When "brick house" isn't just a figure of speech

O, just while i'm idling, thought i'd drop a link to one of my most favoritest websites ever: by a woman who takes "objectification" to a whole new level. Objectum-sexuality, she's dubbed it. Specifically, she herself is married to her true love, the Berlin Wall.

With the Berlin Wall and some other constructions it is mainly what they look like. This is not as obvious and superficial as it sounds. For me to be attracted by a construction, it must be a construction with parallel lines, usually horizontal. I also find other manufactured things look good, as Bridges, Fences, Railroad Tracks, Gates... All these things have two things in common. They are rectangular, they have parallel lines, and all of them divide something. This is what physically attracts me.

The purpose of the construction is completely irrelevant in this connection. So for instance The Berlin Wall symbolizes communism and oppression to many people but not to me. I am not interested in politics. The Berlin Wall is my spouse, it is as simple as so.

...I also believe in Reincarnation, that I have had relations to Fences, Walls, Bridges, Gates and other constructions in an earlier life, and that our paths have crossed several times. I have memories from these earlier lives. But of course I can't prove it.

My attraction to the Berlin Wall and other constructions is BOTH emotional AND sexual. I love them as beings (I use this word intentionally here). I enjoy their company… and I catch fire sexually on the Berlin Wall. I also find other constructions sexy, but it is a question of the above-mentioned things: Fences, Walls, Bridges, Railway Rails, Gates…. My sexual feelings towards them are very intense. All these things I was attracted to in the sixties. The Berlin Wall in 1961 when he was built. Also other Walls from the beginning of the sixties, followed by Fences and Bridges. The others "came" later in the middle of the sixties. My feelings for the Berlin Wall are far deeper than what most people believe.

...actually in a way, while she loves objects, she goes out of her way to -not- be objectifying, if you get what I mean:

It is simply to be emotionally and sexually attracted to OBJECTS, things - not human beings or similar, but if you would have any chance to understand this, or get a true picture of it, I think it is very important to know the back-ground, and the ground ideas of persons who are objectúm-sexual: We believe that all objects (things) are LIVING and having a SOUL, (Animism). I think that is very important to see objects as living, if one should be able to fall in love with an object. I have met several people who are of the same, and more people than you might would think, believe in Animism, that also objects are living things and having a soul.

If one can see objects as living things, it is also pretty close to be able to fall in love with them. After all, there are many different sexualities -- if you care to look around. To have make love with a thing isn't any more difficult than having sex it with a man or woman. To be objectúm-sexual and having sex with an object, is NOT the same thing as masturbation, because in masturbation one doesn't see the object as LIVING, one does often dream about a person or something. In objectúm-sexuality one has sex with the object because one loves the object itself. That is a big difference.

...To be attracted to things (which this really is about) IS built on Animism. I relate to things in the same way as when many people relate to other people. And here one can put the blame on the valuations of society that in many cultures are based on Christianity – but what says that man is "the Crown of Creation"? Nothing!!! We share this planet with other beings like animals, things etc. We have all the same worth independent of what we are – an object, an animal or a human being or a plant if it comes to that.

I understand that all this may be difficult to understand for many people, but this is something that really is included in Freedom and the individual's right to choose his own way and be respected for it. I don't harm anybody with my love for the Berlin Wall and other things, nor do they.

If you have questions about this I should be glad to answer them. I am very open and broad-minded. Anyhow I WANT to be it. We all have to live on this earth and the only way to peace, friendship and freedom is accepting and respecting even if one doesn't understand. As long as nobody is injured all is well.

It's kind of sweet, really.

Although, talking of "injured," i do worry a bit: she doesn't really say much about how she consummated the marriage.

I guess some things are just private...

What part of "It's a cookbook! It's a COOKBOOK!!" did you not understand?

Over the way at Three Bulls!, commenter The Uncanny Canadian brings us this tidbit from some person somewhere or other moniker'd Boudiccia:

Our dear dear Boudiccia has finally explained the rationale for sodomy, thank goodness. I thought when I last engaged in sodomy, it was just for fun, but it turns out that my motives were much much darker:

I am tired of sodomites and their attempts to catch and rape our children. This is the ultimate goal of their agenda and same sex marriage, rights to adopt children, partner insurance benefits, hate crime legislation, and other demands are steps to this goal. They are not gay at all, for gay is a lovely word meaning happy and jovial, but are self-loathing monsterswho hate being the degenerate beings they are and so they take it out on our children, abusing and raping them to make them into the same degenerate creatures as they are. I bet some of them members of the city government in Philedelphia are membersof NAMBLA, or why would they make demands for this Boy Scout Council to admit sodomite leaders?

As I said over there, I consider this a (tacky, polyblend) gauntlet:

I am tired of sodomites and their attempts to catch and rape our children. This is the ultimate goal of their agenda

I resent that vicious slander. What kind of unmotivated, unambitious layabouts would we be if -that- were our “ultimate goal?” Ffs, that’s just warming up. That’s not even getting to the -eating.- Let alone the part where we TAKE OVER THE WORLD, PINKY!!! Not to mention the Sadeian mass orgies in the public square, the public disembowelment of Christians, and of course the really snazzy assless black leather uniforms with built-in electrified metal strapons and little pink triangles over each nipple (all three of ‘em; enforced extreme bodymod is also part of the Agenda, natch).

jeez, lady. What do you take us for, anyway?

Further lessons on what is, and is not, "shocking," or "offensive:"

Over at International Ballistic Cuntensquirten, R Mildred schools some person indulging herself in a typically dreary and timidly "daring" whinge about how she's "sick of political correctness." Very Huck Finn, that whole thing, you know, the p.c. proponents are trying to repress our natural exuberance and creativity when they say, y'know, maybe the 9999th BRILLIANT photoshopp'd blackface or saying "ching chong ching chong" is not the best way to win friends and influence people, and we're all kind of sick of it. You know, because leftists and progressives and liberals are all just like the sivilizin' ladies at a tea party, all concerned with MANNERS instead of y'know important shit.

so R Mildred channels her inner Emily Post as well as her outer Henri Bergson and explains it all:

Damn the Black Jewish Female Hispanics who wadded up my silken panties!

So here's the blatantly obvious: Political Correctness is racist.

Yes, I know, they actually brought me down to their level of pathetic-obviousness-cum-revelatory-gnostic-truth, but it obviously needed saying by a non-idiot.

Why is it racist though? Ah yes, I know, I know, "because political correctness is a term for the 'polite' 'civil' and otherwise politically acceptable ways for white people to screw over the downpressed, hence the name 'political correctness'", I know that, and you know that, but the poor little dearie at violent acres doesn't, nor do any of the other half witted o'rly-wannabe buffoons out there.

it's not their fault, they're stupid, it doesn't make them bad people.

The fact that they seem to wallow in these childish cries for attention they portray as "humor" at the expense of oppressed people does however make them both bad people, and even worse than that: Bad comedians.

...Now political correctness, as its name suggests, is the process and phenomenon where by white people now say and do certain things in a way that is politically acceptable.

What political correctness isn't, is black people, or jews or whoever getting pissed off and threatening white people until they shut up. Alas, it'd be nice if it was because then white people, who for some reason are deeply in love with sucking authoritive cock, wouldn't go about being deeply pleased that they can still verbally whip the plantation slaves, but it isn't.

What it is then, is that politicial correctness is racism via other means - white people aren't allowed to call black people niggers in public these days, not because it pisses off black people, but because it interrupts the business of screwing over black people through politically correct methods, because actually locking black people up by their ankles and forcing them to work for no money is only acceptable, if the black people in question can be labelled "criminals" in some way.

For instance, it is politically incorrect to call a black person "nigger", it is however politically correct to try to drown a city full of poor black people through gross incompetence.

Slavery is not politically correct, but maintaining a system of immigration laws and policies that enable white businesses to efficiently control non-white laborers through fear of deportment, incarceration and direct physical violence so that the non-white laborers are working for next to no pay , is politically correct.
...

