Posted 26 апреля 2021, 14:36
Published 26 апреля 2021, 14:36
Modified 25 декабря 2022, 20:57
Updated 25 декабря 2022, 20:57
Alina Vitukhnovskaya, writer
Someone even wrote: "It's no wonder with all her biography!"... I wonder what kind of biography he himself does have? Obviously, none.
The topic was thrown up by a well-known TV journalist, and supported by a well-known political scientist. The rest flocked like crows to "everything is allowed".
Someone asks the question: "Isn't that why they change their appearance to be discussed?" I answer. No, not for that. Appearance is for yourself. To look in the mirror. Then is all the rest.
They talk about the lack of emotional intelligence as a vice. But this absence can be hidden. Here we are dealing with pseudointellectual gopnicity. Scratch another intellectual, you will get a gopnik - this is a well-known fact. Since childhood, suffocating in the stranglehold of cultural norms, these intellectuals want to finally relieve tension, loosen the collar. And here we see not only a lack of emotional intelligence, but also a lack of understanding of the rational (beneficial).
Well, it's not profitable for a political scientist to laugh at the singer! Politics is about understanding benefits. Including in the first place. Building reasonable behavior in connection with this and including. That is why Russian politics is turning into a kitchen grumbling, into a neurotic KSP. And Russian journalism - into yellow-fresh snobbery.
Naturally, any public figure will be discussed in one way or another. And not only his professional activity, but also his appearance and personal life. However, there is text and there is context. When appearance is discussed in the yellow media or even in gloss, this is understandable and acceptable. When a political, liberal publication begins to abuse this practice, it looks somewhat different and already resembles bullying. Not to mention that this is evidence of extreme unprofessionalism.
I would not have written on this topic, if not for the combination of circumstances. The same context as mentioned above. That is, if such a discussion took place in the free nineties, most likely, I would think that the one who started it is not a very ethical person and would forget about him forever. Now the situation is radically different. We live in a completely authoritarian state, where the alternative liberal-democratic media - one, two and too many. And that's why their reputations and the reputations of their employees are so important. Not only from a political, but also from a moral and ethical point of view. All this, let us note, is taking place against the background of the persecution and the actual elimination of alternative media resources. So on April 23, 2021, the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation added Meduza to the list of foreign agents. In this extreme situation, we must behave with particular dignity, not being like the systemic agitprop, who have long since turned their texts into a yellow-brown mess.
So the journalist Anton Krasovsky, trying to awkwardly ironic over the protesters, said: "Children are coming, shouting: "We are power here". I want to declare to you responsibly - we are the authorities here. And we will not give you this power and never, do not even hope". Of course, Krasovsky is not power at all. This is a penny systemic clown, such owners are the first to be consumed.
Naturally, the boundaries of what is permissible cannot be set from the outside. Otherwise, we will slip into the Soviet censorship. Or in the modern "politically correct", which is no better, and often more absurd than the totalitarian practices of the past. The boundaries of what is permitted must be set by the subject himself. And then a logical question arises - why doesn't he do it? I am sure that the journalist who allowed herself to discuss the appearance of Zhanna Aguzarova understands perfectly well that this is “not that level”, but she just decided to “pamper herself”. Alas, part of the liberal Russian elite, the so-called get-together, the flesh of the Soviet "elite", in fact - farts, still believes that they have more privileges than others.
And then I would be silent. Because I'm a liberal myself. And at first glance, it is politically unprofitable for me to present my colleagues with convictions, albeit sometimes nominal ones, in an unpleasant light. However, what I see is what everyone else sees. No, I'm not clinically principled and I'm ready to close my eyes for a lot. But now I see a sort of overkill in snobbery, which threatens to turn into open conflict between social strata (or classes - in the old fashioned way). Therefore, for me, this situation has become the very symbolic, significant event when I see an urgent need for myself to "decisively and definitely dissociate" from these people.
To my poll on Facebook on the topic of the article, the answers were distributed as follows.
The artist Tatyana Kuzmina-Chugunova believes that “...this is the height of tactlessness, bad manners, especially if the departure from the topic - is going into the discussion of the “personal”.
Another user added, “Talking about looks is generally inappropriate anywhere! This is baseness! "
Political blogger Yegor Sedov notes: “When everything else is such that there is nowhere to put the stigma. Then you can talk about appearance. But only after everything else - just as an example of the harmony of external and internal".
The comments on Facebook from the journalist herself were not unambiguous. I will cite only a couple of the most decent ones that sounded in support of the singer.
“This woman can afford to look whatever she wants. Sometimes it seems to me that all this shocking, so that people will notice something else in her besides the voice. 35 years ago, sitting in the yard with a cassette recorder, we listened to her singing, discussed. And one boy said, “What difference does it make how she looks? Her vooooice! " Nothing has changed for me".
“…Zhanna is very talented and vulnerable, and yet, it seems, is an honest person: I don’t remember that she sat down, pushed her elbows, sold herself for the opportunity of a successful career. Inappropriate and harsh "wit".
Zhanna Aguzarova is a star and a symbol of the free 1990s. Freedom then went to all of us, including the so-called systemic liberals, whose interests are represented by the above-described journalist, practically for nothing. But freedom comes naked. And he leaves too. Leading both ethics and decency. Alas.