translates into the social sphere.

Conquerors vs. Settlers (the social sphere)

The biological sphere influences how men and women operate in the social sphere. Most societies historically engaged in various modes of economic production that were characterized by some form of patriarchy where the men conducted most of the significant political and economic  activities. The women were denied the privileges that were afforded to men. Where men and women are considered equal on a social basis the economic basis of production affords the man and the woman the opportunity to perform the same tasks creditably and on an equal basis. For instance the use of technology/machinery removed the basis for capital having to employ the strong males to perform all the labour. The capitalists could then employ women and children that could generate the same surplus product and more with the aid of machinery. Another example is basic agricultural production where the skill of cultivation has become so basic that man, woman and child can perform it. It is truly equitable on this basic level. Inequalities will naturally surface, however, when men and women have to engage in particular social activities that require a high level of physical activity (mental and manual). This is where men tend to outperform women in the social scene and it is because of the higher level of men’s physical capabilities why they still represent the highest standards in many  spheres of social activity that require some level of physical activity.

In the social sphere a high level of physical activity is normally required when you are breaking new ground. The strongest males (mentally and manually) normally fill this niche and they become the conquerors of a particular sphere and the standard bearers. Capitalism, a system created by man,  relies on the aid of machinery to get most of the work done. The machines can become operational with either man or woman and so claims for equality can be made on such a basis. The man has lost the means to utilize his higher physical function to get the job done. The woman can now do it just as easy because the skill has been established and it can be utilized by both sexes. When the sphere is no longer conquered it must be settled. Women are the primary settlers in any society. They embody the social values of a system i.e. its mode of operation or functionality. On this level women are just as good as men and it would explain why women will do as well or even better than men in exams or in following guidelines, managing an organization or political movement, or in the utilization of the requisite technical skills that have been established by male practice over the years etc. Once an area becomes settled, following the conquest, then both men and women engaged in the activity of that sphere operate, more or less, on an equal footing. Women are therefore entitled to receive the same pay as men because the men are no longer required to add their superior physical prowess to the production of certain articles in business. The perception still remains however that because men are still superior in numbers, with their physical capabilities, women should not be paid equal wages. My primary argument is that women are entitled to receive equal pay in industries that have been long settled or where certain practices have been established. The only thing that will change this historical trend is if women become leaders and pioneers in the various spheres of social and economic activities. If a woman was to break ground with a new product with the labour of women primarily then that would be a new standard in capital. When you break ground with a new product you do not necessarily have all the technology available and so high intensive physical labour is required. Breaking new ground has been done by women but only in small pockets and it needs to be more consistent and plentiful. The average physical superiority of men is what continues to hamper women’s chances particularly when you compare the track record of the two in the field of innovation and in conquering hostile terrain. Hostile terrain is part and parcel of any new industry where competition is fierce and cold calculation is necessary. Some women have this edge where they do not engage in emotionalism to get the job done however it is only in pockets and not as plentiful as their male counterpart. On the basis of our natural history men are more inclined to be ruthless to get what they want.   

Even though women have settled into many spheres it is still an activity created by man. It is an unavoidable fact that women basically adopt the principles that the males created. The system of capitalism is merely one example even though the physical requirements of the male are no longer necessary in some fields. However, once their physical attributes are necessary to get the job done notions of inequality will arise.

One merely has to go to sports to gain an understanding of man’s superior physical prowess and why males are the standard bearers or the conquerors. The top male track athlete in the world is Usain Bolt and the top female track athlete is Shelly Ann Fraser Pryce. Females have been competing  in this sport for a long time  however men still get the most attention. Shelly Ann Fraser Pryce is technically superior in her execution of the 100m sprint than Usain Bolt and her best time is 10.70. This time, however, does not represent the fastest that a human being can go. Usain Bolt holds the world record of 9.58. For all his reported technical flaws in the 100m he still represents the highest standard for the 100m sprint. Shelly Ann’s best time is merely a jog for Usain. On that basis she cannot set the highest standard for the sport and will never earn the amount in fees and endorsements that Usain does. Shelly’s primary case for equality would be her technical prowess. This goes back to my argument: once an area is long settled women have demonstrated that on a technical level they are just as good as the men however because of the superior physical constitution of the male he will still get the edge. It occurs in various other sports where the male teams or individuals represent the highest standards. If women were to be considered equal they would have to set the ultimate standard in that particular sport and not merely  highlight that they have learned all the techniques required for execution. In fields where the physicality of males and females is on an even keel like singing the woman can compete for supremacy like sales in commercial music. The subject matter or what they sing about and how they sing it will be different. In musical fields that are primarily male dominated such as rap and rock and roll it is normally difficult for females to make their name and they are normally assigned to supporting roles. In rap for instance Nicki Minaj is very talented but for all her hits she cannot score a number 1 on the Billboard hot 100. Eminem, Lil Wayne, Fifty cent as male rappers have all scored number ones even though on a technical basis Minaj is just as talented. What does that say about the perception of those that buy rap music even though her biggest  hit “Super Bass” was all over the place. On this basis it is still a man’s world however because, like I said, we created the structures whereby women can execute within a particular framework. Once these structures become less hostile then males and females will compete on a natural footing. An area becomes less hostile once it is populated and settled. Nicki Minaj is a major standout as a female rap artist and needs more women to take up the mantle and populate the field and so let it be known that females are here to stay. Before Minaj it was Missy Elliot and Eve . The field is male dominated but these women have shown (Lil Kim is one of the worst) that they can execute the craft just as well. Missy Elliot, for  instance, was nominated for Album of the year in 2002(?) for the album ‘Under Construction’. My point is that for women to truly compete these females must no longer be the exception. One should not have to question whether or not she is a female rapper. It should be ‘that’s a good rap artist’. The strongest woman is not necessarily the strongest man and this applies to most spheres  of any society. It is a reality.

