Thoughts on the European Elections 2014 results.

Three weeks after the European Elections 2014 took place across the continent, nobody has clarified to the citizens of Europe what their decisions will mean for them.

After years of austerity and increase in social injustice, it was inevitable to have a surge in the popularity of populist, "Euro-skeptic" parties across the union.

Until the economic crisis, they remained in the periphery of the political life in each member state. Yet they have now managed to gain significant support and increase their presence in the European Parliament (EP).

In certain core EU states like France and the U.K, the Euro-skeptic parties UKIP and the National Front, have claimed victory in the elections by winning the majority of the votes. In other countries such as Italy, Greece, the Netherlands and Austria, far right, radical left or anti-EU parties gained a significant number of seats in the EP.

In Italy, the Movimento 5 Stelle party came second in votes, while in Greece the Golden Dawn, in Austria the Freedom Party and in the Netherlands the Party for Freedom came third. In Greece we had also the radical left party Syriza also winning the elections, although they are not hard-line anti-EU party.

Of course the majority of the seats again went to the "establishment" parties, despite the significant gaining of the Euro-skeptic ones. And while one would think that having a diverse European Parliament, with many smaller parties being included is a good thing, in this case is anything but.

A large number of smaller parties with a pro and pan-European agenda in the EP like the Federalist Party, would actually be of benefit for democracy in Europe. In the EP's case, we need to start having politicians and parties that have an EU wide agenda, if we want to have real democracy on European level.

But with parties that not only oppose any further integration, but they have a very conservative, nationalist and radical approach to politics, the EP will lose its power and influence. A divided European parliament by an increasing number of Euro-skeptic MEPs, makes it difficult to reach to decision fast and effectively, thus weakening it.

In return, a parliament that is not as efficient is being stripped of the citizens' support, as they see no use of it. And rightly so. When considering the circumstances that led to an increase of anti-EU parties in the heart of one of its institutions, we can not but blame the European elites for their handling of the euro-zone crisis.

Under the lead of Germany, Europe's governments for years have tried to make the working classes of the continent pay for a crisis that they did not start. They have nearly destroyed the continent's middle class, pushing millions of Europeans near or under the poverty line in many countries, especially those of the periphery.

And not just that, but they placed the EU as an institution in the forefront of every disastrous decision they have taken the past few years, shifting the blame from the national governments to the EU institutions. A very clever diversion to have an institution to use as a scapegoat, when it suits you!

Understandably the European citizens have voted for radical parties, as a protest. For years they have seen their wages, social security and worker's rights being slashed, so the results of these European elections were expected.

What the citizens do not understand, is that if they continue to place Euro-skeptic politicians in the European Parliament, they are actually harming their own interests. The EP is the only tool that we, the voters have in the EU. It represents our voice. And that is why our leaders do not give it the power that it needs to have to be effective and efficient.

They want to have an EU to promote the European elites' interests, but an EP with just enough power to give the European project enough legitimacy, so the people won't protest. Yet if we judge from Mr. Cameron's recent staunch opposition to Mr. Juncker's election as the head of the new EU Commission, our governments do not want to hand over too much power to the EU.

That is not necessarily a good thing for us, the citizens. From the constant power struggles between the three main EU institutions, the European Parliament, the EU Commission and the EU Council it is we, the people who pay the price.

When the EU is governed by inter-governmentalism, the bigger states like the UK, France and Germany have a bigger and more decisive say in the institution's direction. The governments of the rich nations can control and shape the EU's agenda, according their own interests.

That is of course anything but a democracy. If we want to have a more equal and fair Europe, it is the European Parliament who must have the major role in policy making, in most Europe wide affairs. And that does not mean absolute centralization of all power in Brussels, as many fear.

Europe must be governed in three levels, local, national and European. For all matters European, the decisions must be taken solely by the European Parliament, while the national governments must keep control on national issues. And that is where the clash takes place.

The governments of the core European economies, do not want let go of the control they have over their affairs, or the influence they have over the smaller European nations. They want to arrogantly lead Europe according their own interests, ignoring the needs of the peripheral states or refusing to share the wealth and decision making with them.