...Asking "can't we just discuss keeping this minority from having full civil rights under law for the most asinine of reasons?" is PC, saying "I hate homosexuals" is not PC.

Saying "Affirmative Action means giving jobs and college places away to unqualified people" is both inaccurate, a lie, and deeply deeply Politically Correct.

On the other hand, saying "the legacy system and old boy network gives jobs and college places to unqualified people, and has in the last 6 years led ot the deaths of several thousand americans through incompetent people being placed into positions that required competent people - but at least they were white unqualified people, and most of the people they killed were either poor or black so that's alright then" is not PC.

"class war" is un-PC, "eminent domain" is PC.

"Anti-PC" is PC , "bigotry" isn't.

Are we seeing a pattern here yet?

much more


As always, Black Amazon has some choice words as well:

I'm bone tired and I cant even work up a head of steam about it anymore.

So I'll just go as methodically as I can because it is exhausting and while I would never willingly contribute to this massive show of ego. I need to say something as it is coming up over and over again in colleges and classrooms and far and wide.

Yes some of us are fucking children.

Some of us still believe that whatever we want to say should have no consequences what so ever.

That you should be able to say whatever you want and do whatever you want no consequences while claiming your rampant entitlement is " Good"for race/gender relations.

...You think we don't know. You think we don't know you say that shit in private.

Oh wait that's right, people haven't stopped saying that shit in public.

N****** is not a slip of the tongue.

Niether is coon. or gook. or chink. or mutt. I've been called all these things often with threats on my life.

The just words argument never addresses history. When someone whose never been called those things whines about how hard it makes things now, never about the reality of how the taboo was created.

That it wasn't just benevolent people in the sky who made these decisions, but blood tears,camps,death that make such terms so visceral and disturbing...

You see for people like this in their safe " I can retreat if I want to " enclaves they want special dispensation to say whatever. They want to continue to speak how they spoke before they had to consider others.

It's not fear , but pique...

They want to curb your ability to voice your displeasure by co-opting the terminology of tolerance.

Another good post from the badger that is stealthy

(i'm really digging this guy):

"Our tribe."

When we see someone frothing at the mouth, pontificating almost without reference to the points being thrown back at them, what is really going on? When someone whose arguments have been pounded into scrap suddenly pauses and says with the slightest of smiles, “well I just don’t believe it,” what the hell just happened in that person’s head? When someone who knows they’re not going to convince you keeps pounding away without mercy or reason, what are they doing? What, besides adrenaline, causes some people to love heated dispute, and to actively seek it out? Why are people, and that includes you, sometimes driven to moments where you say “if only they could just see how wrong they are?” If you have been maddened by this before, and even later wondered at your own willingness to skip over a shaky bit of reasoning in order to state a conclusion that you’re not completely comfortable with, and wondering why exactly you felt good about doing it at all, the answer is pretty simple: endorphins. Part of the package you get from being human is a system for rewarding group identification.

When you affirm your beliefs (which ultimately in our inner world defines who is tribe and who is not), you feel a glow of warmth. When you reject someone else’s that conflict with your own, you feel it too, in addition to whatever turmoil the discussion may have stirred up. When you are forced to be polite to someone who you feel is “other,” it’s a horribly disorienting thing. It literally feels good now and then to think in your heart that freepers are idiots, because you’re affirming membership in your own tribe. It’s not a simple thing, it’s not by far the only thing that acts within us, but ignoring it is like pretending you don’t blink. This isn’t thought control, though through repetition and symbol abuse, it can certainly push your buttons. It isn’t a tinfoil-hat theory, this is just part of how your head is put together. It isn’t good or evil, but it isn’t particularly well adapted to modern society.

... Our brains are wired to make our bonds with the group we belong to more important than anything else, which is what makes a sociopath so terrifying to society at large - whatever makes that connection give you a warm, fuzzy feeling inside just isn’t working.

So what can you do? If this is the way it works, then isn’t any attempt to fight it doomed to failure? It’s not like you can pull that part of your brain out, and there’s certainly no way to counter it any more than you can “make” someone stop drinking, right?

Yes and no.

Yes, it’s always there, but there are ways to turn it from a weakness into a strength without jumping feet-first into a moral slime-pit. The very, very first thing you need to do when confronted with this behavior is to get over yourself. Nothing productive is going to happen as long as you and whoever you’re arguing with are feeding each other’s endorphin/adrenaline habit. Second, recognize that you have no power in the situation over anyone or anything but yourself. On the other hand, unless you’re strapped into a restraint chair in an interrogation room, no-one has any power over you that you do not give them. It’s your mind, and it’s morally wrong to give it away when all you get out of the deal is a little glandular excitement. Lastly, relax and breathe; you are safe. You are part of a group that recognizes its faults and seeks to overcome them. You are of the family that embraces mistakes as opportunities for learning. Your tradition is to value being correct more than being “right.” Your people’s passion is to be good, kind, and fair when nothing in the world forces them to do so. You are part of the reality-based community, and your tribe’s wisdom is the Enlightenment.

Once you’ve gotten yourself under control, first find out if there is any common ground you can reach with the other person. Not just a common opinion, but some way in which you and they can look at each other as part of the same group. If not, then get out as quickly as possible, because nothing can be accomplished barring some accidental magical transformative moment. Perhaps someone else of your tribe can connect with them, all you can do is exacerbate the problem by reinforcing the divisions between you. Feel free to call them on exactly what they’re doing, though - your tribe values truth.

If you find that common ground, see if you can expand it a little. Just a little. Don’t push for too much, and don’t expect anything later. See if you can stretch the boundaries of agreement just enough for someone else to have a better chance of reaching a little further later on. The goal is not to make them do or be anything, it is to have a conversation in which truth is agreed upon, even if that truth is that you don’t know the answer to the question you face. Ultimately, their definitions of “us” and “them” are their own responsibility and no-one else’s, all you can do is invite them to see you as one of the former, rather than the latter...

Carnival of Feminists #32 is up

at Bumblebee Sweet Potato.

Dude looks like a feminist

One of the better apologias for plain ol' good ol' fashioned feminism that I've seen lately is, yep, by a may-un: "A Dudely Introduction to Feminism." Starts with a nice takedown of the ever-charming Rush Limbaugh and goes on from there.

And that’s enough time spent with Rush. So now that we’ve pointed out what feminism isn’t, just what is it?

I’ll take you on a mercifully brief whirlwind tour of my exposure to it in just four steps, that will leave you with enough information to do some real research.

The first step, a general definition and description. Like any movement or philosophy there are differing ways of expressing and acting on the ideas embraced by Feminist Theory, but the core idea is that women and men are of equal worth as human beings, and should be treated as such. Very simple, direct, and straightforward. The vast, vast majority of feminists consider this to apply to all human beings, which is why the women’s movement still has yet to do unto others the way it has been thrown under the bus by the abolitionists, the peace movement, the labor movement, some environmentalists, and many more. The GLBT movement has struggled for acceptance within feminist circles, but to be honest the fight has been easier there than with any other - because of the egalitarian core ideals of feminism. To me, that kind of integrity is worth more in an ally than gold, and should never, ever be betrayed. If you ever want to know what progressive movements are walking the talk, watch who a variety of feminist organizations support. These are dedicated people who have been dissed again and again and keep coming back, not for the abuse, but because they know a very important truth: that all of these seemingly disparate causes are actually integral to each other...

He has some eminently sensible stuff in the comments section as well.

Question for the peanut gallery:

Where d'you get your news, primarily? (Yeah, it's a bit of a poll-esque question, but it's just for my own curiosity's sake).

"It's the end of the world as we know it..."

Except for Veronica, who not only doesn't feel fine but cordially invites all the Chicken Littles of the world to unite and go fuck themselves:

There were a couple of “The End is NIGH!” type entries in my feeds this morning, which doesn’t really help with the lack of enthusiasm about writing during the ass end of winter.

I hate doomsday proclamations. Really. If the world is gonna come screeching to a halt, then it’s gonna come screeching to a halt, and my worrying about it all isn’t going to change a thing.

