Jennifer Aniston and the Culture of the Clown

I saw a couple of items last week during my routine trolling of the internet.
After I read them, I was bursting with opinions. And doubts. Thus began the unraveling of my mind yet again. I find my strong opinions are always neutered by a stubborn persistence to see that damned “big picture.”

On the surface, the 2 items don’t appear to share much in common. In retrospect I suppose they both affected me adversely, but I noticed a common denominator. They share a quality, one which doesn’t quite make itself obvious.

Upon contemplating, this is how my mind unravels.
In stages of instinct and urgency.
First to last.
Bottom to top.

1) Womanhood is in a pathetic state of disrepair today.

But wait. Hmmm. That Big Picture begins seeping into my consciousness like trickles of murky water. Damn it.

2) The modern human animal is in a pathetic state of disrepair today.

And that big picture forms and takes shape. I contemplate further. Opinions are dulled with treadmilled reality.

3) Pathetic is ultimately a judgment call, prone to my archaic outlook of how I “see” things, and worse, how I instinctively believe they should run.

Fuck again.

I had opinions and now I realize that against the backdrop of the entirety of time and space, they are such a blip on the ass of reality that for all intents and purposes, they may as well not exist because in a few decades things will be more fucked up than today’s seeming dystopia. And in that future, kids will grow up learning what they believe to be the world for it is all they know and evolving human minds will create societies that have no relationship to this disaster we are currently maintaining in this day and age, much in the same way it has very little relationship to antique society, even that of only 100 years ago.

But this is a blog and opinions are their lifeblood.
So screw it man.
Opinions it will be.

First, the dust up between Bill O’Reilly and Jennifer Aniston that stemmed from a press conference she gave to promote her new movie, “The Switch,” in which she portrays a single woman who decides to become a single-mother through artificial insemination. During the press conference, Aniston, of testosterone-driven mega-jawed fame, made some choice comments about the state (and extinction) of the traditional nuclear family. Among them, in her best dull-witted Hollywoodese:

“Women are realizing more and more that you don’t have to settle, they don’t have to fiddle with a man to have that child.”

“The point of the movie is, what is that which defines family? It isn’t necessarily the traditional mother, father, two children and a dog named Spot. Love is love and family is what is around you.”

“I don’t think it’s selfish. It’s quite beautiful because there are children that don’t have homes that have a home and can be loved. And that’s extremely important.”

“Of course, the ideal scenario for parenting is obviously two parents of a mature age. Parenting is one of the hardest jobs on earth. And, of course, many women dream of finding Prince Charming (with fatherly instincts), but for those who’ve not yet found their Bill O’Reilly, I’m just glad science has provided a few other options.

Bill O’Reilly fired back.

“She’s throwing a message out to 12-year-olds and 13-year-olds that, ‘Hey you don’t need a guy. You don’t need a dad.’ That is destructive to our society.”

“Jennifer Aniston can hire a battery of people to help her. But she can’t hire a dad. Dads bring a psychology to children that in this society is under emphasized. Men get hosed all day long in the parental arena…Any man who leaves their children is not a man. Let’s make that perfectly clear. But the fathers that do try hard are under appreciated and diminished by people like Jennifer Aniston,”

Jennifer Aniston is guilty of that self-consuming sense of badly worn female power predominant amongst today’s short-sighted female. They bask in owning a parcel of the cultural and societal real estate they never did before and in typically feminine “disthought,” they foolishly believe the world can revolve entirely around female desires and instincts. As if femininity, conducted in a vacuum (ie, without Man) can function just wonderfully and afford to children all that they need in their young lives. Aniston is guilty (as are so many of her modern Oprah-munching cohorts) of a tragically disassembled sense of future time orientation, a trait which women generally lack. For the most part, women are focussed on the here and now practicalities, a mindset which obstructs their vision of the “big picture” and I mean big, very big. Bigger than having extra money to go shopping at Bed, Bath and Beyond next week or bigger than buying Christmas supplies in June. I mean bigger in the cultural and generational sense. Of future generations and the effect our middling choices of Today will have on our children. And their children. Aniston’s attitude and estimation of familial structure is reflective of this.

If you have the stomach to pound out logic from the imbecility of her statements, you’ll note that elemental to her attitude is the oft-repeated sentiment that children have a “home” and are “loved” now. Aniston is utterly incapable of comprehending what effect a fatherless environment will have on son or daughter when the full span of their lifetime is factored in. And beyond that, failing to take into account that our little fatherless child will one day grow up and have children as well and pass along that fractured mentality along to his/her children. And thus you’ve initiated a wildfire with the most insignificant of matches simply because you wanted a glimmer of light now. Aniston’s sole consideration is that the child is happy and loved now as she displays his little swathed body to the cooing of her similiarly tainted-girlfriends. (And being that she’s a high profile celebrity, the media accompaniment she would receive as she parades around her fatherless but beloved baby would be nauseating beyond pale).