That I am afraid is not a sign of a united Europe, rather of an unequal continent that the rich elites, of the rich elite nations rule to the detriment of every worker across the continent. Is it bold to think that the weakening of European Parliament by pushing citizens to "democratically" elect extreme parties, was planned by the European governments and the elites they represent?

In other words, Europe's citizens "democratically" decided to weaken the EP as a protest towards their national government's actions and disastrous policies over the years. That is against their interests in one hand and in second, I personally believe that their decisions were widely manipulated by the European establishment, that is against a radical shift of power.

They want to take back control from "Brussels" and keep "national" interests under the national governments. That is a fallacy, considering the extreme neo-liberal policies they have pursued during the past decades, which have undermined the interests of the ordinary citizens, in every EU member state, either rich or poor.

Their policies widely favor big banks and multinational businesses, to the detriment of all European workers. Through populist and inflammatory media context, they also incite a war among the European peoples and the continent's classes. Immigrant against native, Eastern against Western, Southern against Northern European. While us citizens, have a common enemy: our own "national" governments and their policies.

So if we really need to achieve real change in our continent, voting for far right or radical parties, is certainly not the way, as we are making our governments' work easier. We are shooting ourselves on the foot. The far right parties are helping the establishment to keep the status quo in place, not our "nations" to defend their interests.

What we need is a Europe wide action and cooperation, a strong European Parliament and European political parties to be more dominant in it. Thus bringing our continent under a federal political formation, in which solidarity, equality and other similar values will prevail.

Secondly we need our governments to start listening to their citizens and respect their vote! The attitude of Mr. Cameron and other who support him in his opposition in Mr. Juncker's election as a head of the EU Commission, even after he has clearly a legitimate claim and support of most political parties in the EP, is scandalous.

You may want to join this Facebook page, Respect our Vote,  and express your support for democracy in Europe.

Time for Europe to alter its view on its LGBT communities and human sexuality.

On May the 10th Conchita Wurst, a drag queen from Austria won the Eurovision Song Contest in Copenhagen, Denmark.

The result was seen as a major breakthrough for the LGBT community in Europe by some, but for others it was outrageous. Many described how Conchita's appearance in the contest would turn it into a "hotbed of sodomy".

Countries such as Russia, Belarus and Ukraine unsuccessfully tried to ban Austria's entry in the competition, while public opinion in many countries was also divided. Comments in social media platforms were either condemning and showing outrage, or showing support for Conchita.

What is peculiar about the behavior of those who criticized Conchita's participation in the Eurovision, is mainly the fact that it is not the first time is that we had a LGBT person in the competition. The contest is very popular among gay audiences and it is inevitable to have drag acts participating.

In 2007 the song "Molitva" sang by Marija Serifovic, an openly homosexual woman, won the competition. In 1998 it was a transsexual from Israel, Dana International who managed to come to the first place. There was little condemnation in Marija's entry and as for Dana, her song went on eventually to become a big hit in many European countries, despite condemnation from ultra-Orthodox Jews.

Conchita's appearance of course is very provoking. A drag-queen with a beard, is an unusual sight to most viewers. Yet, that did not stop her from winning the competition. Her victory might be a political statement towards Russia, whose entry was apparently booed during the competition. Nevertheless it was heartening to see conservative countries such as Greece, Israel, Italy and Ireland giving their 12 points to Austria.

If Conchita's critics fear that the "behavior" of such individuals will become the new "norm" and they will have to see more of "these people", then they should wonder: did her appearance made or encouraged anyone to wear a dress and rename themselves as Chiquita Pastrami? No! 

I may not be the greatest fan of her look either, but her voice and song were good and that is all that matters. All that this individual wants and desires is acceptance, for whatever she is or represents and for the many transgender, transsexual, gay, transvestite or other individuals that exist and find themselves outside of the "mainstream"  social norm. 

Conchita's appearance promotes tolerance, not homosexuality or transvestism itself. If you don't have it in you, no matter how many drag queens you are going to watch in song contests, they are not going to make you or your children homosexual.  