I’m thinking that maybe I should just chuck the naysayers.

So, I formally flip the bird to anyone that feels the need to inform me of the following, as if I’ve never come across the concept before:


Go over to Nine Pearls for the specifics, or rather for the fine rantage about each fiery, watery, and/or germy, all-too-familiar scenario.

Plus, one you may not have given much thought to before (although you should have):
Colossal Squid.


WELLINGTON, New Zealand - A fishing crew has caught a colossal squid that could weigh a half-ton and prove to be the biggest specimen ever landed, a fisheries official said Thursday.

The squid, weighing an estimated 990 lbs and about 39 feet long, took two hours to land in Antarctic waters, New Zealand Fisheries Minister Jim Anderton said...

Apparently "colossal squid" is an actual term, not just the headline, you know, the next step up from giant squid, or maybe several steps up, i'm not really sure of the taxonomy, you know. It seems a shame that they decided not to call it "super mega-mecha-mecha squid." maybe they're saving that for the one that comes down with the rest of the Elder Gods, blots out the sun, and y'know eats us.

Meanwhile, I just want to see this line one more time, said by the "squid expert:"

If calamari rings were made from the squid they would be the size of tractor tires.

and top o' the fuckin' morning to you, too, shitbags

Fastlad would like you to know, whether or not you're Danny Smith, IV, that he's not your fucking leprechaun.

While we're on the subject of feckin eejits, fastlad would also like to pass onto you Concerned Woman for America Matt Barber's (concerned, American, womanly) message of love:

Washington, D.C. A former NBA star has made disturbing and harmful comments about his feelings toward people trapped in the homosexual lifestyle. Interviewing with a Florida sports radio show, former Miami Heat player Tim Hardaway said that he hates gay people and that he distances himself from them because he is homophobic. Concerned Women for America (CWA) is disappointed that a man who is respected by many sports fans would make such inflammatory remarks.

Hardaway's comments are both unfortunate and inappropriate, said Matt Barber, CWA's Policy Director for Cultural Issues. They provide political fodder for those who wish to paint all opposition to the homosexual lifestyle as being rooted in hate. It's important to note that Hardaway's words represent the feelings of Hardaway. His words do not represent the feelings of the vast majority of people opposed to the homosexual agenda.

It's perfectly natural for people to be repelled by disordered sexual behaviors that are both unnatural, and immoral, said Barber. All too often those behaviors are accompanied by serious physical, emotional, and spiritual pitfalls. However, the appropriate reaction is to respond with words and acts of love, not words of hate. Jesus Christ offers forgiveness and freedom for all sinners, and that is the heart of the Gospel message.

Thousands of former homosexuals have been freed from the homosexual lifestyle through acts of love. Hardaway's comments only serve to foment misperceptions of widespread homosexual victimhood which the homosexual lobby has craftily manufactured.

For Information Contact:
Stacey Holliday
(202) 488-7000
media.cwfa.org


I wonder what sort of Information Stacey Holliday has to offer. I suppose one could, indeed, call her up and ask. Perhaps advice on how to design an appropriate Valentine's Day message.

"Roses are red,
Violets are blue,
You're making me sick
But we're all sinners, too
Jesus saves! Jesus loves you!
Stay away from me. Ew."


Meanwhile, via Renegade Evolution, George Takei responds to M. Hardaway.

i was -sure- i felt it, dammit

Thanks to R. Mildred, I have learned, as I do every damn day, something new:

The Earth Is Not Moving


2006

All of the evidence that is required to expose and destroy the counterfeit Copernican Model of a rotating and orbiting Earth--and the entire evolutionary paradigm resting upon that counterfeit--is set out in this book (HERE) & in scores of links on this web page.

Those who read some or all of these links will quickly realize that this is no idle claim. Rather--as will become evident with each subject listed--there is abundant hard proof that both the Copernican Counterfeit and the Big Bang Evolutionary Paradigm that is built upon it are factless frauds from start to finish.

Indeed, the diligent reader will be astonished at the level of demonstrable hi-tech fraud, baseless assumptions, occult mathematics, etc.,--all part of a religious conspiracy!--that has been at work over many centuries implanting the incredible evolution myth about the origin of the Universe, the Earth, and Mankind.

On this web page the Bible is not used to prove anything scientific. Instead, the scientific facts--along with historical and religious facts-- prove the Bible to be precisely what it claims to be, namely, the infallible Word of God.

also note:

THREE PART LEGAL MODEL FOR REMOVING EVOLUTIONISM FROM SCHOOLS IN THE USA

PART I - GEORGIA HB 179 MODEL - HERE - 2 pgs

PART II - ATTACHMENT OF EVIDENCE FOR HB 179 - HERE - 6 pgs

PART III - ADDENDUM WITH EXTRA RELATED EVIDENCE - HERE - 9 pgs

***Once the information in these three links reaches the Courtrooms of the USA, the death knell of evolutionism will have begun.***

The GA Rep has decided not to introduce the Bill because of the viscous attacks it has stirred up.

Viscous attacks are the very worst.

and also gevalt.

Meanwhile, over at yellowhammer, Emily muses over an acquaintance, whom I am finding vicariously & anthropologically interesting at the moment.

OK, so this summer Cassius and I got in a big argument about personal, not political or ethical, issues, and it was several months before I talked to him again. I happened to see him around and he admitted that he had made a total ass of himself and apologized and asked if we could start hanging out once in a while again. I, feeling generous and partially forgetting all the stuff about his personal ethics that skeeve me out, agreed. So on Friday I ran in to him on my way home and he and I sat down and had a cup of coffee together and we were talking about literature, my thesis and the research I’ve done on John Clare, mostly, when he breaks this question out on me: So, do you think that, if Clare were only rediscovered just now, he wouldn’t get any attention because he’s a white male?

...As you can see, Cassius and I became friends because he and I have similar interests: poetry, leftist politics, veg*ism, Buddhism: what could possibly freaking go wrong? A lot. Namely that Cassius is one of our numerous and plentiful Racist and Sexist Liberals In Disguise. That’s right! He’s an academic, he thinks that there’s nothing inherently wrong with black people (although “the culture they’ve created” might be another story) and he never once said that women don’t belong in academia. However, I have oft caught him saying things that you would think would come out of the mouth of an MRA (granted, he said this stuff to me before my feminism was as developed as it is now): “but men don’t have support groups, we don’t have any of the stuff that women have, we’re the ones discriminated against” as well as racial profiling in traffic (as I said over at Sylvia’s, yelling “Nice one, Shaqueesha!” when a black woman cuts him off, but since he doesn’t yell it out the window at the black woman, it’s not racist), and do stupid sexist shit like making fun of any and all chubby girls he might see jogging, and then leaning over to tell 115-pound me, “But I’m just making fun of that [i.e. her chubbiness], not her."...

...Back to the question: So, do you think that, if Clare were only rediscovered just now, he wouldn’t get any attention because he’s a white male?

And this is my direct answer without commentary: Yes, because John Clare is a damn good writer...

(commentary and more back at yellowhammer).

oy

the sheer density in the universe is getting me down

Some thoughts on "power play"

Otherwise known as "BDSM," and/or "kink." And yet, those terms come with a lot of baggage now, don't they. What does it all mean, dear? in relation to "real life" power dynamics? -Is- there a fresh way of approaching this?

For now, just a couple of links to other people; I have some thoughts of my own, but, later: it needs to cook.

First, Dw3t-Hthr at World on a Slant

A Cat May Look: Fealty and Slavery

Three threads to this braid: respect for support roles, individualism vs. collectivism, power and vulnerability. It starts at the beginning of all the threads, but trying to write that will start putting letters on top of each other and be wickedly hard to read. And I'm not gonna try to be clever and format it into columns or shit like that.

First mentioned thread: there's this fascinating thread of contempt for people who willingly take support roles. That nobody would hire on as the night janitor if they didn't have to. That nobody would settle for being the secretary if they could be the power executive. When it goes into caretaking it gets worse -- the idea that a full-time parent is actually working doesn't cross the mind of many, the people who take care of their elderly or ailing relatives are treated as having a time-consuming hobby.