The home is the primary historical example of the role women have played in society for thousands of years. Women were held back by the system of patriarchy where men engaged in most of the arduous physical tasks related to the economy and political activity because, before the arrival of capitalism, the natural terrain was quite hostile. Poverty was the mainstay of most modes of economic production prior to capital. It still is under capitalism but it is poverty of a different sort (the wealth is not distributed in a equitable manner).  The physical labour of man in the past, before capital, was exalted to the point of romanticism. Even the women bought into it with tales or notions of chivalry where the knight would rescue the damsel in distress by utilizing his physical powers. In the great history of man warfare is a mainstay and most, if not all, the battles were waged by man in his quest to conquer and expand. While he was doing this the woman would remain patiently at home pining and wondering about her husband, her son, her uncle, her brother, her baby father etc. Even if war was not waged the woman would stay at home and look after the household because the home too was romanticized, particularly in the great romantic traditions of past economic productions even though it is still romanticized today (the point is that the romantic element related to the home began before the arrival of capital). This is why the idyllic peasant way of life is exalted whereby the male peasant would labour on his land growing crops and rearing livestock primarily for home consumption. In the home the woman would be the settler taking care of the home while the mighty man went out to work to provide food and all the necessaries for the home. The mighty man was perceived as a conqueror  and still is in the poorer sections of any society even if he is a part of a gang who has to defend and provide for the community or to conquer new territory. The women that have done well will not see it this way however because they have done well for themselves having competed in a man’s world and survived and succeeded. This could only be prevalent in a system that is not bound by patriarchy. Patriarchy exists predominantly in the poorer sections in any country or poor countries in general. Capitalism has broken down the many barriers of patriarchy because it was no longer sufficient for women to remain at home while the man went out to conquer the world.  The price for the physical labour of man became too expensive and was seen as almost redundant with the advent of large scale machinery which could be operated by women and children as well as men. The women had to go out and conquer the world but they were being utilized for their cheaper labour not because of notions of equality. Look at what occurred in the Industrial revolution during the 19^th century and the amount of women thrown into the labour force to increase production.

 This is why when Beyonce (and Obama in his state of union address) says it is a myth she is wrong from a historical point of view and this is why males still get paid more on average than females. While they became liberated in the economic sphere women still face challenges in the political sphere which can be hostile for many. It is only recently that women have started to become heads of state etc. These women must be commended but this could only come about with the shattering of the idealized notions of patriarchy where the man remained the conqueror. Capitalism did this to a great extent. Women can no longer afford to stay at home when money is required for most daily expenses and not just physical labour. With the sphere of capital having been long conquered and settled with the various regulatory systems established it is now safe for anyone to engage in capital and its political sphere. There is a great scene in Lincoln (2012) when the senators stood up unanimously in an uproar when it was suggested that women be allowed the right to vote. They were all against the idea of course. How many women would dare to engage these hot headed males at that moment?: one or two maybe until it becomes a whole army later on.  It can be guaranteed that when hostile terrain is there to be conquered the majority of individuals involved in that expedition will be male. I am not being sexist I am just highlighting  the historical basis for gender inequality. The primary exceptions are when women themselves are the absolute pioneers. These females are not many however but it goes to show how difficult it still is for women to be the absolute pioneers in the social sphere; even in this day and age.

There must be some mention of blacks or people of colour in general. Black people and people  of colour have experienced the same travails as women under the white male dominated societies of the past. ‘The white man’s burden’ spread throughout the world through the great colonial expansion of the past. The people of colour were employed primarily because of their unskilled labour and not because they controlled the means of production. That control was in the hands of white male capitalists. Even white laborers were considered superior at the more technical tasks than people of colour simply because they were white and even if they did not perform as well as their black counterparts. This is why white males were employed in the field of production as, primarily, managers/supervisors or in positions of authority. People of colour were to engage primarily in the most degrading tasks. This is why various black movements under the throes of white capital sought to run back to Africa and build up their own civilizations in order to prove that they could be as prosperous as white civilization. This is why they made reference to their glorious past in Egypt when blacks were the pioneers of civilization. It became important to prove that blacks could be conquerors and not just settlers. It remains the same issue for females. They need to prove that they can be conquerors or standard bearers in the various fields now dominated by men and not just settlers who have adapted to the ways of man. So women doing well at exams in schools is not setting a new standard it is merely showing that they can adapt and embrace equally the systems long established by man. These female conquerors  do exist in various pockets but not extensive enough to overturn the belief that it is a man’s world. Beyonce is wrong when she says men must stand up and say it is wrong;  it is actually the other way around women have to stand up and be standard bearers. Most of them will be restricted in some fields where strenuous physical labour is required to make the necessary breakthrough. I am not talking about staying up late studying or writing a paper, which is a common practice, I am speaking about the innovative field of creating a new product which will require new modes of operation or setting a new world record. Some women have done it but this needs to be done across the board from the mines and the crop fields to industrial techniques. Innovation in the social sphere basically changes the way we operate in civilization. I would love to see a woman create the next facebook, twitter, Apple or Microsoft.