There are scientific researches showing that children of gay/bisexual individuals in homosexual relationships, are no more likely to become gay themselves, than children who have grown up in a traditional family. That is about 5-10 % of a chance, just like as any heterosexual, traditional family!

Acceptance is what Conchita is seeking, not to make all of you and your children to wear dresses . Besides transvestism is nothing new, there are evidence that even in ancient Greece and Rome, transvestites were not something unknown. People like Conchita exist in all countries, ethnic groups, religions, races and social classes.

And what is really hypocritical about our societies, is that we all know that these people live among us, yet we chose to ignore them. When I was serving my military service in Greece, there was a transsexual serving too in the batallion. Technically, as he was physically still a man, he had to enroll and serve in the Greek army. 

The stories he was telling to the rest of us, about how many "real" men were seeking to have sex with people like him, then they were abusing them verbally or physically were sickening. There is a great deal of pretentiousness in our societies and I do not think we should be judging or condemning.

Besides, not every man who wears dresses is a homosexual. Many straight men in heterosexual relationships, like to put on dresses. They are the so called cross-dressers and there is a huge stigma and misunderstandings about their condition too. 

Transvestism, transsexualism, cross dressing, homosexuality are only terms that remind us that human sexuality is as complex as our brains and psyche. There is simply every "shade of grey" out there in sexual preferences so instead of condemning, we should first accept this fact, try to understand it or even explore it.

It would be easier to just admit the fact that human sexuality is much more complex than that of the cow or the sheep. Humans are far more complicated beings, mentally, biologically, spiritually and emotionally to just have sex with a partner of the opposite sex and only for reproduction .  

Even so there are plenty of cases of "gay" animals, especially among the most intelligent life forms like mammals and birds. Thus any argument of "normality" on sexual relationships and practices is absurd by any conservative folk that are offended by people like Conchita. 

Europe must become a continent of tolerance and to do that we need to start exploring outside of our traditions to find answers. Millions of people live in unhappy relationships, or unfulfilled emotional, romantic or sexual lives, because of the self imposed restrictions and taboos that we have placed upon ourselves. 

It could be your children or grand-children facing what Conchita has gone through, to find acceptance and tolerance. No one has the right or authority to prevent other human beings from finding happiness and love with anyone who they desire.

Happy and balanced emotional human relationships, mean happy and balanced, highly creative people. Not a demoralization of our societies or "sodomy" as many view homosexuality. It is in fact the current misplaced sense of morality that is a greater threat to our social fabric, as it drives millions of people into unhappy lives.

If Europe really wants to be a place or equality for all its citizens, then eliminating prejudices and promoting LGBT rights in all its member states, must become as important as any other initiative for equality and prosperity. 

And so the victory of Conchita Wurst is only a reminder of our continuous battle against prejudice. It is only a small victory among the many battles that must be fought in changing people's minds, reversing the injustice that has been inflicted upon all people of different sexual preferences.

The Russian Bear awakens. Perhaps it will convince Europe to unite.

The ongoing developments in Ukraine and Russia's aggression and annexation of Crimea, bring again on the spotlight the original ideas of the founding fathers of the European Union: peace, stability and counterbalancing the big powers.

Small individual states can not defend themselves against a global player, like Russia. The Euro-skeptics have long convinced us, after the developments in Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, that federations do not work.

These countries are a living proof according to them, that trying to bring different ethnic groups together and uniting them under one government, not only does not bring peace and stability, but it is a time-bomb that could bring on-going conflict.

There is a point in this argument, but they forget one major factor: Russia. During these break-ups, the Russian Bear was recovering from the collapse of the Soviet Union. They did not pose a direct threat to any of Europe's smaller states, but now things have changed.

Russia invaded and annexed Crimea, in an effort to stop the expansion of NATO and EU ever East-wards. A few years ago they entered into a conflict with Georgia, just to show the Bear's teeth. Now, after many decades, they have committed something that was absent from our continent for a long time: ending another country's territorial integrity.

Even worse, many people fear that they won't stop in Crimea, or even Ukraine itself. Other countries with relatively large ethnic Russian minority, like Moldova and the Baltic states, are very wary of the recent developments. Besides, not only they have a Russian minority, but in the case of the Baltic states they share common borders with Russia.

