Russian Socialite Uses Naked Black Woman As a Chair, Calls It Art

It's been a long time. I shouldn't have left you without a dope blog to read to (In my Aaliyah voice).(Record Scratch)

 No?

 Okay maybe was reaching too far with that so I'll stop. But anyway, I'm back on my bs for the year 2014. Some strange stuff has been going on as of late, for example this article takes the cake so far. I guess it's okay to use women as furniture now as long as it's called "art".  Ok. I know what you're thinking. It usually starts with something like " Aw Hell Naw! What?! Is she serious?".   When I first saw it, I didn't know what to think. I was confused. Then again, I saw the messages conveyed in this piece. My first thought was that Black people seem to be used as accessories in the White world. This can be seen in the movies, where there is only one Black character which is portrayed as a background character that could be counted on for comedic relief, or when they want diversity.  Sometimes the Black person could be a helpful character, but in a lot of instances they say stuff like "Bitches be trippin, yo" and "Word", etc, and never offer anything of substance to the film. They are good for sprinkling dialect in a movie or for adding "variety" to a piece of media and nothing more. We must not forget the great Mileygate incident of 2013 In this case, I will refrain from linking to it simply because I don't want to be responsible for any extra views. I'll leave the research up to you at this point.

I clicked on the article and I noticed there were two other pictures: A White mannequin woman on all fours with a glass table top placed on her back, and another White mannequin fashioned as a chair, just like the Black mannequin was used in the first photo.  After reading the article, I came to a conclusion. In this culture, women are used as accessories in general. In American culture, the term "trophy wife" comes to mind. It's a wife whose purpose is to look good on a man's arm and nothing more. This term is usually reserved for rich older White men.  This art indicates that women in general are used as accessories in a male dominated world.  Even when women were allowed to work, they were used as an accessory in the office. They maintained secretary positions and often couldn't break past the glass ceiling (unless they did a little 'something extra' to get there in some cases).

That raised another question for me. What about Barbie, the United States based doll whose image has been held responsible for so many distorted images of femininity and beauty? Barbie has everything she could wish for. She has money, friends, a big house, very nice car, and a boyfriend.  Her world looks amazing, and I'm sure a lot of girls (and women) would want a taste of that lifestyle. Let's look at her world a bit closer shall we? We don't know much about her boyfriend do we? He usually comes with an outfit, maybe a comb and that's it. He exists solely to look good in Barbie's car, and we know his name is Ken. Where are Ken's friends? Where is his car? Where is his house? He seems to be the one tagging along in Barbie's world. Barbie has friends with names and a family. Her wikipedia page looks like she has an entourage.   Ken has Allan and Brad as friends, but no family, and his page looks like a short blurb. Why is that? It seems to me that Ken is treated as an accessory in this scenario.

American culture seems to be fixated with finding a way to use people as "things" or a means to an end. Who said this was okay? Who decided which type of person should be used? Why should people be used and how should they be used? Sure the woman who created this art was Russian, which begs the question, Is this representative of a male dominated culture in general or is it limited to whatever country one resides in?  I don't know.

Now I did see the following in 2013. Here we have an American  Black man wearing a White woman as a scarf and he called it art. He said that White women are looked at as a status symbol in this country. Hmm. So we have Black woman mannequin being used as furniture by a White woman (speaking of such, why did she choose to sit on the Black woman chair and not the White one?) and a White woman being used as a scarf to represent status. Real White women being seen as "trophy wives"by White men, Barbie using Ken as an accessory, and White women also being used as furniture. Holy sugar honey iced tea. I think I may have solved the relationship between Black and White men and women in the United States.

White woman+Black woman = accessory

White man +White woman+ money= trophy wife or status (The White man can be an accessory if you include age difference and/or money) Roles are interchangeable in this situation. The person with the money could use the other as an accessory, and the broke person could be using the rich person as the status symbol)

Black man + White woman+ money= trophy wife or status  (this can work with or without money) These roles are also interchangeable between parties. A White woman can see the Black man as a sexual conquest and vice versa. In that case either party is an accessory)

White man + Black man = accessory

White man+Black woman+money= accessory (see Black man+White woman+money equation. White man can see Black woman as sexual conquest)

Now hold on. This is about to jump into interracial relationship territory. I don't care who you sleep with. That is not my business. I am not against interracial relationships nor do I have a problem with them, however I do have a problem with how people see them and what ugliness can potentially reside within them, and that's a topic for another blog.

Stay tuned.

Obligatory New Years Post

Happy New Year you guys. For those who are reading this blog, or paying attention to the news in general, you know it's been a rough year. To be honest, I have no idea what this year brings. So far some good things have happened. Gay people can finally get married in all 50 states, and marijuana has been made officially legal in all forms in Colorado. Utah has an attorney general who is willing to spend two million dollars to fight this thing as if the world will end if two men or two women marry each other. I'm sure there are people who are pissed at him for wasting their money on such a trivial subject. I'm sure the schools are in such great shape that the state can afford such luxuries. But anyway, you already know I support gay marriage, so I'll just leave it at that. Back to Colorado though. Maaan! They are going to make sooo much money. There will be Colorado weed tasting tours, smoker's clubs (kind of like cigar clubs), and people will be able to buy a pack of joints. I see them treating it like cigarettes and alcohol, meaning that they won't be able to smoke them in restaurants, or public areas. I'm sure a person could become subject to getting a DUI if they drive while stoned,or get stoned while driving. However I did hear that some employers will still drug test employees and fire them if they come up positive.   Wouldn't that be counter productive? I could see them doing a zero tolerance policy, meaning a person can't smoke while on the job, or show up high. Plus marijuana stays in the system longer than alcohol. That means if a person decides to unwind after work by smoking a bowl or joint,and they get tested two or three weeks down the road, they could still lose their job. Hmm. I wonder which employers would choose to do that. Wouldn't the companies gain a high turnover rate? Wouldn't that make it harder to find a job in general?  I can definitely see an exodus to Colorado happening very soon once they get the kinks worked out of the legalization process.  The standard of living could skyrocket. All I can do is wait and see. I might just venture over there once they have all the bugs sorted out. Who knows.

Anyway, this year brings 2 positive things so far. We'll see what else happens. Hopefully there will be more positivity to come.