In this day and age the most prized women are not just beautiful they must have some commanding presence in the social sphere. Beauty and emotionalism does not cut it anymore; although it is still significant  the most beautiful women are not necessarily the most significant in the social sphere. As beautiful as a particular woman might be she runs the risk of being a trophy wife more than being a person that can command respect in the social sphere. Being beautiful is important for a woman who ruthlessly uses her sexuality to get ahead.  Their vagina becomes a powerful tool as they advance up the social ladder but that is as far as it goes. Sexual prowess seems more like trying to catch a man than to set any real social standard. It does not advance society at all. If women want to prove they can play the field like men and open their legs for any man what does that prove in the social sphere? How is society moving forward from an operational point of view. It only proves that women can no longer be dominated just like a black man can no longer be whipped. Pornography, sexual promiscuity and prostitution have laid those fears to rest for any female seeking to prove that a man can no longer control their sexuality. They must prove that they can be as decisive  as their male counterparts in the operational part of society and they will get the respect, even if it is grudgingly acknowledged by some males. This is why the pornstar jenna jameson is so revered because she set various business standards for females. She is not just revered in the industry because she has sex; that is a dime a dozen occupation. Women must continually prove that they can lead through hostile terrain should the need arise. It will not, eventually, become an issue as to whether or not she is a female.

You have societies where the women are leaders of communities and the line of descent is traced through them. These matriarchal societies are not plentiful but proves the point about what most male dominated societies have done to women over the years although in the matriarchal societies the woman does not control the man’s physical movements as is the case in the patriarchal societies. In these matriarchal societies the woman is the standard bearer and is accorded all the respect as a result. It is similar in male dominated societies where the male is the standard bearers. The difference being that male dominated societies are more plentiful in the global village. You don’t hear calls for equality coming from males in the matriarchal societies because in some of these societies they still fulfill their function as provider for the female who remains stationary in the village raising the children. It therefore does alter natural history one bit or the original biological roles of male and female. These particular matriarchal societies are significant because all property is transmitted through the female.

Physical Domination

This bring me to my final section about physical domination. Throughout history under the system of patriarchal rule males have used their physicality to oppress females. Oppressing a female is originally done by oppressing her sexuality particularly as it will affect the line of descent for the male. This is not necessarily so in matriarchal societies where, at times, it does not matter who the father is. This physical domination is one of the means whereby the males exert control and hamper the movement of females. This is why I mentioned this in my intro as proof that gender inequality is still alive and well regardless of what the books say about the independent woman. The reality is that men in order to dominate women use their physicality to do so. This goes back to a time in our natural history where man had to defend his territory from other males so that only he could have access to the female’s vagina. It is not much different in the social sphere under the system of patriarchy. We have heard of many drastic means to control a woman’s sexuality such as a brutal form of circumcision in some African tribes and the chastity  belt that used to be worn in medieval Europe. These efforts to control a woman’s sexuality demonstrate that they exist in areas where man has not risen significantly beyond the realm of pure instinct or is still tied to his natural history. We have seen through history that in times of war one way to damage the morale of the opposition is to rape the women in their  societies. One of the most famous of such  episodes throughout history has been the rape of Nanjing in China where Japanese soldiers went on a rampage. It is not just sexual domination because under patriarchal rule women are seen to be no better than children or it is believed that they should be treated like children hence why it is permissible to beat them as  you would your 2 year old child. This treatment of women demonstrates the  extent that man has used his physicality to dominate. Most men use their physicality, regardless of their mental capabilities, as justification for their superiority. Darwin argued that when  males are much larger than the females, physically, they tend to have several females. Where the male and female are on a even physical level the tendency is for the relationship to be monogamous. This is in the natural sphere however  in the social sphere other elements determine what makes a man successful such as the amount of property at his disposal. The more he has the more females he is liable to attract. Poorer  areas or nations tend to stick to the natural bit of our history and so the amount of property does not really matter when females from those areas are still pursued in droves on the basis of pure physicality. In the social sphere however if you want to keep the woman and not just have sex with her you must have some form of property. Physicality alone does not cut it.

Women have been reacting to this form of physical domination and if gender inequality is to be removed this issue has to be addressed. The main struggles for women to remove themselves from this sort of bondage began, primarily, in the 20^th century especially as capitalism broke down the walls of patriarchal domination and encouraged women to leave the home to work. Women rightly assert the right they have to their own sexuality and this is prominent in the area of prostitution and pornography where women have sex with any man they choose  once the price is right although some are controlled by pimps. Regardless of these outlets you have women that are promiscuous and it is argued that they have issues but there are some women who believe that the more promiscuous they are it is  unlikely for any one male to control their bodies. It can be seen as a means of male domination however as a lot of women are taken advantage of; however a lot of female pornstars have revealed that they love the control that they have over their sexuality and shudder at the thought of marriage which would relinquish that control, in the name of the bible and other religious texts (all of them patriarchal), to the man. In the days of great poverty in our past when religion dominated the world prostitutes and pornstars and adulterers (Jesus saving the woman from being stoned to death) would be decimated by the patriarchal society. It has nothing to do with god but male domination. Why is it that when women are promiscuous it is perceived as a negative in comparison with the exploits of a man? It all boils down to our natural history. The woman must have issues if she is promiscuous. The patriarchal society model is not only embraced by men but by females themselves who make it their duty to act in a particular way to please the male dominated society. This was why there was such a big fuss over beyonce’s live performance at the grammys recently. Some of her most ardent critics were female. There should be nothing wrong if a woman decides to perform in such a provocative matter as long as she is not having sex. If a man came out on stage with only underwear it would more than likely draw laughter than incredulity. When Janet Jackson has a wardrobe malfunction at the Super bowl it is cause for great concern. I suppose beyonce was trying to prove that gender inequality was a myth or that girls run the world (lol). In a matriarchal dominated society she would not be criticized as heavily, probably not at all.