NATO forces are making their presence felt in the region, trying to remind Russia that the alliance will protect its members, no matter how small. Naturally this is very unnerving for all in the continent. If these developments escalate, we could enter a new era of a cold war in Europe and the world.

The EU is trying to bring certain countries quickly closer in its sphere of influence, by offering economic support in the form of trade benefits for Ukraine and a visa-free regime for Moldova. But if Russia decides to keep pushing West-wards, what will Europe do to stop them?

The answer of course is the relevance of NATO. The importance of the alliance is going to be a key player in the conflict, though personally I support the creation of a European common defense mechanism and organization.

If Europe keeps relying on America for its protection, it can never form independent foreign policy. Let's be honest about it, their protection does not come for free. The American influence is evident throughout the continent and that is the price we got to pay for relying on their military might and supremacy.

Not that I support the ending of Europe's alliance with America. But if Europe wants to become a global player, it must form its own military and defense.

Of course to achieve that, it needs to increase its spending on its arms industry and proceed with militarization, something that under the economic crisis most European leaders refuse to do. But if we think that over 40% of EU's budget goes to one industry alone, agriculture via the Common Agricultural Policy, then perhaps there are some funds that could be found.

By reducing what we spend on CAP, we can invest and diverge more funds in our protection and also becoming more energy sufficient, ending Russia's monopoly on Europe's energy needs and supply. If we invest in green and renewable energy industries, we could limit our dependence on Russian gas and oil and of course Russia itself.

The solution that Europe should take to deal with the re-awakening of the "Russian Bear" and its expansionist agenda, is of course an ever closer military, political and economic union. In this case, Russia might act as the necessary bogey-man that Europe needs, in order to stop going in circles over its further integration plans.

It is clear why there are links between the Russians, Europe's far Right political parties and their rise to prominence. Many of Europe's extreme Right leaders are supportive of Russia and vice versa. Obviously for Russia, the empowerment of these parties means the weakening of European unity and integration, that could mean the disabling of a united European response to Russia's plans for reclamation of its old territories.

Leaving of course America as the only competent threat and challenger of the Russian aggression and expansion. Just like it was before the fall of the Berlin wall. Both the American and the European leadership must acknowledge that uniting and empowering Europe as a global and military power, benefits both.

The Americans can not keep playing the role of the stabilizer in the world alone. They need Europe to become an equal partner, but with an increased might and influence in the world. And Europeans need to grow up and stop relying on America for their protection. Even if hat means digging the hands deep in their pockets and shaking up their relationship with America's arms industry, or America itself.

EU citizenship for sale.

The question of citizenship, nationality and identity is in the news constantly these days, from the recent tensions between Eastern and Western Ukraine to the upcoming referendum on Scottish independence. 

In this regard, one interesting development is the decision of Malta to start selling passports to foreign nationals. 

For the modest sum of 650,000 euros, it is now possible to obtain EU citizenship without ever being required to live in Malta (though applicants are required to invest in Maltese property and buy government bonds).

By flogging passports on the open market, the Maltese government hopes to bring in an extra 30 million euros in the first year alone. Interestingly, Malta is not the first country to grant citizenship to non-EU citizens: Austria, Cyprus, Belgium and Portugal already hand out passports in exchange for investment in the country.  However, Malta is the first country to put a price tag on an EU passport.(Debating Europe).

Interestingly the above "trend" has got even more serious with revelations that Bulgaria is the newest nation to sell passports to non-EU citizens. Non-Europeans can buy Bulgarian and thus European Union citizenship for as little as €180,000 under a scheme operating in Bulgaria, an investigation by The Telegraph has disclosed.(The Telegraph).

These practices by all EU member states concerned,  are outrageous. It seems that after having turned everything in commodities in Europe, the largest market on the planet, we have now just ran out of things to sell. And so we are selling what the whole world wants and is interested to avail from us, the only thing we have left to sell: our citizenship.

It is understandable that we are still facing an economic crisis and we need money to rebuild our economies, or at least keep them afloat. Europe needs investments and especially the smaller, or peripheral states are in dire need.

