Many websites are blocked in Thailand. It's not overbearing, and Google is still permitted to record the existence of the blocked page. One curiosity is that many parts of the UK's daily mail are blocked. I thoroughly approve.
Tuesday, 23 December 2014
Thai brides
I can't not think about this, it's something that's in your face. The international couples are generally only split one way. You know the ones, old western man, much younger Thai woman. It's the kind of exploitative relationship that stories and media coverage had led me to expect. But of course it's not that so simple. Not to say awful things aren't happening, but its more complicated. For a while I'm ignoring the inevitable men who have bought a partner for sex and instead considering the couples.
It starts with spending a lot of time in a bar. The owner and her friends are all single mums, and while the father isn't totally absent from the lives of their children, it's monthly at best. 'Thai men no good' they joke. One small difference is the much older westerners are often planning to settle. (Though may eventually be absent from their children's lives for obvious reasons). It breaks the fantasy of the alternative being a perfect lifelong relationship simply because the culture is other and the imagination hadn't stretched to separation.
Its curious how they get along, with cultural and linguistic barriers. Some of the younger men who settle (late thirties or forties) have learned conversational Thai, but it seems the majority don't, even after a decade. They interact with the world through their partners, tourists still. Sometimes in the evenings two separate groups socialise in the same place, the ex-pats and the Thais, sitting interleaved. But there are other differences, the age can't be ignored. Sometimes their health seems failing and the Thai lady almost plays the part of nurse, maid and partner.
Money is the big inequality. The strongest argument is the dependence on money, would these relationships be happening without it. And it's true, when someone is relatively so much richer they can buy what they want. But this isn't completely fair on Thailand, it's not all abject poverty. I meet one woman, 44, complaining that her western boyfriend sends her barely more than a salary for sitting around in Chiang mai. She is rather displeased at the suggestion of working, though knows without a relationship this can't last forever. She says that for this business her looks will only last a couple of years. There is a small implication here, that women often work in Thailand. It actually does quite well in international comparisons of female entrepreneurs and small business ownership.
I've met two expats, one with his part Thai son, who were left by their Thai partners. I'm perhaps perverse in thinking that failure is a good sign, the more signs of free choice the better.
I'm careful to leave room for the awful things that are happening. The children forced into the industry, inequality, lack of choice. But it doesn't match what I expected to find, what could.
It starts with spending a lot of time in a bar. The owner and her friends are all single mums, and while the father isn't totally absent from the lives of their children, it's monthly at best. 'Thai men no good' they joke. One small difference is the much older westerners are often planning to settle. (Though may eventually be absent from their children's lives for obvious reasons). It breaks the fantasy of the alternative being a perfect lifelong relationship simply because the culture is other and the imagination hadn't stretched to separation.
Its curious how they get along, with cultural and linguistic barriers. Some of the younger men who settle (late thirties or forties) have learned conversational Thai, but it seems the majority don't, even after a decade. They interact with the world through their partners, tourists still. Sometimes in the evenings two separate groups socialise in the same place, the ex-pats and the Thais, sitting interleaved. But there are other differences, the age can't be ignored. Sometimes their health seems failing and the Thai lady almost plays the part of nurse, maid and partner.
Money is the big inequality. The strongest argument is the dependence on money, would these relationships be happening without it. And it's true, when someone is relatively so much richer they can buy what they want. But this isn't completely fair on Thailand, it's not all abject poverty. I meet one woman, 44, complaining that her western boyfriend sends her barely more than a salary for sitting around in Chiang mai. She is rather displeased at the suggestion of working, though knows without a relationship this can't last forever. She says that for this business her looks will only last a couple of years. There is a small implication here, that women often work in Thailand. It actually does quite well in international comparisons of female entrepreneurs and small business ownership.
I've met two expats, one with his part Thai son, who were left by their Thai partners. I'm perhaps perverse in thinking that failure is a good sign, the more signs of free choice the better.
I'm careful to leave room for the awful things that are happening. The children forced into the industry, inequality, lack of choice. But it doesn't match what I expected to find, what could.
Thursday, 11 December 2014
Candide, the optimist. But perhaps only if you know the fast show.
Sometimes things do come together rather well. I had in mind to visit, and recklessly swim in, a lake I'd spotted on google maps. The lady from the guest house was rather helpful and after warning I wouldn't find anywhere to stay, she gave me a lift to the bus station, and we arrived just as a shared taxi service was getting ready to set off, which was nice.