The flip side to this however is that when a woman is so active sexually she is giving in to the males. This is so because it does not necessarily prove that a woman can operate in a man’s world. It just means that men no longer have to work hard to have sex with the female and so she becomes an easy target for many males. If we negate the element of choice (woman has emotional issues etc) then this could be so. But once a woman chooses to have sex for mere pleasure and not for emotional reasons then that is a calculated decision. If she decides to have sex with several men it is because she believes she will get pleasure from these particular males based on their physical attributes, which she finds appealing. If it is a rational choice then nothing should be wrong and that does not mean she is giving into the males. When it is a matter of choice you do not see these females having sex with every man that walks through the door  which seems to be the case with the emotionally troubled ones that offer little resistance to the males that seek to conquer them sexually.

Women do use their sexuality now to catch a male. They do this in a calculating manner because they perceive that this man can provide for her. In the great tribal past the family would negotiate on behalf of the female to be married to the male. Now the woman can make that decision on her own. If a woman chooses to settle with a particular man it is because he is perceived to have some form of property to take care of her or to share in the expenses. It is always frowned upon when a woman does all of the work to take care of the man who stays at home all day. Why should it be frowned upon is because most societies are historically patriarchal. It should not be frowned upon however when a woman gets married primarily for the material security offered by the male because that is how it has always been done but primarily through the family. She no longer chooses on the basis of your physicality because that is a feature of our natural history however in the social sphere the amount of property, from the tribal days, is a significant determining factor if she chooses to settle with you. A woman can want to have sex you on the basis of your physicality alone. It does happen from uptown to downtown but if you have no property she will not settle with you and allow you to control her sexuality. If a very beautiful woman settles with a man she finds attractive but has no money it is likely that she will suffer and will be tempted by the advances of other men that can provide her with real material security as opposed to just good sex. This is why marriage is not really a ceremony conducted before god but on the basis that the man can provide. Women can choose to marry an attractive man for love but in time they realize, in a patriarchal society, that the man must provide. Women are drawn to the men who demonstrate their physicality to the utmost but in the social sphere it means nothing if he cannot provide. This is so even in matriarchal societies where the woman remains the main judge of whether or not a man is fulfilling his duties in society.

Once women are able to exert a choice about who they have sex with or choose to settle down with then gender inequality will become a thing of the past. However as long as women continue to submit to the dictates of a patriarchal society then it will remain the reality and not a myth. If a woman chooses to engage in pornography then don’t judge in an attempt to control her sexuality if you are truly supportive of gender equality.

When a particular male feels like he is getting nowhere with a female in some form of negotiation or he wants to dominate her he will either intimidate her with his physicality or rape her. This woman could have all the money in the world but she will still be shattered by such actions. In a patriarchal dominated society or a society that has a history of patriarchal norms such events are always going to be possible.

Gender inequality is not a myth but a cold reality in most instances. When a large section of the female population is assertive , dominant and leaders or standard bearers in various fields then most societies with a history of patriarchy will reverse the trend of inequality.  Once the elements that contributed to the formation of a patriarchal society still dominate then gender equality is not a myth and inequality will be more likely. It all boils down to our natural history and the sexual roles assigned to males and females.

This is my contribution to the debate.

The Wolf of Wall Street ****/5: Good film but did not hit the core of a number of issues particularly the savage mentality created by capitalism. The comedic portrayal of Belfort's savagery is one of the reasons for the distraction.

I must personally raise my glass to Martin Scorsese for making this film because it vindicates a lot of things I, and others, have said about capitalism, particularly about its venal nature. When you say something bad about capitalism the apologists  frown and debate the merits of capital and how you should be all about making money. Film reviews by Karl C. Watts: The savages in the capitalist system
 Actually I should thank Jordan Belfort for writing his memoirs. Scorsese and Leonardo Dicaprio have brought it so vividly to life however that they have truly shocked people. I did a post about the savages produced by capitalism and I thought, for awhile, that I was going a bit overboard however this film has laid my fears to rest. Capitalism does produce base savages. When I was writing about the bourgeois class engaging in sodomy in my post related to the godfather I also thought I was going overboard but this film and Inside Job (2010) also confirmed what I was saying.  Even though capital is a great system for increasing the productive powers of labour and so generating massive wealth, when compared to other economic systems, on a social level, with private property as its basis, it must induce some savage mentality in the populace. This is why I made those claims. Capitalism provides a ruthless drive to accumulate as much wealth as possible and in order to do this people have to be trounced in the process. Wealth is therefore produced on a individualist basis  and so when, or if, you succeed and engross all of this wealth you do not necessarily have to regard other people because it’s all yours. A problem occurs when you become so ruthless that you take from others to feed this crazed drive for more and more. This is what has made capitalism great for man: the promise of more or the promise that you can have it all. This is what they call the myth of opportunity for such a thing to occur because the environment is very competitive and some people have to be the losers or suckers that get trounced while people like Belfort fleece your money and engage in sodomy, drugs, excess spending sprees and the like.  

That aside I really liked the direction of the film however some have a right to complain that it glorifies excess because of the comedic elements. From what I read when Belfort does tell his stories people find them really funny and so it must be the same effect however Scorsese has to portray it in such a way that makes it funny as well. The main question asked in The Wolf of Wall Street is whether or not there is a piece of Belfort in all of us. He went all the way where most of us restrain ourselves out of fear of the consequences. Most of the excesses Belfort engages in is not new because he is not alone.