But there is one thing to try to compete for investments and another to put a price tag on a document that will entitle anyone to be not just citizen of that country, but the whole of Europe. Without of course having set foot on this country's soil, or being able to speak a word of its language, or knowing any basic information about its culture, history and life style.

At least some nations like Austria and Cyprus, only hand out passports to people who invest in their country and buy property. We could call this as "facilitation", in order to do business. But such practices open dangerous loopholes that could attract criminals and other dubious personalities in our continent.

Europe will at best become a place for the rich people of the globe, either their wealth is coming from lawful or not practices. If anyone with enough money to spend can get his hands on a European passport, then he can move and settle anywhere in the continent, no questions asked.

The only way to safeguard who is entering our continent, would be stricter regulations and background checks. Provided of course that the responsible authorities in each state, do their work right and exam the background of the potential "buyer" before granting him citizenship.

If this continues, we will transform Europe to a place where the rich will turn it into their playground, invest and make profit, influence local politics; but with what cost to us, the ordinary citizens? If our continent becomes a place for the elites of this world, how could we influence policies that would be beneficial for us and have our voice heard, among such powerful interests?


These are practical issues of course. The other issue with such practices is more of an ethical one. Using the lure of a EU passport in exchange for money and investments, is a degradation to what most people identify with still in our days: nationality and citizenship. Either they are native nationals or naturalized, people still want somewhere to belong, a root where they can branch out and which identifies them.

According to what most people believe, nationality is something that you can not just buy; you either receive it by birth, or you acquire it by the naturalization process, after you lived for a certain amount of time in a country. You worked, paid taxes and have integrated yourself in the society and so you can be part of it.

Now our governments want to scrap this status, but only for the rich people. The poor immigrants will still have to queue long hours out of the immigration offices, trying to get their hands on a visa, that will allow them to work, pay taxes and contribute in the society for the long term.

How low can us Europeans get? Since there isn’t much more to sell, as our governments are already sold to the banks and markets, they now trade with our nationality. Though I believe in living in a Europe of open borders and a globalized world, my citizenship and especially my nationality is something I am proud of and bring always with me when I talk, travel, work or live anywhere in Europe.

The ultra-liberal voices that just do not get why people identify themselves under a nation flag, are of course delighted if not supportive of such development. For them, belonging to a nation is merely an accident of birth and it should not matter. They desire a border-less, nation-less world, where nationalism is banished.

I am afraid that is a utopia, at least for now. People do not want to forget who they are and where they are coming from. They have a deep instinct of belonging in a group, either it is ethnic, religious, social or political in their hearts. They are deeply interested in their history and past.

Even in America, a great melting pot of cultures, people still identify themselves as Jewish-American, African-American, Greek-American, Irish-American and so on. They are American citizens but they all want to hold on to this special set of values that they have inherited from family ties.

And a passport is not just a travel document, as long it describes citizenship as nationality on it. If we want to offer citizenship with a price, then we have to remove the word nationality from our passports and replace it with the word citizenship, which is a different thing.

As long as governments issue passports to their nationals, then such development undermines the value of nationality and what it means to the majority of people. It is deliberate of course and it aims to destroy any sense of nationalism and ethnic identity, turning us all into "citizens of this world".

While I do not necessarily object to this, it is the way they are trying to achieve this that I find outrageous and morally wrong. For me this is a mistaken way of achieving such thing. You can not abolish the instincts of the people, or their heritage that was in the making for thousands of years.

I believe in a Europe of nations, unlike the ultra-liberals that want a Europe without them, people with no identities and ethnicity. The best way to integrate European nations, is not by destroying or erasing our national heritage and culture, but on the contrary empowering it by constant cultural exchanges.

Share our culture with all other nations, thus eventually creating a single one in which every nation will contribute and identify with. It is culture and common heritage that binds people together, not a common currency or a single market, or the "nationality" that is written on your passport.

People with no history or sense of ethnicity are easier to manipulate and more prone to satisfy the lack of identity with consumerism. To close the gap that the lack of ethnic consciousness leaves, people follow trends that are promoted upon them, like fashion, music and products that are marketed towards them. The irony here is that they do so in order to belong and identify themselves with a wider, global community, by doing or having what everyone else has.