I did have to take a fairly expensive motorcycle sidecar from the turning on the main road, but reached the dam in one piece. And then as I was studying the board of entry fees fearing some inflated foreigner rate, the national park guard just waved me in for free, which was nice.
The houseboats were surprisingly reasonable, but indeed the accommodation in town was rather on the expensive side. I think 8 separate bungalows with a swimming pool stretches the definition of a 'homestay' just a little, perhaps in fact bordering on 'family run resort'. I stopped at a cafe, and making small talk with the locals, who had a good laugh at my attempting all this without a vehicle, they directed me to the next town and gave me a lift to the main road, which was nice.
There was a wonderful sense of adventure striding out on the road in the bright sun, but naturally after a few km, or kilos as they are known here, I began to tire. And just then, a big black pickup truck came along, and i can tell you, sitting on the back of this there was quite a breeze, which was nice.
At the next turning I was quite out of luck for the stream of pickups, the de facto Thai rural 4-wheeled vehicle, didn't slow. But checking the maps there was a 'forest park' just a kilometre up the road, and by chance just as I reached the spot a sign for a resort. I was led to a private wooden bungalow, with attached bathroom and a terrace with a wonderful position looking out from a hill over the forest, and all for a more than reasonable 200B, which was nice.
The forest park didn't seem to be anything worthwhile, but the maps indicated another feature, a waterfall. At just 3km this seemed an easy walk and pleasantly the last half of the walk was well shaded. Fearful of the Chiang Mai pricing I was well prepared to turn back at the checkpoint, you only pay 100baht to see a waterfall once, but as luck would have it the checkpoint was unmanned, and you wouldn't believe it what a wonderful waterfall it was. There was even a crystal clear spring, which was nice.
Trudging back to the village, after all the other tourists had departed, I was caught by the last of the staff, and was able to get a lift all the way back for dinner. And it was just after dinner that I remembered there was a lake in town, which I reached in time for sunset, which was nice.
Needles to say, I needed the rest. The next morning I had barely stepped out of my room when I noticed two, what I now know to be, lantern bugs, or cock's spurs translated from the Thai, which was nice.
Waiting beside the road an engineer, briefly stopping, offered me a lift to the next town and after some small confusion regarding the inclusion of breakfast, dropped me at the resort where he was staying. He even let me use his bicycle, which was nice.
And as I cycled about the large lake, for this town was at the extreme other end of the lake I first set out to visit, I encountered some women hand dyeing cotton. A lady invited me in to the large shed of looms and balls of cotton. As it turns out this was a development project, and I, the ultimate cynic regarding any claim, was able to pick up a genuinely hand dyed and woven scarf for just £3, which was nice.
And that, mother, is why you are getting a scarf this year.
I did have to take a fairly expensive motorcycle sidecar from the turning on the main road, but reached the dam in one piece. And then as I was studying the board of entry fees fearing some inflated foreigner rate, the national park guard just waved me in for free, which was nice.
The houseboats were surprisingly reasonable, but indeed the accommodation in town was rather on the expensive side. I think 8 separate bungalows with a swimming pool stretches the definition of a 'homestay' just a little, perhaps in fact bordering on 'family run resort'. I stopped at a cafe, and making small talk with the locals, who had a good laugh at my attempting all this without a vehicle, they directed me to the next town and gave me a lift to the main road, which was nice.
There was a wonderful sense of adventure striding out on the road in the bright sun, but naturally after a few km, or kilos as they are known here, I began to tire. And just then, a big black pickup truck came along, and i can tell you, sitting on the back of this there was quite a breeze, which was nice.
At the next turning I was quite out of luck for the stream of pickups, the de facto Thai rural 4-wheeled vehicle, didn't slow. But checking the maps there was a 'forest park' just a kilometre up the road, and by chance just as I reached the spot a sign for a resort. I was led to a private wooden bungalow, with attached bathroom and a terrace with a wonderful position looking out from a hill over the forest, and all for a more than reasonable 200B, which was nice.
The forest park didn't seem to be anything worthwhile, but the maps indicated another feature, a waterfall. At just 3km this seemed an easy walk and pleasantly the last half of the walk was well shaded. Fearful of the Chiang Mai pricing I was well prepared to turn back at the checkpoint, you only pay 100baht to see a waterfall once, but as luck would have it the checkpoint was unmanned, and you wouldn't believe it what a wonderful waterfall it was. There was even a crystal clear spring, which was nice.
Trudging back to the village, after all the other tourists had departed, I was caught by the last of the staff, and was able to get a lift all the way back for dinner. And it was just after dinner that I remembered there was a lake in town, which I reached in time for sunset, which was nice.