This film is based on the memoirs of the savage Jordan Belfort who began his career as a trader on Wall Street before he founded the company Stratton Oakmont which fleeced millions from unwary investors. He used these millions to live a lavish lifestyle which is reprehensible to a lot but alluring to many. If it were not alluring Belfort would not win over so many people in his firm. This is the reality of the American dream. Those on the top are not necessarily saints. Capitalism is a system based on exploitation and so you have to numb yourself if you’re prepared to engage and become like them. Belfort rises and falls in this film because the chickens came home to roost. You can never move through life without hurdles and this character is probably reprehensible because he does not accept that until it all comes crashing down.

Positives

(right now I am restraining myself because I am tempted to spit some venom at this character who is going around America pretending that he is reformed. He only reformed himself because he was caught. If he got away with the money in those Swiss accounts he would give none of that back based on the person he is. He deserves to suffer and it goes to show how corrupt the system is when he gets away with a pat on the back while a man who steals a couple hundreds  so that he can eat out of necessity languishes in jail. Belfort is scum and an embodiment of the filthy element created by this glorious system of capitalism)

I liked the portrayal of the savages created by the capitalist system. This film, alongside Belfort’s memoirs, is the ammunition you need to show that capitalism does not promote social unity. That is all an illusion created by the philanthropists. This competitive environment creates a savage determination in its participants. We see this at the beginning of the film when Belfort was sober and then drawn into life of traders on wall street that take cocaine and jerk off or have sex in order to stay focused on the business of money making. He is introduced to this lifestyle primarily by Mark  Hanna (Matthew McConaughey) and it shows that even though Belfort moved on he still adhered to the principles he first encountered as a naïve trader on wall street. Capitalism is a savage system and I now say that without apology. You have to be a savage to succeed even if you’re putting on a show. It becomes more reprehensible when a character like Belfort does not earn it the legitimate way. He could not earn it the right way. He was all panache and little substance. As I like to see beyond any illusion neither he nor his operatives could convince someone like me to invest my money in such a company. What I liked was that he got rich by learning as a petty bourgeois trading not only on Wall Street but, after he lost that job, trading in penny stocks. These practices are reprehensible particularly when you convince people to give up their real money to buy stocks which is clear will not amount to anything.

 His experience at the penny stock trading firm was that his commission was 50% because the stock price is so low whereas on Wall Street it is 1%. This experience at the penny stock trading firm made him believe that pricey stock could afford such a hefty commission. There had to be skimming off the top for something like that to happen. With such a method it is no wonder he became so driven for his salesmen to keep making those calls.

What would have made Belfort noble is if he actually tried to use this money to make things happen in the various start ups. If he did then this money would have actually gone towards some good and would have actually made the economy grow. It is savage behavior because it only benefits Belfort and his truly excessive and obsessive lifestyle. He had the panache and the style to convince people to give up their money. If he and his partners and associates actually used this money to contribute to the growth of new companies then he would not have been as rich. He would have been stuck in a more homely lifestyle. Look at what happened with the Steve Madden IPO. He controlled most of the company and encouraged his team to call people to purchase the stock and so inflate the price even though it had nothing to do with the actual production process.  Even Gordon Gekko had to go through established companies in order to make his profits in Wall Street (1987). Belfort has no interest in the company he just looks at the share price. Gekko at least had to go through a established management structure even when he downsizes  and sells them off piece by piece. We never hear from Belfort how the company actually performed after he launched the IPO. It does not really matter. When will these savages learn that money is merely the beginning and the outcome of the production process. If you want to make money you have to invest to make more. One can see from the portrayal of Belfort’s lifestyle that he was not interested in making real money. Belfort still has the petty bourgeois mentality when one considers his excessive consumption lifestyle. A real lord of capital has more than half his money engaged in some form of company that produces some commodity for sale in the market. Commodities with an actual use value will be assured of exchange. Belfort does none of that and relishes the lifestyle created by having a lot of money. He was never a lord of capital. He never made the real money. He remained a highly paid official, that is all, a petty bourgeois. He could not even divorce himself from the actual running of the business because it was his primary occupation to be a trader in service to capital. It was to be in service to capital but instead he profited from gullible investors.

The film is very funny particularly a scene where Belfort overdoses on a very rare type of Quaalude.

Dicaprio may not win the Academy award but I hope he does for his catalogue. This  performance is up there with his best. He carries this 3 hour film like a true star. I had no real problem with the length because of him. If it was a lesser actor then the length would be a real issue even with Scorsese behind the wheel. Only a great actor could carry such a role. Even though it is a comedic performance for the most part there are episodes involving his wife towards the end that are in the tradition of Raging Bull with an overdose involved.

Strong supporting cast

Negatives

I wished Scorsese and his writers would have offered other perspectives of Belfort. FBI agent Patrick Denham (Kyle Chandler) is the only real voice of serious dissent that we have but it is not very effective apart from an arrest here or there. I know the film is based on Belfort’s memoirs and so it must be told from his perspective. This is the only reason I did not have problem with the excess of the antihero. It is surprising for instance that Scorsese did not highlight the downfalls of the system that gives a man like Belfort two years because he cooperates. The prison is like a haven until things blow over. It is not a real prison. Scorsese should have highlighted that a man who steals food to eat so that he does not starve is locked away like a beast yet this savage can roam the place preaching about reform. Scorsese might have just merely highlighted the lifestyle but did not go for the killer punch and so expose the system.  Inside Job did a better job here. It seems that Scorsese relies on the panache to sell this individual; the panache being his expertise behind the camera. The closest we come to the view is the shot with Denham on a train as real Americans are in the process of going home from work. In The Departed we had both sides of the coin but not here. Even in GoodFellas there is a constant comparison to the schmucks/ordinary nobodies who sit through good government bullshit and there was the perspective from Karen who came from the lifestyle of the ordinary schmucks. This was a way of justifying the mob lifestyle. In Raging Bull we see La Motta make reconciliations. In this film we do not get a sense of the schmucks involved or the many investors he defrauded. You just know that they are suckers for believing in the American dream. Scorsese could have made us feel something real on their behalf. Scorsese does not have any life affirming statement here. Sometimes portraying reality or being realistic is not enough. I suppose that is the main criticism here. Did Belfort have nothing to say about his savage behavior?