A better person, a more competent, more capable person, that person would be in charge -- would have ambition, drive to succeed, would want to be the name on the letterhead, not the initials in lowercase in the bottom corner. Clearly, the one doing the typing, mopping the floor, changing the diaper, they're not suited to anything better. Anything worthy of respect.

Second thread: there's this creepy hivemind thing that I see a lot in the name of individualism. I mean, one can hearken back to the whole being a special unique snowflake just like everyone else when being flip, but there are Rules out there. Be a strong individual and follow your dream -- so long as your dream isn't to be anything that threatens the Rules. Maybe you get to pick your Rules a little and only take flak from people using different ones, but the Rules are still there. Shouldn't work, shouldn't work in these fields, shouldn't work for less than this amount of money, shouldn't think that way, shouldn't dress that way, why? Because we're more mature than that now. We know better. This is the right way. We don't want to be mistaken for Them.

Being an individual is all well and good, so long as one knows which ideology one's an individual in. Then there are the neat boxes that can be dragged out, some of them marked 'good' and some of them marked 'evil', and everything is neatly filed away, and nobody has to think about who anyone is.

Third thread: In the presence of a power differential, the people on the low end of things are living exposed and somewhat vulnerable. The power exists to affect them, and they have less to retaliate with. Holding that power is a drug, and like any drug, there is responsible use and irresponsible use. The position of power is a position to compel intimacy, to know and control more about someone else's life; even if one is not using that power, the possibility does exist for it to be used. And if the power does not exist in a framework of agreement and sufficient support for intimacy, people are gonna get hurt. And do get hurt, all the time.

Let's knot those three together with: I am kinked submissive.

And starting to braid:...

Read the rest at World on a Slant.

Then, coming from another angle, here's trin at the strangest alchemy:

When I came into SM, it was a group in town. I hung with the townies. And there were some real class differences between my daily life at school and the people I hung out with, learned from, and beat because it's hot. Talking to other kinky folks I often hear that most perverts are high class: we can afford floggers and very expensive leather clothes, corsets, etc.

But the people I knew were not those people. They were rural folk, some of whom had never heard much at all about highfalutin stuff like feminism. I remember being a little scared of them and quite a bit classist -- "what the fuck is wrong with their teeth?" most notably. When my parents later met the guy I ended up dating, who was quite poor compared to most of us attending school on our parents' dimes, many years my senior, and a townie -- oh, the teeth thing. "That person must be someone who can't take care of himself if his teeth look like that. Isn't it gross to kiss him? How disgusting."

...Anyhoo. Pervy townies.

Quite a few were good country girls and boys who'd never questioned that women submit to men, and discovered that could be made into a shitload of fun if you bought yourself a couple paddles for cheapish from the local guy who makes 'em.

And learned by meeting the rest of us that some people are gay, some people are poly, some straight or bi women dominate their men.

Their minds got opened by being involved in the alternative lifestyle, not by theory or by sudden understandings of social oppression. They went to the meetings, met someone nice, discovered he kisses and fucks other boys and went "oh hell, we're all weird motherfuckers here," and moved on with a more open mind.

So for me... eh. I feel like I'm overstepping if I say I know all about the class dynamics of it. I don't -- I wasn't a townie. I did most of my kink out in the country when I wasn't at home with my lover -- rural Virginia or West Virginia. But I wasn't them.

But they were my friends, my leather community, my tribe. Going back to town and hearing the younger, richer, more feminist women tell me that the screen savers they filled up with porn and looped when they threw play parties was a problem... never felt right. That was a country-boy Master's idea of fun. Maybe it wasn't great -- I have some thoughts both about porn and the porn the person I have in mind picked -- but it sure as hell wasn't about sending messages. It was about how nice it is that in a room full of perverts you can proudly display what you like, not keep it hidden and stashed away -- and some of them might like it, too.

Going back to school and hearing the other women scold me for getting used to the porn, for liking some of it -- well, in addition to "Noneya biz!" it also felt like here we are in an ivory tower deciding what other people's lives should look like. That what they consider manners are sexist, even when they're friendly and loving to dominant woman me. That their friendliness and openness and the fact that at least one of my best friends went from being raised strict Baptist to being kinda fundie but bi and kinky and open to just about anyone else's way of life (and a top!)... wasn't enough....

read the rest.

Quote of the day, 2/17/07, ii

"There's nothing more dangerous than someone else who thinks they know what's best for you."


--plain(s)feminist

Quote of the day, 2/17/07

A Confession

My Lord, I loved strawberry jam
And the dark sweetness of a woman's body.
Also well-chilled vodka, herring in olive oil,
Scents, of cinnamon, of cloves.
So what kind of prophet am I? Why should the spirit
Have visited such a man? Many others
Were justly called, and trustworthy.
Who would have trusted me? For they saw
How I empty glasses, throw myself on food,
And glance greedily at the waitress's neck.
Flawed and aware of it. Desiring greatness,
Able to recognize greatness wherever it is,
And yet not quite, only in part, clairvoyant,
I knew what was left for smaller men like me:
A feast of brief hopes, a rally of the proud,
A tournament of hunchbacks, literature.


--Czeslaw Milosz

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

A roundabout roundup, if you will.

First of all, via Amber Rhea, a question: "Stigmatization gets us where, exactly?"

I get that we are supremely fucked up about sex in the U.S. - believe me, I get that. And I get the historical happenings that have led us to this point - so in that sense, I get the "why." But when I really think about it on, well, a common sense level? I'm constantly left screaming, "WHY?? WHAT THE FUCK??" It's so pointless and completely unnecessary. Patience is not one of my virtues, I readily admit that; but I really do not comprehend how people who claim to be progressive and at the same time advocate for abolition of this or further criminalization of that can't see that criminalization and stigmatization, coupled with our lovely institutionalized sexism and misogyny, has gotten us EXACTLY WHERE WE ARE TODAY.

The term "sex work" encompasses many things, some legal, others not. For right now let's talk about the illegal part - prostitution or being a "callgirl" or whatever. You don't like pimps? You think they exploit women and treat them like shit? You'd be happy to see the lot of 'em get a good dose of cerebral cortex lead therapy (thanks to RenEv for that one)? ME TOO! So how in the name of all that is holy do you think that further criminalization and stigmatization of sex workers themselves will achieve this goal??

What's inspired this particular rant is the following news story:

(via WP): "Trial Nearing, Alleged Call Girl Found Dead"

She was a former college professor who had lost almost everything -- her stellar academic reputation, her financial well-being and her anonymity in the swanky suburban neighborhood where she was accused of working as a high-priced prostitute.

With Brandy Britton's trial planned to start next week, the former University of Maryland Baltimore County professor apparently took her own life over the weekend, hanging herself in her living room, Howard County police say. A family member found the body Saturday afternoon. Police say they do not suspect foul play.

It was a grievous end to a life that friends and colleagues say was once filled with remarkable promise and ambition.

Britton, 43, was the first in her family to go to college, double-majoring in biology and sociology. Her first sociology professor, Sheila Cordray, told The Washington Post last year that Britton was "one of the brightest students I've ever had."

...She called herself Alexis, police said and advertised on a Web site that described Alexis as a "quintessential 'brick house' " and "sophisticated, refined, educated and articulate. She has two Bachelor of Science degrees, one in biology and the other in sociology. She also holds a Ph.D. from an elite university." It continued: "An athlete, cheerleader and dancer in high school, Alexis . . . is extremely flexible in excellent shape."

In a sting, Howard police sent an undercover officer to her house last January and arrested her.

Britton heatedly denied the allegations, but when The Washington Post asked her last year how she had been supporting herself since leaving UMBC in late 1999 and a subsequent job with the Baltimore public schools, she started to answer, then suddenly recommended a book: "Sex Work: Writings by Women in the Sex Industry."