In this way we are creating a new kind of global, capitalist culture and identity and that is what the global capitalist elites are trying to do, by working on destroying nationalism and ethnic identity. First in Europe and then the world. And the fact that our governments condone with such thing for investments and money is shameful.

Gay and Human Rights in a Capitalist society: a necessity for consumerism.

In a previous article I have explained how women are being stereotyped and exploited by our modern capitalist, consumerist society. 

Sadly, as the capitalist system requires an ever expanding market, buying and working power to support it, women are not the only group of people who receive such treatment. 

And this is what I am going to analyze with this article.

Gay people, ethnic minorities and immigrants also play a role in our economic model. And this role is the driving force for the campaign for equal LGBT and human rights in most, but sadly not in all European countries.

We have to admit that the struggle for women’s or gay people's equality is partially driven not just by human rights, but also by the need of our capitalist system for more potential spenders. 

When women were not able to educate themselves or even work in most countries, they had no salary for themselves. And so they could not be counted as consumers or a potential market for products. Even if they did have any property in countries like Ireland, Britain or the USA, they had no right to it after they got married. 

But in a consumerist capitalist society, having half of your population idle with no income for themselves or spending power is illogical. So gradually we have witnessed the liberation of women and the establishment of equal rights for both males and females, something that would be unthinkable before.

And while a great amount of praise could be addressed to our leading elites for apparently allowing the promotion of human rights for women, their actions were assisted by a desire for more profit in the capitalist system. Women might have escaped the clutches of a severe patriarchal and absurd mentality, but that does not mean they are equal yet.

Women are still being subjected to stereotypes, though nowadays these stereotypes are not based on their role as home keepers, mothers, pillars of tradition, home-making and thrift for a successful household. Now they are merely a huge market for products that are necessary to keep our economy going. 

If they did not receive equal rights and payment as men, they would not be able to buy all those things that the media, particularly women's magazines are promoting in their pages. By establishing a very profitable business for them, they are creating a new role model and stereotype for females, that is pushed on them since their adolescence. 

On a similar note recently and increasingly, straight  and gay men also find themselves as subjects to stereotypes and role models. The fit, metro-sexual alpha straight male that is not afraid to spend money on his looks, while also spending hours in the gym to achieve the chiseled abs that the media and men magazines promote, is what most young men now aspire to.

This sad reality is even worse and vile in the case of gay men. After being subjected to centuries of ridicule, discrimination, violence and persecution now they are having the same treatment as women. Stereotypes are promoted on them, the so called "gay culture". Such "culture" may have risen from secret symbols and codes woven into an overall straight context, when homosexuality was banned everywhere. And it  began with wealthy homosexual men using the straight themes of these media to send their own signals. (Wikipedia).

Gay women come last as they find themselves in the worse position. Because they are women and gay, there are not even enough stereotypes made for them, as if they do not exist, while it is suggested that female homosexuality is on the same levels as that of the men. With few exceptions like TV presenter Ellen DeGeneres, they escape the attention of the media as society rarely bothers with them

Nowadays this "gay" culture combined with the commercialization of human social groups, has produced a stereotypical image of gay men and their role in a society. If you have any doubt about it, just close your eyes and think of anything "gay."

In case you thought of Madonna, Lady Ga-Ga, camp hair dressers or stylists that want to make naked women looking good, disco and colorful gay prides, then you probably have been watching too much television and you are brainwashed.

Homosexuality is not a "culture", it seized being one since gay sex has been decriminalized. Well at least it should have. It is not uncommon for older men and women divorcees, to be more open to it and exploring their sexuality more openly after being married all their lives.

The also stereotypical institution of marriage and the notion that it is a privilege only for straight people, is ridiculous as it is infuriating. Especially when we are witnessing a crisis in straight marriages in the developed countries, with a third ending up in divorce while another third being dysfunctional, sexless, loveless living arrangements.