One perspective of Belfort they should have offered is that despite all this money he never became a real lord of capital. He never made the real money. He never created a commodity that influenced how people interacted with the world. They should have questioned the true value of money as capital and as a means of exchange.

The comedic element was abhorrent at times and it seemed to distract from the issue. I suppose I was too eager to see him collapse and fall. Some of the scenes were unnecessary from this point of view. Is it necessary to see how he prepared for a flight by swallowing Quaaludes? We know he is an addict so heaping scene upon scene about his addiction does not add anything new to the story. Or, for that matter, his sex addiction which seems to go hand in hand.

Her (2013) ***½/5: The sentiment in this film is maudlin and a great bore. It does not work as a romantic comedy but as an examination of the commodity fetish.

Her is a good film but the sentiment is maudlin and a great bore. If the director and writer, Spike Jonze, was seeking to make a statement on the/ relationship between man and technology he would not have made the film in such a manner. I suppose I was bored because the issues do not reveal anything new in the world of romance, a leisure experienced by the petty bourgeois and dominant bourgeois classes. The struggle of the protagonist, Theodore Twombly (Joaquin Phoenix), was dreadful to witness and the process it takes him to discover something meaningful is via the commodity fetish when he falls in love with an operating system called Samantha (Scarlett Johannson). There is not much to hold this film together and once you get past the relationship between Theodore and the OS Samantha it reveals only a fetish and not necessarily true love. The commodity fetish is where individuals make commodities appear as a literal extension of themselves. They exalt an ordinary commodity into the religious sphere where it assumes a distinctive identity based on its use value for that particular individual. Her is not saying anything remarkable here as a result and when it is portrayed as a romance that label is not applicable here. There are some critics calling it a romantic comedy etc when it is a fetish. It is a good thing that Spike Jonze had an important scene where Theodore is criticized about his fetish. If that scene were not included the film would have been abominable and not just a bore. At least as a bore it can be tolerated but as an abomination it would not be worth writing about. 

The film is primarily about a divorcee (well at the start he is about to be divorced), Theodore, who  mopes around until he activates an operating system , Samantha, that he falls in love with because it reveals his mistakes and fears and has him confront them.

Positives

The best thing about this film is that one can view it as an examination of the commodity fetish that exists in the capitalist system. Theodore is a man whose life revolves around technology particularly after he and his wife separate. He plays videogames and surfs he net and the social networks that exist there. He is drawn to the OS service via a commercial. Many people under capital are drawn to products through advertisements. These advertisements tell you why a particular product has a use value  and why you should exchange your money for it. The advertisement in this case convinces him that he should make a purchase because it can offer some form of companionship. Theodore lives a pretty uneventful life where his primary occupation is writing sentimental letters on behalf of others. This uneventful life will explain why the world of technology opens up a great fantasy for him. It allows him to explore different worlds by just lifting a finger. Video games, movies and even music create massive worlds to explore for the gamers, filmgoers and music lovers. Why this love of fantasy does not seem crazy is that it has to be created or projected. It has to manifest in some way and it is through the computers, phones, tablets, televisions etc. You can engage your senses through these devices. That is the reality. Theodore basically engages in that life. The only problem is where he falls head over heels for the OS commodity and appears to be in love when he is in fact obsessing over a tech device. There is one scene where he believes that he has lost her and begins to tumble over in the street seeking new avenues to engage  it. The scene gave the film some momentum although it was absurd. He discovers some pretty devastating truths such as ‘It’s a commodity.’ The reply: ‘NOOOOOOO. Are you telling me that it was just a thing?’ ‘Yeah. Move on.’ It is the same response people have when their device is smashed. You lend out your car and it is smashed and your panic levels begin to rise. One of your expensive tech devices is smashed and you say ‘Oh no.’ as you try to piece together this lifeless thing. Oh the trials of the bourgeoisie and their petty bourgeois cronies while there are more serious social matters to deal with.

The tech atmosphere of the film is well designed. It does not seem too futuristic and yet is clearly more advanced than the present day.

The performances of the cast is good although none of them should be, justifiably, awarded anything. They seem to fit right in with the tech atmosphere and that is good enough for a film like this. The standout performance for me would be Theodore’s ex wife. That one scene where she confronts him for his insecurities and inadequacies particularly as she discovers that he has moved on with an OS was my favourite. The other supporting cast members seem to run with the program that this man is in love with an OS commodity. The ex wife offers a welcome contradiction.

Negatives

The film seems to place the commodity fetish on the same plane as actual love when it is in fact a fetish. Why I say this is the excessive time that the relationship between Theodore is allowed to develop. It develops like an ordinary relationship although the OS has all this knowledge. Her main issue is that she does not have an actual body and conducts absurd experiments to get through to  him. I am not getting into that. It is allowed to develop too long and I cringed because it was so absurd to witness the pitfalls of the commodity fetish particularly the scene where he goes into a panic when he believes she has disappeared from her network. He even gets jealous. Absolute rubbish.  Well that is what I was saying for most of the time because there seemed to be an attempt to have us sympathize with this travesty of a relationship. When the OS composes music we are supposed to drawn in and get into a romantic vibe. At least it all comes to an end and just like when you smash your phone or any other tech device you wake up. We don’t die when they are smashed.  I suppose people will admire the film for these very reasons because they too are apologists for a system that manipulates people to increase expenditure to drive profit accumulation.