Fighting on Several Fronts

Her attorney, Christopher Flohr, has been out of his office taking care of his ailing father and had hoped to postpone her trial date. Flohr's partner, William Paul Blackford, heard the news of her death yesterday morning when The Post called. He sat in silence for several moments, then spoke of her other recent court battle: foreclosure hearings on her home.

He talked about Britton's fears that she would lose the house where she had raised two children, now grown, as a single parent and where she had been living with her two potbellied pigs, dog and two cats.

"That is one of the most heart-wrenching processes for a person to go through," Blackford said, continuing to talk, then interrupting himself, as though the news about Britton's death had just sunk in. "This is horribly sad."

... In a statement yesterday, Flohr said that Britton's death "underscores an important question: Was the public benefited at all by the resources spent on her arrest and prosecution?

The rest of the WP story is, as Amber notes with some disgust, tonewise, a rather breathless mix of ain't-it-awful and, shall we say...no, not "pornographic," never that. Titillation, let's say. You know, very Movie of the Week:

The woman whose looks matched her intelligence may still have possessed the long, blond hair, the glossy pink lips and the glamorous figure of her youth. And she may have still projected the warm, friendly demeanor of a small-town girl from Oregon.

But she was facing the world's toughest truth: She had no idea who she was about to become...

[you can almost hear the Court TV music sting there, can't you?]

As Amber sez:

What the fuck does that even mean. "She had no idea who she was about to become." Thanks for the platitude, WP! And I don't think I need to point out how completely irrelevant and meaningless the part about her looks is.

But of course it isn't irrelevant and meaningless, just as the accompanying photo of her isn't irrelevant and meaningless, just as the whole "small-town girl from Ohio" isn't irrelevant and meaningless, nor the whole, she was a brilliant professor who, inexplicably, fell into this degrading life of vice.*

(*thirty points to anyone who gets this reference: "High school honors student by day. Hollywood hooker by night.")

The article later notes that the reason she couldn't teach was because she'd filed a sexual harassment suit against two of her former employers. And she'd done brilliant research on domestic abuse, then later became a domestic abuse victim herself... yes indeedy, the plot thickens. Coming soon to a teevee channel near you. I mean, it's not really about the whole, "was this trip really necessary?" angle, is this WP article, the one Amber is interested in, the one where Sexual Evolution asks, rhetorically:

I'm a little too stunned by the whole thing to be coherently angry about it, but to sum up: even if Britton was doing sex work, who was she hurting? What purpose was there to wasting tax dollars to ruin her life? Who would benefit from her being in jail? Who will benefit from her death? Not a damn soul.

Ah, but. In fact, is that true, that no one benefits from her death? From the -tragedy- of it all?

Renegade Evolution has some thoughts on the general subject.

Once you’re a victim, or a statistic, or an image we can use, or dead... then we will feel sorry for you... You’ll make a great example. Alive or acting of your own volition or defending yourself, well…you’re no use to us really. You don’t matter or count. You and your words mean nothing. Take off the eyeliner and heels already, you stupid slut, and get with the program…or you will regret it. But as a victim, shit whore, you're a fucking goldmine!

Victim, convenient scapegoat: the "whore," the "slut," the "fuckbot," she fulfills a lot of societal functions, in fact. The actual having sex for profit is just one part of it. That's the part that serves -her-, really (the selfish thing). The part where she's knocked back down into the gutter, where we weep cathartically over her poor abused or dead body, her tragic wasted life, that serves, well...more obscure needs and wants. Not at all pornographic, please note: tears, unlike some other bodily fluids, are always noble, never gratuitous or objectifying.

Meanwhile, the world rolls on, as it has for the past umpteen gazillion years; of course, some won't even weep. For instance, via The Anti-Essentialist Conundrum, another lovely news story, this one from tThe OC Weekly:

No one disputes that an on-duty Irvine police officer got an erection and ejaculated on a motorist during an early-morning traffic stop in Laguna Beach. The female driver reported it, DNA testing confirmed it and officer David Alex Park finally admitted it.

When the case went to trial, however, defense attorney Al Stokke argued that Park wasn’t responsible for making sticky all over the woman’s sweater. He insisted that she made the married patrolman make the mess—after all, she was on her way home from work as a dancer at Captain Cream Cabaret.

“She got what she wanted,” said Stokke. “She’s an overtly sexual person.”

A jury of one woman and 11 men—many white and in their 50s or 60s—agreed with Stokke. On Feb. 2, after a half-day of deliberations, they found Park not guilty of three felony charges that he’d used his badge to win sexual favors during the December 2004 traffic stop.

Let's just back up and replay that one in slow motion, shall we?

She got what she wanted. She's an overtly sexual person.

You see, that is the real charge here. Not even that she did the work; hey, we all do what we gotta do (although, did she -really- have to do -that?- let's examine, really penetrate to the heart of the matter, dig up every little last detail of her life and misdeeds, everything but actually letting the woman speak for her damn self, that is).

She liked it. She likes sex. The wrong kind of sex, with the wrong kind of people, or too many of them, in the wrong place. She likes being a slut. The filthy, filthy thing. She's not even really human, then.

Or, well, check it out. This is apparently what the woman in question is "guilty" of, besides working at "Captain Cream Cabaret:"

In the wee hours of Dec. 15, 2004, Lucy (only her first name was used during the trial) finished her final shift at Captain Cream in Lake Forest, not far from the Irvine Spectrum. Management had let her go after an incident involving a female customer in a bathroom stall. According to court records, there had been a small amount of cocaine, kissing and breast fondling.

Well, that, and...what is it now? she was driving without a license? Anyway:

Kamiabipour, the prosecutor, shook her head in disbelief. She knew the facts—that the officer had waited at least eight or nine minutes before stopping the stripper on a secluded section of a highway that was out of his jurisdiction.

“He was stalking her,” she said.

Four months earlier, Park had stopped Lucy under similar circumstances. That time, he’d ignored a plastic drug baggie he’d found in her car and her suspended license. But the stop wasn’t a waste of time. After friendly chit-chat, the officer had scored Lucy’s phone number. Telephone records show that Park called the stripper the next morning. She told him she was too busy to meet.

On the witness stand, Park explained that he’d called Lucy out of concern for a citizen’s safety. He also shrugged his shoulders when Kamiabipour slowly listed the first names of nine Captain Cream female employees—Annette, Denise, Rashele, Marlia, Brandi, Andrea, Deborah, Laura and Shannon—whose license plates he’d run through the DMV computer in the weeks prior to his sexual encounter with Lucy. (Another coincidence, according to Stokke.) Jurors also learned that Irvine Police Sgt. Michael Hallinan had previously warned Park as they left work to stay away from the strippers.

But, he didn't:

In a secretly-recorded phone call to Laguna Beach police shortly after the incident, Lucy recalled that she’d told Park she had no license. Park began “rubbing himself up against me,” she said. “Then, he said, ‘What are we going to do here, Lucy?’”

...“Basically, the officer made me give [him] a freaking hand job and he let me go. I’m so freaked out about it.”

...Telephone records prove that Park made a 19-minute call to Lucy shortly after their encounter. The officer—who told the woman he was “Joe Stephens,” an Orange County Sheriff’s Department deputy who had died months earlier—said it was a friendly call to make sure she’d arrived home safely. The stripper said he told her to keep her mouth shut.

...

And then Kamiabipour introduced the bombshell evidence from a high-ranking Irvine police officer: on the night Park tailed Lucy out of the city, the global positioning system in his patrol car had been disconnected without authorization.

“I checked and [the GPS] was not working,” said Lt. Henry Boggs.

An unexplainable coincidence, Park’s defense countered.

And this was the rest of the defense:

It wasn’t a surprise that Stokke put the woman and her part-time occupation on trial. In his opening argument, he made it The Good Cop versus The Slutty Stripper. He pointed out that she’d once had a violent fight with a boyfriend in San Diego. He mocked her inability to keep a driver’s license. He accused her of purposefully “weakening” Park so that he became “a man,” not a cop during the traffic stop. He called her a liar angling for easy lawsuit cash. He called her a whore without saying the word.

“You dance around a pole, don’t you?” Stokke asked.