You see once you liberate women from the clutches of the masculine hegemony, there is not always room for women's compliance to all the demands from men. And since many married men and women also engage, or have engaged at some stage in their lives in gay sex, it is clear that human sexuality is not a black and white situation, or a culture. All "shades of grey" are available between the two opposites. 

Instead of trying to promote stereotypes for people, we should allow everyone to have sex, love or marry anyone he or she wants. But then our image obsessed world would make no sense to us, especially to our capitalist elites who need stereotypes in order to file people and treat them accordingly. And so we are happy to label everyone, dictating how we deal with them and what he or she should be for us.

If a gay man still needs to go to a gay bar to socialize and find a person to love,because everywhere else is inappropriate then something is fundamentally wrong in our society. If a straight man can identify his masculinity only when he rejects "gay" attributions, habits and sex, or when he has sex solely with a female partner, then I am sorry but his so called masculinity is based on trivialities.

If a straight woman can be called successful and fulfilled only when she has a husband, a house with a mortgage, career, kids, a car just so to fit it with the general public, then also her happiness and fulfillment is based on pure materialism and outdated values.

Humans are not cattle to mate just for procreation. He are developed, emotional and as we would like to think of ourselves, spiritual beings. So why do we bring ourselves to the same level as animals? Even in nature homosexuality is not uncommon, so our whole social structure is based on the need to populate and colonize other continents during the European expansion, centuries back.

This stereotypical portrayal of ourselves leads to the commercialization of our gender, sexuality and race. And it is very important to the capitalist, consumerist societies that we live in, as we are bombarded with myriads of advertisements that are promoted role models for us to aspire. We are all turned into buyers as well as billboards, for companies to advertise their products with. We unwillingly become trade able commodities, as the population and its buying power or habits, are analyzed, categorized and exploited by the markets.

Either gay, straight, male or female, not only we got to play a certain role in our society according to established stereotypes, but we and our aspirations are also examined in order to create a consumer database. This database then creates certain products for certain groups of people and others for members of different groups. 

Sadly such attitudes also promote the eternal discrimination and injustice upon these groups in our society. If I am expected to act, behave, socialize and love in a certain way, do certain professions or engage in certain hobbies and activities in order to be accepted into the society I was born, then I am still not free and my human rights are merely rights to consume while I am being categorized by my choices.

And it gets worse. People of ethnic background or other races are also being categorized and exploited by such stereotypes. The immigrants usually do the jobs that the native population does not want to do, they work days that the mainly Christian European population would not want to. 

It is mainly the Muslim immigrants that work on Christmas Day for example, a holiday that is revered in many countries like Ireland and it is them that keep the shops open. A day that the market of a country is closed is lost revenue for the capitalists and so they promote multiculturalism in order to create a more vibrant working class.

The more variety in a population, the more things are to sell to them as their preferences differ and can be manipulated or categorized. I am not against multiculturalism, capitalism, gay people, straight women or men, but I wish we had the guts to proceed with true equality and not a skin deep one. 

And I also wish that stereotypes in our societies changed for real, not because they are necessary for capitalism but because it is not in our nature to live with them.

Women as a market from a Capitalist point of view.

We live in a consumerist society, in which our aspirations are defined by a collective set of values. These values are often either expressed or defined by our media, together with the numerous revenue enhancing advertisement campaigns that they run. 

That set of merits is ever changing according to the social, political or economic changes that a country goes through its history. By examining or studying a nation’s history of media, we can create an accurate profile of a society or the values its people adopt and why.

Print publications are the oldest form of mass media, with magazines playing a significant role. Their importance, form, content, narrative and "commerciality" have drastically been altered through the years, reflecting the changes taking place in our world.

As societies evolved, the role of men and women comprising them also did. Women in particular have been the focus of most major reforms. Gaining voting rights, or the right to work and own property, have been the most significant landmarks in the evolution of our modern societies. 

But according to many, that does not mean that women are not being subjected to pressure to conform to a different set of ideals. Their role this time is to be the driving force of the consumerist and capitalist system, by turning them into bigger and better consumers. 