Needles to say, I needed the rest. The next morning I had barely stepped out of my room when I noticed two, what I now know to be, lantern bugs, or cock's spurs translated from the Thai, which was nice.
Waiting beside the road an engineer, briefly stopping, offered me a lift to the next town and after some small confusion regarding the inclusion of breakfast, dropped me at the resort where he was staying. He even let me use his bicycle, which was nice.
And as I cycled about the large lake, for this town was at the extreme other end of the lake I first set out to visit, I encountered some women hand dyeing cotton. A lady invited me in to the large shed of looms and balls of cotton. As it turns out this was a development project, and I, the ultimate cynic regarding any claim, was able to pick up a genuinely hand dyed and woven scarf for just £3, which was nice.
And that, mother, is why you are getting a scarf this year.
Friday, 5 December 2014
Food with a lid
There is a shrimp salad served in Thailand where the lid is an essential part of the dish. You wouldn't want your lunch escaping.
Tuesday, 2 December 2014
Myanmar
I've been to the river a few times, just a military outpost on the other side to mark Myanmar's presence. It seems mismatched, the Thai side has a small town with a customs hut. Obama visited the country a while ago and for a while the world commented that despite some talk of democracy little had happened. Among the Karen community the story is worse, apparently the refugees are being pressured to return to Myanmar by the Thai government but arrive back with nothing. They speak of government troops shelling a Karen meeting just weeks before, Myanmar hasn't reformed, it's just open for business. I started to have these doubts months before when Myanmar kicked out Medcin Sans Frontiers, those known troublemakers dealing with the Ebola epidemic, for providing medical care to the Muslim minority. It's not ethical tourism, it's just a military backed government with allegations of rights abuses. But then I'm standing in one of those right now.
Tony Blair
The political section of the news is dictated by a government spokesman. There is no avoiding it, it's on all the channels. Its a long list of ways the government is working tirelessly for the good of the country and should probably be backed by moving music... and played in North Korea. Among the highlights of their honest endeavours to make Thailand better, a meeting with Tony Blair. On the agenda, working towards democracy. Thailand had a democracy, this group overthrew it. There must be a minimum period where such claims are treated with due contempt. A local thumps the remote control, the government is hated here.
Military uniforms
Yet another country where the ceremonial military uniforms and parades are curiously styled on the British. No idea how that could have happened.
Tuesday, 25 November 2014
Pick up artists
The world is not fair. This might seem like an irrelevant point to begin on, but it's at the root of all problems. Some of the unfairness can be reduced by systems we construct, but if you remember the line from the propaganda officer in the film 'enemy at the gates', not all. "In this world, even a soviet one, there will always be rich and poor". The situation he speaks of is love, but there are many others.
The idea of pick-up artists seems sick, that women can be manipulated into giving up their bodies, and that it is a skill. But it's obvious the 'artists' themselves are hateful, as are the Westboro Baptist Church, what causes concern is their popularity. (Here I have to say Magnolia is a great film, with a good performance by Tom Cruise as a pick up artist with a hidden history.)
The popularity is a necessary part of the trade. Pick-up artists make money from what they do, from followers, so what they say must appeal to some people. The question is why. As a side note it also raises the possibility that they don't in fact believe in what they say and are simply taking money from desperate men (whilst spreading dangerous ideas). Much as the profitability of evangelical preaching casts doubts on the true belief of the preachers, or equally the honesty of a man who sells tips on horses. Where speaking words is remunerated, it raises the possibility these words are spoken without belief. I once read in shock an anti-scientific 'article' suggesting Ebola was a conspiracy by the vaccine industry. But following the article to it's source I noticed that the website had an abundance of adverts targeting suggestible people. I realised there was no point asking if the author actually believed the text, dangerous in encouraging anti-vaccine sentiment, as it was profitable to bring in readers. It's harder to argue with someone who doesn't believe what they say!
But, whether true believers or merely amoral motivational speakers, people pay for their lessons. Who? Let's assume men who match the following
They have no success with women, or perceive that they have less success than others are having
Its possible there are 'successful' men who simply want more, I wouldn't want to leave alternatives to my assumption unmentioned.
The first response, as others have written, is that they are making a mistake. They have chosen the wrong solution to remedy their position. Women don't exist to serve them, they aren't owed sex, they need to start treating women as free human beings. Women are not a homogenous group that has slighted them, but independent free individuals. Perhaps that they need to change themselves to become desirable, instead of relying on deception. The 'friend zone' is simply a typically male construct to justify hatred towards women who don't return 'friendship' with sex. Where there is the anger at not being seen as a potential partner, there should be acceptance.