I learn’t nothing new from this film or I was not emotionally involved. I learn’t from Blade Runner which had a lot to say about society and its various contradictions. I learn’t nothing here and I was not moved to be involved in this world. The way people were reacting to this film I thought it would be a contender for best film of the year. As the hype never materialized in my reality. This film will not necessarily be forgotten because it is a good examination of the commodity fetish not as a romantic comedy. If you see it that way it will merit some discussion down the road.   As a romantic comedy it does not work for me because I do not subscribe to the illusion created by the capitalist class and their lackeys.

The film has little or no momentum apart from a moping individual and his OS commodity. Only towards the end does the film begin to pick up a little and gets you involved. Just like he can observe other things while she is busy talking it’s the same thing while watching this film. You can afford to be distracted etc in some parts.

Where is the capitalist that created the commodity? There is hardly any mention of the forces of production behind the commodity and how it was reaching out. When it is mentioned it is represented as the cold reality of capitalist production. We are to feel sad and moved etc. If they came clean from the beginning then this emotional effect would not be there for the audience and so we had to be surprised by this action. That does not cut it for me. We are to be engaged with the reality from the onset and then we could see the film as an examination of man’s love with technology. When the director tries to build up some form of a relationship between man and thing and then lets it down is not really a surprise to those that understand capitalism. It won’t work for people out there like me that knew all along that his disappointment is absurd because the forces of production are behind the commodity not the commodity itself. When the forces of production are revealed then it cannot be a shock or it means that those moved by the film were also engaged in an illusion. The OS commodity was created by a company that wished to make a profit pure and simple. Please get over yourselves. For instance towards the end the OS commodity disappears. There is no reason for this; nothing in the business news section of media reports. There is something wrong with such a presentation. If Spike Jonze had done that then I guess the emotive impact would have been lost. It was lost for me the moment the absurdity began with Theodore falling in love with a commodity  which was not love but a mere fetish.

American Hustle (2013) ****½/5: Great ensemble film but some necessary elements missing that would make some of the thematic elements resonate

American Hustle is a great film because of the performances of the ensemble cast and the thematic element which is quite strong for a film with such a plot featuring con artists. I say this is a great film primarily because it is superior to that other great con film The Sting that won the academy award for best film in 1973. American Hustle is superior because the elaborate plot paints a picture of American society and those involved in the great deceit from the politicians to the mobsters and the ordinary hustlers and regular individuals that are caught up in the whole process. It also questions the motives of the various characters and makes it clear that it is never so straightforward. It does not become too personalized like The Sting and so can embrace different perspectives. It reminded me of the structure of Nashville (1975) although the characterizations here are stronger.  This is truly an American film and it probably suffers by being stretched thin but makes up for this through strong characterization and several surprises. It also makes clear that the world of con men/women deal in illusion and false perceptions by forcing the victims to engage in those beliefs that are most dear to them I understand the reality having been conned several times myself. It also highlights that you must not bite off more than you can chew. Other films have highlighted this but have not made it manifest through the actual individuals involved. American Hustle is significant from this perspective. I recall Matchstick Men (2005) but that film did not manifest itself significantly and relied more on quirkiness to great comedic effect at times and there were too many things that did  not connect to make the film more meaningful. It seems that most con films are comedic and American Hustle runs true to form in such an instance.  Looking back, The Sting was pretty straight forward and painted the characters more like cartoon figures on a comic strip which enhanced the production values. It is still a good film but this current release supplants it. American Hustle demonstrates that each generation improves on its predecessor (s). As a result of the success enjoyed by The Sting  way back when it is no surprise that this current release is being featured prominently in awards season. 

The film is primarily about two partners in fraud crime Irving Rosenfield (Christian Bale without the vanity) and Sydney Prosser (Amy Adams) who are forced into making a deal with a manic FBI agent, Richie Dimaso (Bradley Cooper playing true to form when you consider Silver Linings Playbook), to bring down at least 4 major players in the con game including the naive mayor Carmine Polito (Jeremy Renner) who embodies the phrase ‘the road to hell is paved with good intentions’. Irving has to deal with his wife Rosalyn (Jennifer Lawrence, the great female star for this generation) who seems erratic but offers some of the more delightful surprises because she is underestimated by the main characters in the film and by the audience as a result.

Positives

I was impressed when the film opened with the statement that ‘Some of this actually happened.’ This suggests that there is some plausibility to the film’s opening in the year of 1978. From what I read there were some investigations by the FBI during this period related to grafters and corrupt politicians in an operation called Abscam. It lead to several convictions however there is some plausibility in the statement that it was more of an entrapment than an actual ‘caught in the act’ criminal acts. These people were enticed with bribes by fake personages from the FBI and were convicted as a result. It seemed more like  a litmus test measuring where you fall on the corruption scale. In any case I liked that the writers (David Russell and Eric Singer) admitted that it was not totally accurate and this gives them more freedom to present morally ambivalent characters and various embellishments (intrigues, relationships etc) that would not be characteristic in a real life drama on the actual subject.

  

The main theme here is reinvention and it is a good look even though it does not manifest itself significantly. I also like the element that highlighted that the great con artists get away with their crimes because the victim believes fervently in the facade that is erected before their eyes.

This elaborate con involving some fabricated sheikh from Abu Dhabi who wishes to invest in New jersey’s floundering Atlantic city, home to a great casino tradition,  involves a cross section of American society from the politicians (a mayor and several senators), the mob, the FBI and the ordinary cons (Irving and Sydney).  