This idea was expressed by an iconic feminist, Gloria Steinem. She is a political activist, author, editor, and all-around advocate for equality. Her ideas on the role of the media, especially those of the women’s magazines, help us understand that the reason women’s magazines look the way they look, is much less about readers than it is about advertisers. (1)

Advertisers simply won’t place advertisements in women’s magazines unless they write about their products. Other magazines may be punished if they write negatively about some product area, but only women’s magazines have to write positively or they don’t get advertisements in the first place. (1)

A lot that women liked very much has gone out of women’s magazines, like fiction and articles that just aren’t about products. Women’s magazine editors have to sneak in a couple pages here and there about something that isn’t a product. They are more like catalogs and should be given away free, according to Steinem. (1)

Fashion in particular has generally been conceived as a form of hegemonic oppression, exerting an obligation to conform that weighs heavily on the female population. Fashion photographs generate enormous dissatisfaction among women, because they create unrealistic expectations that most women are unable to meet. (2)

Feminists argue that media images of women are always directed at men and that women are encouraged to look at themselves and other women, the way men do. This view of hegemonic femininity, as the feminists believe, is incorporating masculine standards for female appearance that emphasize physical attributes and sexuality. (3)

Young girls in particular, often express unhappiness and dissatisfaction that the magazines portray an unrealistic female image, especially in terms of body shape. (4) The magazines’ editors’ claim, is that they cannot control the choices of photographers and art personnel. (5)

These artists allegedly perceive that a certain look will create the best image aesthetically and will be well received by their peers in the art world. So in addition to the advertisers who manufacture and sell beauty products, there are others in the industry that influence the images appearing in the media, especially photographers who want their pictures to be beautiful. (5)

There is also a lack of editorial control based on the direct and indirect influence of advertisers. The editors report that there is a strong connection between the editorial pages of the magazines and the advertisement ones, which are purchased by corporations to sell their products. (6)

Ultimately, advertising is the vehicle through which magazines and other media exist and they could not survive financially without it. So when the magazines are dependent on pleasing the advertisers, they struggle between the organization and the advertisers over how women should be portrayed. (6)

In this way, modern women are bombarded with myriads of advertisements that are promoted as role model for them to aspire. A role model who requires a lot of money to spend on cosmetics, plastic surgery, hair products, clothes and accessories, in order to fit in with the dominant image of a woman in our era. 

And so the struggle for women’s equality is partially driven not just by human rights, but also by the need of our capitalist system for more potential spenders. Ultimately women are perfect for that role, as to maintain the image that the media are promoting requires an ever increasing salary. 

In fact the late modernity unshackles women from the patriarchal past, when they had limited freedoms, rights, money and spending power. In post industrial times the “feminization” of labor, holds young women in high esteem as flexible, presentable and capable worker. Now the new feminine subject is economically independent, liberated from the domestic sphere, realizing the possibility of “having it all”. (7)

This commercialization of our gender, sexuality and race is very important to the capitalist, consumerist societies that we live in. We are all turned into buyers as well as billboards, for companies to advertise their products with. We unwillingly become trade-able commodities, as the population and its buying power or habits, are analyzed, categorized and exploited by the markets.

References:

1)      Gloria Steinem. Women who made History. Miss Omni Media. 

2)      Gender, Race and Class in Media. Gail Dines, Jean M. Humez. Sage Publications. 2003. Gender and Hegemony in Fashion Magazines. Page 314.

3)      Gender, Race and Class in Media. Gail Dines, Jean M. Humez. Sage Publications. 2003. Gender and Hegemony in Fashion Magazines. Page 315.

4)      The Gendered Society Reader. Michael S. Kimmel and Amy Aronson. Oxford University Press. 2008. Contested Images of Femininity. Page 371.

5)      The Gendered Society Reader. Michael S. Kimmel and Amy Aronson. Oxford University Press. 2008. Contested Images of Femininity. Page 372.

6)      The Gendered Society Reader. Michael S. Kimmel and Amy Aronson. Oxford University Press. 2008. Contested Images of Femininity. Page 373.

7)      Gender Youth and Culture. Global Masculinities and Femininities. Anoop Nayak and Mary Jane Kehily. Palgrave MacMillan Publishing. 2013. Gender relations in Late-Modernity: Young Femininities and the New Girl Order.