But, suppose they begin to treat women as human beings, what if they are still rejected. Here is the point: sexual selection is 'unfair'. To clarify what I mean by fairness, that we are not born with equal opportunity to attract a partner, or the partner that we desire. Outside of Disney movies love is not destined, appearance and perhaps innate personality are factors. I'd like to think the importance of superficial traits is something that greatly reduces with thought and consideration, but can anyone say that their selection of partners was completely free of physical attraction. After all, we're talking about sexual partners, a biological drive, not our platonic friends.
An old wisdom is that everyone is different, and perhaps that there is someone for everyone. It seems reasonable that each person's desires are different, but different does not mean uncorrelated, or specifically matching the distribution of available traits. You might think of the issue of body size, where yes, contrary to the homogenised ideal of the media, some men like curves. And when curvy was the ideal, some men liked skinny. But what about something subtle, good skin, or facial symmetry. To use the most dangerous phrase in ill informed blogging, 'studies have shown that' facial symmetry is important in attraction. Height in men is also correlated with first impression attractiveness. I've chosen these two examples because they are reasonably accepted, as statistical trends not hard and fast rules, whether your friend Jane happens to like short men or not. It's easy for us to see that peacock with fewer eyes is less attractive to potential partners, but do we apply the same to humans. Simply because the brain is a measure of fitness does not mean we've escaped selection.
In short, I've tried to demonstrate that it is possible to be physically less attractive, and that this isn't explained away by 'everyone is different'. Even if we each had a match who we found desirable, we are jealous and competitive beings, and it would never be equal. But isn't this obvious? Well what if there is a systematic tendency by the attractive, where I include myself, because attractive in this case means able to attract the partner they desire, to dismiss the plight of the less attractive. We would feel better about our own achievement if it wasn't simply something we were born with, and wouldn't have to imagine the suffering of others. Why should someone 'ugly' have any less drive to find a partner, but none of the success. If you don't believe this, why is desperation so frightening to see?
Perhaps I was started into this way of thinking by a documentary following a number of disabled people. The father of one man took him to a brothel once yearly, so he could experience what he was missing. I don't want to start on the issue of prostitution, but isn't there an acceptance in this act of his position regarding sexual selection. The people at the bottom may resort to less pleasant actions. Men who pay for sex, or training in the hope deceit can get them what they feel they lack, women who pay for cosmetic surgery, turn to anorexia, suffer body hatred, competing with the attractiveness of others. People who are deprived of what others enjoy.
This is an exaggeration, but if it exists, what does it mean. Well, sadly that pick up artists and diet book pedlars will always have a target market. That you can't pretend that for these people everything will be alright if they respect themselves and the opposite sex. That expecting these people to be content constitutes a form of denial, but with the note that understanding motivations doesn't imply justification or support.
In some ways the problem arises because partners are symbols of success. Try and picture someone successful, they are probably also attractive? If we want to lower the pressure we need to decouple the ideas of personal success and having a partner or sexual success. To reduce the sensation that everyone else is having more success, that we are liable to feel. To challenge the ideas of the normality of finding a partner. For the happy couples not to boast their joy. What if simply promoting your joy can reduce someone else's.
Of course it isn't all perception, loneliness exists. We can hope the less often selected find deep and meaningful relationships, perhaps in being lost something stronger. But never pretend life is fair. Never say there is someone for everyone. And if you are so smart that your matching algorithm has succeeded for all humanity I'm very curious to know how you've matched up India and China's 30 million (each) surplus men.
The idea of pick-up artists seems sick, that women can be manipulated into giving up their bodies, and that it is a skill. But it's obvious the 'artists' themselves are hateful, as are the Westboro Baptist Church, what causes concern is their popularity. (Here I have to say Magnolia is a great film, with a good performance by Tom Cruise as a pick up artist with a hidden history.)
The popularity is a necessary part of the trade. Pick-up artists make money from what they do, from followers, so what they say must appeal to some people. The question is why. As a side note it also raises the possibility that they don't in fact believe in what they say and are simply taking money from desperate men (whilst spreading dangerous ideas). Much as the profitability of evangelical preaching casts doubts on the true belief of the preachers, or equally the honesty of a man who sells tips on horses. Where speaking words is remunerated, it raises the possibility these words are spoken without belief. I once read in shock an anti-scientific 'article' suggesting Ebola was a conspiracy by the vaccine industry. But following the article to it's source I noticed that the website had an abundance of adverts targeting suggestible people. I realised there was no point asking if the author actually believed the text, dangerous in encouraging anti-vaccine sentiment, as it was profitable to bring in readers. It's harder to argue with someone who doesn't believe what they say!