Superior Court Judge William Evans ruled the question irrelevant.

Stokke saw he was scoring points with the jury.

“Do you place a pole between your legs and go up and down?” he asked.

“No,” said Lucy before the judge interrupted.

“You do the dancing to get men to do what you what them to do,” said Stokke. “And the same thing happened out there on that highway [in Laguna Beach]. You wanted [Park] to take some sex!”

Lucy said, “No sir,” the sex wasn’t consensual. Stokke—usually a mellow fellow with a nasally, monotone voice—gripped his fists, stood upright, clenched his jaws and then thundered, “You had a buzz on [that night], didn’t you?”

As if watching a volley in tennis, the heads of the male-dominated jury spun from Stokke back to Lucy, who sat in the witness box. She said no, but it was hopeless. Jurors stared at her without a hint of sympathy.

The verdict: Not guilty.

Now, one might read this as yet more evidence for the general misogyny of the world we live in, and one would be justified. However. That's not all there is to it. As the plaintiff's lawyer notes,

"Park didn’t pick a housewife or a 17-year-old girl,” Kamiabipour said in her closing argument. “He picked a stripper. He picked the perfect victim.”

And that, to answer Amber's question, is where stigmatization gets us.

Not just,

Man: woman. but also:

Cop: criminal. Norm: deviant. Good guy: bad girl.

Bad girl.


Now, here's my question(s).


Without any other information: what does the following quote say to you about the speaker? Whom do you imagine is speaking, and about whom? What do you imagine the goal of the speaker is? How does this make you feel? If the following were to move someone to take action (political or otherwise), what do you imagine that might be?

‘Model’ is so 1980’s and doesn’t capture the “I’m hot, bi-sexee, and willing to fuck and suck anything for money” pornsick approval meme nearly as well as “sex worker”.

And speaking of how-low-can-you-go rightwingers:

A bit of local politics from elsewhere (for me elsewhere), via Tiny Cat Pants. TN State Representative Stacy Campfield, ladies and germs.

So first of all, background, as i'm getting this: apparently he's after a bill that would provide death certificates for aborted fetuses.

2. When a person does a heinous crime and beats up A pregnant woman and kills her and the baby it is a double murder. In other states It is called Lacy's law after the Lacy Peterson case. So in the eyes of the state the baby is (or was) a life. In these cases the child would also receive a death certificate.

...


This bill will give information to the state that is not available now on how many abortions are given each year as well as information on race, age, weight. It will also give consistency to when and what is a life based on factors that are already used and consistent. When we make the definition of life a little more consistent we can begin to treat it with the respect it deserves and not base it on whims of fancy.


Besides the obvious problems a lot of people are going to immediately have with this, Aunt B notes:

The first part is a lie. We know how many abortions are done each year in Tennessee. That's information collected by the Health Department.

The third--age--is also a lie. We know that. If you look at TN 39-15-201, if you're going to perform an abortion in Tennessee, you'd better be damn sure how old that fetus is before you perform the abortion, because depending on how far along the pregnancy is, there are different legal requirements.

...

But let's talk a second about the implications of him wanting to know the race. You can't tell the race of a fetus by looking at it. You could only tell based on the race of the folks who've contributed DNA to it.

And here, I think, we see the real motivation behind Campfield's legislation--it is to collect data, but not on the fetuses; it's an attempt to backdoor into the private medical records of individual Tennesseans. Right now, legally, if you have an abortion, the abortion is reported to the state, but the names of the parents are not (TN 68-3-505). If you miscarry and the fetus is a certain age or weight, a death certificate is issued and the names of the parents are recorded and reported to the state (TN 68-3-505).

If Campfield succeeds in passing this legislation, he'll have wormed his way into individuals' private medical records that are legally off-limits to him.


In other words: compiling a list of women who've had abortions, is the fear.

So a number of people comment to this effect, along with other pointed questions, and he "updates" with this:

UPDATE

Nothing in the bill will make a registry of names of people who have had abortions.

Well, okay! I guess that's reassuring. 'course, as i'm understanding it it doesn't say someone -can't- make such a registry, once such information is y'know -sitting right there,- but whataiver; he sez it ain't so, so.

but wait! There's more!

So now, apparently, he's gotten a bit testy about some picky pickertons who just can't stop criticizing, and wants to know:

5. If you work for the state and spend a large chunk of your day surfing the web and complaining about how bad a piece of legislation is, Do you think I should trust you to be non biased when doing an assessment of said legislation? Do you think this is an ethical lapse? Do you think I should trust you when you say you are over worked but seem to have plenty of time to surf the web and author long posts and comments on blogs during time you are getting paid to work? Do you think you would get away with it on a real job?

As Aunt B. notes,

As far as I know, and I've been keeping up on this issue, there's only been one state employee who's addressed this issue*.

I don't know how else to read that but as a threat.

So, just remember that the next time that Campfield is all "Oh, I just want to spark a reasonable discussion about abortion in this state" or the next time someone like Terry Frank is all "Thanks to Campfield for all the hard work he does. If you’re not both hated and loved, you’re really not doing much.": When Campfield was met with legitimate concerns about his legislation from someone he could try to intimidate, he did.

That's his idea of a reasonable discussion: threatening the livelihoods of his critics.


Yes, well. This sort of thing seems to be a real trend these days, doesn't it.

Quote of the day: 2/15/07, ii

SISTER. No one was addressing you, Aloysuis. Philomena, my point is that loneliness does not excuse sin.

PHILOMENA. But there are worse sins. And I believe Jesus forgives me. After all, he didn't want them to stone the woman taken in adultery.

SISTER. That was merely a political gesture. In private Christ stoned many women taken in adultery.

DIANE. That's not in the Bible.

SISTER. (suddenly very angry) Not everything has to be in the Bible.


--Christopher Durang, "Sister Mary Ignatius Explains It All For You"

Quote of the day: 2/15/07

...6:5 And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and at the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, They have received their reward.
6:6 But you, when you pray, enter into your inner room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret shall reward you.
...
6:14 For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:
6:15 But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
...
6:19 Do not lay up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal:
6:20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in and steal:
6:21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
6:22 The light of the body is the eye: therefore, if your eye is sound, your whole body shall be full of light.
6:23 But if your eye is bad, your whole body shall be full of darkness. Therefore, if the light that is in you is darkness, how great is that darkness!
6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.
6:25 Therefore I say to you, Do not be anxious about your life, what you shall eat, or what you shall drink; nor for your body, what you shall put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing?
6:26 Behold the birds of the air: they do not sow, nor do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not worth much more than they?
6:27 Which of you by being anxious can add one cubit to the span of his life?
6:28 And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they do not toil, nor do they spin:
6:29 And yet I say to you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.
6:30 Therefore, if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O men of little faith?
6:31 Therefore, do not be anxious, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, With what shall we be clothed?
6:32 After all these things the Gentiles seek: but your heavenly Father knows that you have need of all these things.
6:33 But seek first his kingdom, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added to you.
6:34 Therefore, do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow shall be anxious for itself. Sufficient for each day are the troubles of its own.

7:1 Judge not, that you may not be judged.
7:2 For in the manner you judge, you shall be judged: and with the measure you use, it shall be measured to you.
7:3 And why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not consider the beam that is in your own eye?
7:4 Or how can you say to your brother, Let me pull the speck out of your eye; and, behold, a beam is in your own eye?
7:5 You hypocrite, first remove the beam from your own eye; and then you shall see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
7:6 Do not give that which is holy to dogs, nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.
7:7 Ask, and it shall be given to you; seek, and you shall find; knock, and it shall be opened to you:
7:8 For every one who asks receives; and he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks it shall be opened.
7:9 Or what man is there among you, whom, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone?
7:10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent?
7:11 If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more shall your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him?
7:12 Therefore, all things that you would have men do for you, do for them: for this is the law and the prophets.
7:13 Enter in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leads to destruction, and many there are who enter in by it:
7:14 But small is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leads to life, and few there are who find it.
7:15 Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.
7:16 You shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles?
7:17 Even so, every good tree brings forth good fruit; but a bad tree brings forth bad fruit.
7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bring forth good fruit.
7:19 Every tree that does not bring forth good fruit is cut down, and cast into the fire.
7:20 Therefore, by their fruits you shall know them.
7:21 Not every one who says to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
7:22 Many will say to me on that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in your name? and in your name cast out devils? and in your name done many miracles?
7:23 And then I will declare to them, I never knew you: depart from me, you who work iniquity.
7:24 Therefore, whoever hears these words of mine, and does them, will be like a wise man, who built his house upon a rock:
7:25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it did not fall: for it was founded upon a rock.
7:26 And every one who hears these words of mine, and does not do them, is like a foolish man, who built his house upon the sand:
7:27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.