I also admired how every character (apart from the leads) grows into prominence. Initially I saw these characters for who they were i.e. the actors playing particular roles but as the film progressed I was hooked to some extent. I was hooked because characters that seemed peripheral at the onset, like Rosalyn, came to play bigger roles as the story progressed. One great surprise was the only scene featuring Robert De Niro. It shows you that De Niro has not lost his touch because that scene is significant for the plot because the mob gets involved.  This scene had me laughing because it was unexpected. That sense of surprise I felt is also mirrored in Irving’s consternation when the De Niro character appears and makes some gestures that could have undermined the operation. This is just one example of the surprises you come to expect from this film as it progresses. It keeps you on the edge of your seat as some characters rise and fall… and then rise again.

Each character represents something on the morality scale. This allows the actors to dig in and so make their characters memorable. For instance Irving lives by defrauding people but he likes to remain low key and is wary about being too grand with his imagination which can get you into trouble. He does have a conscience which is the root of his so called negative behaviour in some way based on the back story and explains why he can sympathize with Carmine. His opposite is Richie who is almost desperate to prove himself by going big without a suitable foundation to build on. In the film Irving and Sydney emphasize the concept of the feet up. Richie’s grand design, which he hopes will make him a great poster boy of the FBI, falls away as reality eats away at his beliefs. He never did hear the end of the story at the ice lake which his immediate superior tries to tell him. He does not hear it because he assumes he knows the outcome. He does not know the outcome but he certainly experiences at the end. Lastly, the mayor acts like a man with good intentions desperate to renovate, not build a new, Atlantic City the heart of New Jersey. He engages in questionable corrupt deals with senators with the hope that he will achieve his goals. Even though it may seem corrupt Irving makes it clear that sometimes this is what must be done for the greater good. ‘the road to hell is paved with good intentions’ applies to this mayor. Even the mob has a face in the form of De Niro and it is obvious that the mob economy merely represents the dark side of capital because the leaders of organized crime are business men/capitalists after all.

This hustle which is all American has more to say about America than The Sting which was a purely personal operation. David Russell thinks big here and makes it obvious that a lot of things are connected. People are not hustlers for the sake of the hustle. There is more to it beyond the superficial perceptions of the general populace. The hustle is portrayed here as a genuine lifestyle. It is also symptomatic of capitalism that it produces people such as these hustlers and I will delve into this when I review The Hustler (1961) which I am currently working on.  This film does attempt to understand how these characters are a by product of the very system, capitalism, that is being trumpeted all over the world as the salvation of billions. Capital unleashes an individualist mentality where people are motivated primarily by naked self interest. This is all too evident here. It is good fodder for my own vitriolic attacks on the system. 

The plot was very elaborate yet it resolves itself quite simply. The best parts are when you are muddling through the various intricacies as you try to guess who is going to come out on top. When the denouement does come it would have seemed corny if it was not always leading up to that particular moment and so some characters who did not heed advice paid the price and those who played by the rules came out on top.

I like that Christian Bale is devoid of vanity here. The opening scene is testament to that.

Negatives

The primary negatives for this film is that the resolutions are not necessarily definitive. The plot was involving in the elaborate build up especially when you consider the various characters involved. It seems like a safe exit. All the usual suspects are rounded up and that’s that. What happens to Richie is significant but the denouement for the main characters was not fulfilling for me.  Scorsese did this well for The Departed (2006) and Good Fellas (1990). Russell needs to work on this element for his films.  I did not get a sense of that here that everything is wrapped up in a satisfying manner which lets you know that it’s all over,  the razzle, dazzle etc. There is no sense of that to any extent. Well I was just not satisfied and I am not going to get into what should be done. The filmmakers tried to brush over a lot of things for the sake of comedy and that does not necessarily work with a satisfying conclusion. A satisfying conclusion needs to be bittersweet, it needs to resonate beyond the hustle and all great films have this element. The structure of the film makes it seem that we needed a more overarching story that would have extended some years, or a year, beyond the actual operation.  A strong ensemble cast cannot deliver this for you; they have done their part and it is now up to the directors and the editors to craft the denouement in order to show how everything adds up. What I mean is that the characters can only say so much and there comes a time when you have to take a step back to show how this is manifested in their reality. Russell has Christian bale talking and talking about reinvention but you don’t actually see this happening. You open a gallery here and there but what does that mean in the long run for the character especially since everything is apparently resolved in the actual elaborate plot? What is the legacy they are leaving behind? Alright another example when Irving says that a particular episode will haunt him for the rest of his days how is this manifested later on. It’s all talk. It was all wrapped up too smoothly for me.

A lot of elements related to the con are jumbled. There are some moments when we are not kept in the loop. We are only made aware of what’s happening afterwards in order that we be entertained. I suppose the audience has to be entertained but that is after the fact.  The approach in The Sting was better where at times characters, which were a part of the elaborate set up, were not sure of what was happening so that the operation could have some level of integrity. There was an elaborate set up by the senior con man to get the more inexperienced one in line and they showed you how. In this film you are not really sure how things were set up initially so that we could see everything add up on our own. Here it is some character from the long distant past but what about the actual set up of the operation. How were we to know that? Irving and Sydney say they plan to con so and so but it’s all words here and we never get to see the actual implementation. This must be the fictional element. Also when Irving says Richie did not catch the big boys I wanted to know who he was speaking of. I understand that he means the real criminals and that is ok because Richie’s operation was one of entrapment and not necessarily one engaged in capturing the ones actually doing illegal activities.

The main theme here is reinvention and it is a good look even though it does not manifest itself significantly.

The plot is overloaded and so not every element can be addressed sufficiently.