Today’s woman, empowered and liberated as the tethers of traditional society are broken, believes that since she can remodel a house on her own, attain a degree on her own and land a well-paying job on her own, is thus able to raise a child on her own. Science, having given her the ability to give birth to a child on her own and free of the unwanted male baggage, has released her from the moral and social duties of a modern mother. Her baby will be happy and loved today, and in her narrow-minded perspective, tomorrow’s emotional world does not matter. For she can only consume herself with the child’s happiness as it exists, now. Her tomorrow only encompasses the material well-being of the child…will he have a house, a nice job, a family. Women are the ultimate purveyors of materialism and it shows in their inability to consider the social implications of a fatherless generation.

And while I broadly agree with Bill O’Reilly’s statements, I do believe there is a tremendous element of short-sightedness that is also observable among many men who share similar attitudes. Namely, that a fatherless society will no sooner destroy society than shitty hair will cause a windstorm. There are deep and underlying forces at play in our world which we cannot begin to even digest or compartmentalize into convenient chunks of malleable dysfunction which would allow us to apportion blame, so we don’t… Instead, we blame the symptoms. It’s much easier to blame the symptoms because we can wrap our heads around those concepts because they are hideous in an everyday, pragmatic way. Of course I find Aniston’s views moronic; however, I find it difficult to blame her or her hordes of female adulaters. We are but pawns of the massive continental shifts in social structure brought about by modernity and technology.

And the next exhibit I bring you from this week’s round up of culture’s intellectual dissolution is a link to the Season 2 trailer of Jersey Shore in all its depraved splendor. I can barely sit still through its entirety for the pain is too intense, the disgust too consuming. How can there exist in this world such a thriving subculture of superficiality and simple-minded plasticity? I have absolutely zero in common with the mentality portrayed on that show. If you plotted the whole of the human race on a graph, my placement would occur at a spot as far away from the tattooed whores of self-gratification seen on there as I could possibly be from anyone else in existence. Granted, they are artificially selected for their outrageous demeanor and the exaggerated behavior is certainly encouraged and most of it is likely showmanship. I doubt they represent much of a reality as represented in the “reality” of reality TV (at least as we know it) but the point is that this is what passes for “entertainment” to today’s MTV-consuming zombie generation. Despite the apparent “sub-niche” the Jersey Shore cast represents, many younger, and not so younger, viewers find an entertainment value in such aimless misbehavior. That in itself speaks tons.

Once again, there may be the instinct to blame such entertainment for the decline of our civilization (and believe me, I’m ready to pitch in my own admonitions) but once again, I can’t honestly lay the blame on these trivial and inconsequential children. They are children, immature and clownish. In fact, our younger generation have become what I like to call the “Culture of the Clown.” Dressed and permanently marked as clowns, acting like buffoons, any sense of stoicism squashed beneath coats of hairspray and suntan lotion. As such, they really have no great cultural influence, but they are a symptom of an underlying malaise that is consuming our society from the very lining of its guts. These kids are a foreshadow of our future.

This is the commonality between these two “news” items.
The malaise.

Rather than lapsing into one of my typical anti-technology tirades, I’d like to offer a more specific observation that ties the Bill O’Reilly/Jennifer Aniston affair and the cultural depravity of Jersey Shore together. Still existent is the concept of technological progress…I still stand by that concept, but I’ll be more specific here.

Our world has become too visual.
We can now glimpse the inner soiled, cobwebby, recesses of random lives, and behaviors we previously had no awareness of are now viewable. In the past we were spared the disconcertingly blatant knowledge of such. Some might argue this is a harmless byproduct of technology and that this behavior exists despite its exposure. It’s not the behavior I have a problem with, however. It’s the exposure and the effect it has on our collective mental health, its ability to manipulate our cultural perceptions and influence the expectations and narcotic effect such “entertainment” has on our psyche.

The visual is everywhere. We see so many manners of derangement we were not intended to know. This voyeuristic mentality creates a shared attitude of judgement and callous assertions based on absolutely nothing other than the superficial input of appearances and flaunted behaviors markedly influenced by exposure to cameras, and hence, the global audience. People acting like hams and fools and amping up their scurrilous exhibitionism.

In other words, the Clown Culture, this visually fixated world we inhabit, is inherently feminine. All the attributes and traits elicited by the technological progress that allows us to see all, hear all, speak to all, are those that the female mind finds most magnetic. Women, acting up and defiantly flaunting artificiality and conflict as a response to attentive eyes, seem the more natural (albeit exaggerated) at absorbing this mentality; men, acting similarly, seem unnatural and unmanly. Manhood, the steadying backbone of our world, is slowly giving way to this engulfing clownmanship.

Wasn’t the historical nature of man to rise to the noble occasion in order to secure the safety and procurement of Woman in ancient times? Now man sinks in order to comply with the self-gratifying and hollowly sensual nature of woman.

The Culture of the Clown.

Deriving such an abundance of pseudo gratification, behold as Man plays the role of easily discarded incidental plaything

What might that world look like?

Even if we don’t care to know, the cameras will always be there to remind us.