--The Gospel According to Matthew, Revised King James Bible

Dear neighbors:

It is one thirty in the morning. On a WEEKDAY. SHUT. THE FUCK. UP.

Okay, I am Spartacus too, goddamit.

First Amanda, and now the excellent Shakespeare's Sister is resigning from the Edwards campaign. Why? Well, apparently now they've been getting death threats.

You know. I'll just say this. No, in general I don't think dumping on religion (which as far as i know had nothing to do with SS anyway) is the best way to make friends and influence people. However:

1) Edwards damn well should have been prepared for such a thing, if he'd actually read the blogs of the people he'd hired. And, should be way WAY better about standing up for said people, even if he didn't actually fire the bloggers. How in the fuck are you going to get any important legislation through if you're this lily-livered and/or cynical about cutting your losses at the -beginning- stages of the campaign?

2) This was not about alienating potential voters; this was a furnace blast of sheer bullying and worse, instigated by extreme right wingnuts and total pieces of shit.

3) Death threats, now? Yes, God must be reeeeeal proud of you miserable fuckstains.

4) Blow me, Edwards, you vacuous bimbo

5) William Donohue, Michelle Malkin, and Bill O'ForFUCKSSAKEaren'tmyfifteenminutesUP Reilly, and every wretched coward who sent threats of violence to total strangers, on the grounds of Fearless Leader said, "Sic!"--in the name of religion, no less:

May you shite hedgehogs. May you grow like an onion, with your heads in the earth. May you be smitten with pustulent boils. May you never know love, or peace, or happiness, or a burn-free piss, ever again. May you crack and split open, you whited sepulchres, so that all your toxic insides spill and hiss on the ground for the whole world to see, and stomp on, with as much mercy as you've shown to others, yourselves.

May your God reward you in exactly the way you deserve.

p.s.

"I'll pray for you."

p.p.s. Spartacus swarm headquarters here.

UPDATE: here. there are many Spartacuseseseseses. more all the time.


p.p.p.s. Simply Left Behind has some good suggestions for those who want to get, not just mad, but even.

Eye candy

Inspired by Renegade's gorgeous tribute(s)


(thank you!)

as well as by a comment by Cassandra Says at the end of this post, from the other blog
(i really need to update more often).

First of all, the baby Diana Rigg from "Tipping the Velvet," aka Rachel Stirling: (on the right)








Then I started thinking about pretty let's say genderfuck candy from some other movies.

Here's a still from an obscure movie called Journey to Kafiristan:



Another movie I'm awfully fond of, Stage Beauty, with Billy Crudup as the last of the male "actresses" and Clare Danes as the first woman to take the stage, during the Restoration:





To wrap up, a bit more Rachel Stirling:





and, what the hell, some Diana herself:

Coupla links

The Scarlet Pervygirl ruminates on sex and gender as constructs, high school, and who the true monsters really are.


The Unapologetic Mexican (he's not shy!) has an amazing analysis of the movie "Falling Down," as part of his new "At the Movies With Nez" series. informed with all his film-school background and some serious sociopolitical deconstructage, and at the same time, eminently readable and entertaining for the layperson. Joe Bob sez check it out.


In both cases, be sure to read around the rest of the place; some stunning writing to be found.

meanwhile:

it's cold and snowy. i am in for the day. i have no attention span. i feel out of sorts. i refuse to do anything vaguely productive. someone talk to me.

Quote of the day: 2/13/07

The highlight of the conversation came when one black-clad woman said to another, “Rachel - you know Rachel, right? Rachel who wears a lot of black?” It was like one centipede saying to another, “You know Jim, right? Jim with all the legs?”

--uccellina at A Bird's Nest

a little night music

via multi-medium--thanks!

For RE, Kim, Antip, and whomever else needs it:

A partial, if not terribly saintly, answer to some eternal questions.



Enjoy.

"Bill O'Reilly, you're so -articulate.-"

via Slant/Truth.

capsule sum: Bush calls Obama "articulate," people point out that "articulate" is often used wrt black people with a not-so-subtext that is roughly equivalent to Samuel Johnson's

"Sir, a woman's preaching is like a dog's walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all."

BOR consults an actual black person, Marc Hill, to express his frustrations and bewilderment--jeez, can't a white guy catch a break around here? now even a -compliment- is Bad? Wackiness ensues.



i particularly like the bit where Bill sez, in a not-at-all-patronizing-tone, because, you know, he's not that way at all:

"I know the man, and, there was no condescension in his delivery. --Listen. I know what you're saying, and I agree. There's a lot of condescension in the white establishment toward the black community, in this country. It's true. It's true. And if he were to say..."

(continues talking as his guest opens and closes his mouth like a fish, tries to get a word in edgewise, fails)

although, Hill coming back with, in the process of explaining how BOR is not held responsible for all white people in the same way Obama or any other prominent black person is held as a "representative" of other black people:

Bill, when I watch you on television, I don't say to myself, oh, all white people are condescending, or all white people are uncivil, or all white people talk over other people--not to say that you do those things, that's just an example...

was also rather choice, i must say.

Well, but so. So BOR then asks Hill whether it would be okay for him to call Hill "glib." Hill goes off into talking about how the context (i.e. comparing him to other guests) is "different."

But of course, besides a whole shitload of other things, (not least of which the utter poignance of getting the "compliment" of "articulate" from, of all people, Dubya), the other difference is--speaking of "articulate," Bill--"glib" has a different connotation from "articulate." "Articulate" as an adjective may technically denote what the complimenter is trying to say, but it has the connotation of,

"AND he can count to twenty, WITHOUT taking off his shoes, even! My."

"Glib," well now, that may have the same denotative meaning as "articulate," did you consult a dictionary; but, it still doesn't -connote- exactly the same thing. Although it's not really a compliment, either, really, is "glib." A "smooth talker," but more specifically: oily, superficial. A car salesman is "glib." "Slick Willy" is "glib." "Like shit through a goose" is "glib."

And, you know, I have seen a number of instances in recent months where a POC has been complimented on hir beautiful words, (ignoring the content of those beautiful words), right before the not at all condescending white person rings down the curtain on the discussion thread. So, I can see why one might be skeptical of that particular compliment, no matter how carefully, um, articulated. And no, I don't find that thought particularly "terrifying," personally, but then BOR is a sensitive little flower, as we all know.

But, let's say someone is just genuinely trying to say is “so and so is really a remarkable speaker/writer, with a true gift for words. Okay! Here are some possibilities, each with its own particular connotation:

“Eloquent.” “Magniloquent.” “Mellifluent.” “Lucid.” “Brilliant.” “Persuasive.” “Facund.” “Silver-tongued.” well that last one makes me think of a lizard statue, but you get the idea. Word power is for EVERYBODY!

Alternately, if you’re O’Rly?, you can just fling out something even more outrageously patronizing/insulting, and then go back to the important business of telling your hapless assistant about how you really wanna scrub her big boobies with a falafel.

Some linkages

Donna at Silence of Our Friends links to the transcript of MLK's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail," via The Angry Black Woman. Turns out, it's still pretty good.

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial “outside agitator” idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds.

... My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure. Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals.

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct-action campaign that was “well timed” in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word “Wait!” It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This “Wait” has almost always meant ‘Never.” We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that “justice too long delayed is justice denied.”