But, whether true believers or merely amoral motivational speakers, people pay for their lessons. Who? Let's assume men who match the following
They have no success with women, or perceive that they have less success than others are having
Its possible there are 'successful' men who simply want more, I wouldn't want to leave alternatives to my assumption unmentioned.
The first response, as others have written, is that they are making a mistake. They have chosen the wrong solution to remedy their position. Women don't exist to serve them, they aren't owed sex, they need to start treating women as free human beings. Women are not a homogenous group that has slighted them, but independent free individuals. Perhaps that they need to change themselves to become desirable, instead of relying on deception. The 'friend zone' is simply a typically male construct to justify hatred towards women who don't return 'friendship' with sex. Where there is the anger at not being seen as a potential partner, there should be acceptance.
But, suppose they begin to treat women as human beings, what if they are still rejected. Here is the point: sexual selection is 'unfair'. To clarify what I mean by fairness, that we are not born with equal opportunity to attract a partner, or the partner that we desire. Outside of Disney movies love is not destined, appearance and perhaps innate personality are factors. I'd like to think the importance of superficial traits is something that greatly reduces with thought and consideration, but can anyone say that their selection of partners was completely free of physical attraction. After all, we're talking about sexual partners, a biological drive, not our platonic friends.
An old wisdom is that everyone is different, and perhaps that there is someone for everyone. It seems reasonable that each person's desires are different, but different does not mean uncorrelated, or specifically matching the distribution of available traits. You might think of the issue of body size, where yes, contrary to the homogenised ideal of the media, some men like curves. And when curvy was the ideal, some men liked skinny. But what about something subtle, good skin, or facial symmetry. To use the most dangerous phrase in ill informed blogging, 'studies have shown that' facial symmetry is important in attraction. Height in men is also correlated with first impression attractiveness. I've chosen these two examples because they are reasonably accepted, as statistical trends not hard and fast rules, whether your friend Jane happens to like short men or not. It's easy for us to see that peacock with fewer eyes is less attractive to potential partners, but do we apply the same to humans. Simply because the brain is a measure of fitness does not mean we've escaped selection.
In short, I've tried to demonstrate that it is possible to be physically less attractive, and that this isn't explained away by 'everyone is different'. Even if we each had a match who we found desirable, we are jealous and competitive beings, and it would never be equal. But isn't this obvious? Well what if there is a systematic tendency by the attractive, where I include myself, because attractive in this case means able to attract the partner they desire, to dismiss the plight of the less attractive. We would feel better about our own achievement if it wasn't simply something we were born with, and wouldn't have to imagine the suffering of others. Why should someone 'ugly' have any less drive to find a partner, but none of the success. If you don't believe this, why is desperation so frightening to see?
Perhaps I was started into this way of thinking by a documentary following a number of disabled people. The father of one man took him to a brothel once yearly, so he could experience what he was missing. I don't want to start on the issue of prostitution, but isn't there an acceptance in this act of his position regarding sexual selection. The people at the bottom may resort to less pleasant actions. Men who pay for sex, or training in the hope deceit can get them what they feel they lack, women who pay for cosmetic surgery, turn to anorexia, suffer body hatred, competing with the attractiveness of others. People who are deprived of what others enjoy.
This is an exaggeration, but if it exists, what does it mean. Well, sadly that pick up artists and diet book pedlars will always have a target market. That you can't pretend that for these people everything will be alright if they respect themselves and the opposite sex. That expecting these people to be content constitutes a form of denial, but with the note that understanding motivations doesn't imply justification or support.
In some ways the problem arises because partners are symbols of success. Try and picture someone successful, they are probably also attractive? If we want to lower the pressure we need to decouple the ideas of personal success and having a partner or sexual success. To reduce the sensation that everyone else is having more success, that we are liable to feel. To challenge the ideas of the normality of finding a partner. For the happy couples not to boast their joy. What if simply promoting your joy can reduce someone else's.
Of course it isn't all perception, loneliness exists. We can hope the less often selected find deep and meaningful relationships, perhaps in being lost something stronger. But never pretend life is fair. Never say there is someone for everyone. And if you are so smart that your matching algorithm has succeeded for all humanity I'm very curious to know how you've matched up India and China's 30 million (each) surplus men.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)