Donna's commentary is worth checking out as well;

as is her earlier, separate post, quoting a speech by a Gerry Gambill, On the Art of Stealing Human Rights. Some excerpts:

5. Consult the Indian, but do not act on the basis of what you hear. Tell the Indian he has a voice and go through the motions of listening. Then interpret what you have heard to suit your own needs...

Make the Indian believe you are working for him, putting in much overtime and at a great sacrifice, and imply that he should be appreciative. This is the ultimate in skills in stealing human rights; when you obtain the thanks of the victim.

9. Consult the Indian, but do not act on the basis of what you hear. Tell the Indian he has a voice and go through the motions of listening. Then interpret what you have heard to suit your own needs

14. Make the situation more complicated than is necessary...

18. Speak of the common good. Tell the Indian that you can’t consider yourselves when there is a whole nation to think of. Tell him he can’t think only of himself...

Donna notes that

You could easily apply most of these to many situations since these are common strategies of the wealthy/powerful against the poor/weak, especially the legalities, stalling, and projection (claiming the Indian is the greedy one).

...Number 7 angers me and I've been meaning to post on this in particular. It isn't just the government that does this, it's your average privileged liberal asshole. Yes this is particular to our side of the fence because conservatives are open about their hatred. What I am talking about is when some condescending jerk pats you on the head and you tell him you resent it, or simply disagree with the ideas he is putting forth. He will get all pissy about how ungrateful you are, and that you should be thankful that he even pays attention to you and talks to you at all...

Donna links this specifically to other white/POC dynamics; perhaps there are more connections still.

Heart: "This lawsuit was not about defining who a woman is" it was about the right of equality groups, including females, to define the boundaries of their own spaces."

[Bint Alshamsa]: If a group discriminates against transpeople, then it isn't actually an equality group at all.
This idea about some supposed "right" you mentioned, sounds (to me) A LOT like the arguments posed by those who have sought to discriminate against other groups. What is the difference between a women's group that would like to keep out women with disabilities and one that seeks to exclude trans-women?

As a person who has lived with and without disabilities, I have seen how differently one is treated by the world based on one's perceived status as either "healthy" or "sick". Does that mean that I should be excluded from groups that are supposed to support female victims of rape? Isn't rape something that happens to disabled and trans-women too?

Elsewhere, the Goldfish has some wise words:

Anti-discrimination law is not about protecting people’s feelings. On the contrary; in many ways, anti-discrimination legislation is all about forcing people to behave contrary to their feelings. The law cannot and should not dictate what you think or say, but it can and should dictate what you do as regards your treatment of other people. I cannot agree with everything our own government has done in tackling discrimination, but the principle behind such legislation is very clear.

...The chief reason the Equality Act 2006 is causing a rumpus is that it outlaws certain forms of discrimination on the grounds of sexuality, as well age, ethnicity, religion and disability. Cardinal Cormac O'Murphy, who is head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales has suggested that this will force them to close their many adoption agencies because they will no longer be able to discriminate against same-sex couples simply on the grounds of sexuality. And naturally, if these adoption agencies close, a great number of children will suffer.

...The Catholic Church teaches that homosexual behaviour is wrong...Fair enough. The Catholic Church also teaches against premarital sex and extramarital sex. It also still teaches that the only way out of a valid marriage is death...

...people make a choice to follow these rules, and I for one have never had any problem being a friend and family member to some of those that do, despite the fact that I, and many others, follow a very different set of rules.

But because difference exists, it would be an enormous problem if Catholic adoption agencies only put children into the care of parents who followed their own rules to the letter. Indeed, my local Catholic Adoption agency, Adoption Yorkshire state on the front page of their website;

We welcome interest from people of any or no religion although we are only able to accept applications from people in Yorkshire, Humberside and Cleveland.

So clearly, they wouldn’t reject a couple because they had lived together before they were married, or a couple that denied the truth of the Bible or even worhipped more than one god. The suitability of individuals and couples as parents is absolutely paramount – and indeed, the vetting process for adoptive parents in the UK is famously gruelling.

It is thus rather difficult for me to imagine why homosexuality - which is surely no worse that worshipping several gods - can render a couple unsuitable as parents by default. Unless of course, a prejudice is not merely a matter of faith, and is to do with daft old ideas about homosexuals being out to corrupt the young, homosexuality being something a person is taught, homosexuals being inherently promiscuous and all that nonsense which the Church has stated that it rejects.

The very nature of anti-discrimination law means that if a law is sound, there should be no exceptions. It...doesn't mean that people must stop believing what they believe.

It only means that exactly the same rules apply to everybody and everybody can expect fair and equal treatment.

Comfort foods

What are yours?

mine seem to involve an inordinate amount of dairy, i am noticing lately. mac and cheese, linguine sort-of-alfredo, creamed spinach.

just a small slice

On the way back, I stop at the drycleaners. The couple who run the tiny shop are elderly; the man moves slowly. It's okay, I can wait. I'm not in a hurry.

On the whole, this isn't a great neighborhood for being in a hurry. As Time Out noted recently in a profile on exotically lumpen but convenient (and Affordable!) Queens, this neighborhood is, well, not glamorous, and probably won't be anytime soon, if ever. "Solidly blue collar," i think were the words, with a sprinkling of young professionals and artists who appreciate the quick commute to Manhattan.

(Clearly the author of the TONY profile on this neighborhood didn't find much else to appreciate, other than the general neighborhoodliness of it all, a couple of rather desolate Irish pubs, and the convenience of all the drugstores; and you know what? That's totally fine with me. Let someone else write about the attractive and spacious if not terrifically well-kept up pre-war buildings, and their history as "the maternity ward of Greenwich Village;" the trees, legacy of that older socialistic attempt to build "gardens" for urban dwellers; the Romanian and Turkish and Irish grocery stores; the theatre that puts on Spanish-language plays and flamenco and tango and traditional Mexican dance performances; the rather nice little French bakery just up the road; and of course the restaurant at the corner of my block, which -was- profiled in TONY but for whatever reason didn't make this author's radar. Go away, Time Out; go discover somewhere else, why dontcha).

For the most part, the other, non-commuting, non white-collar/artists are older, yes. My neighbor, for instance, the one who stands and waits, is--how old? Old enough to have been born here and not have any official documentation--no birth certificate, no nothin'. Apparently this is causing him some tsuris, I learned last I spoke to him--since his brother died, he's been trying to get his affairs in order. We were having a pleasant chat, me commiserating about the assiness of bureaucracies (and, unspoken, his general aloneness, how hard it must be for him); until he lowered his voice, took on a harder edge than I'd yet seen from him and said:

"Lemme tell you something, sweetheart--there's nothing for Americans anymore. These immigrants--"

I cut him off, politely but firmly. So let him think that these immigrants have a way easier time getting documentation and sustenance than fellas like him, what were born here. -I- don't need to hear any more. Mostly because, I don't want to start thinking of my kindly, lonely neighbor in that less pleasant light.

Here at the drycleaners, they're playing a tape in the background: not music, but an oddly formal set of English lessons.

"Number 23. I have only travelled West as far as Chicago."

"Number 24. She has been working hard."

Watching this elderly Asian-derived couple, I wonder just how easy it's been for them; if they have documentation at all. They probably do. A lot of people around here don't. They just...manage.

Like the kid who lugged four heavy Fresh Direct boxes up four flights of stairs earlier, God love him, I thought he was going to have a heart attack he was panting so hard; of course they hadn't fixed the elevator yet, they said they would have it done by last night and of course they didn't, the fuckers. Still, as my neighbor is wont to say, "I can't complain." I could be that kid, after all. Or, well; something. Someone.

"Number 26. They have been working hard."

"Number 27. They -had- been working hard."

There seems to be a theme, here.

The owner brings me my mended sweaters, we exchange wordless smiles. I pay him and turn to go. The bland male voice continues:

"Number 28. John has worked hard all his life. He is still alive."

I pause with my hand on the door, at the slight oddness of it. Sure enough:

"Number 29. John has worked hard all his life. He is dead."