On the way home

yesterday, stopped for coffee and some sugar at one of the local cafes.

An older guy comes in, humming tunelessly. Starts shucking off the coat. Mid-shuck, he suddenly wheels on me:

"WHAT is THAT -fantastic- THING?"

I swallow. "Um. Chocolate cupcake."

"It's a CHOCOLATE CUPCAKE!! My GOD."

sadly, he doesn't indulge in one himself. places his order. then, the humming turns into singing, and then, LOUD singing:

"Ave...ave ave ave...ave Mar-eeee-eeee---aaaAAAAAAAAA..."

The counterpeople are giggling openly, but then they seem to do that pretty often anyway. Guy keeps going, seamlessly shifting in the same off-key:

"Iiiiii'm dreeeming of a-ofawhiiiiiiiite....Christmaassss...."

By now I've given up trying to read my book, and am just watching to see what happens when he starts to eat. Sure enough:

(a bit quieter, but not much)

"Iiiiiii'm..." (slurp) "dreaming, of a whiiiiiiite..." (mouthful of sandwich, pause, swallows) "Christmaaassssss..."

I think the counterpeople are probably wetting themselves. No one else seems to even notice, although of course everyone does; it's the same dynamic as happens on the subway. The woman who's been steadily reading and drinking coffee all through this looks up, casually, at some point; i catch her eye and we both smile. Briefly. Then--too much eye contact, I might be as crazy as he is--she's back to the book, hardly missing a beat.

As I'm getting my shit together to go, the guy's finished his food and, as he goes to throw away his plates, starts boogieing to the radio (yes, the radio's been playing all this time as well. Loudly. Not Christmas carols. Top 40). Goes he, to one of the counterpeople,

"Care to dance?"

She shakes her head, laughing.

I give him credit for gender equity, he makes the same offer to the other counterperson, a dude, (with his arms full of trash bags)

"Shall we dance?"

Counterdude: "Hell, no."

Doesn't seem to faze him. I get the hell out of there before he notices me--hell, I love to dance, I might actually say yes...

As I'm leaving, I hear:

"Is that all there is...if that's all there is, my friend, then let's BREAK OUT THE BOOZE!..."

Quote of the day, 12/7/06

"It was a slow day
And the sun was beating
On the soldiers by the side of the road
There was a bright light
A shattering of shop windows
The bomb in the baby carriage
Was wired to the radio
These are the days of miracle and wonder
This is the long distance call
The way the camera follows us in slo-mo
The way we look to us all
The way we look to a distant constellation
That's dying in a corner of the sky
These are the days of miracle and wonder
And don't cry baby, don't cry
Don't cry

It was a dry wind
And it swept across the desert
And it curled into the circle of birth
And the dead sand
Falling on the children
The mothers and the fathers
And the automatic earth
These are the days of miracle and wonder
This is the long distance call
The way the camera follows us in slo-mo
The way we look to us all o-yeah
The way we look to a distant constellation
That's dying in a corner of the sky
These are the days of miracle and wonder
And don't cry baby, don't cry
Don't cry

It's a turn-around jump shot
It's everybody jump start
It's every generation throws a hero up the pop charts
Medicine is magical and magical is art, think of
The Boy in the Bubble
And the baby with the baboon heart

And I believe
These are the days of lasers in the jungle
Lasers in the jungle somewhere
Staccato signals of constant information
A loose affiliation of millionaires
And billionaires and baby
These are the days of miracle and wonder
This is the long distance call
The way the camera follows us in slo-mo
The way we look to us all o-yeah
The way we look to a distant constellation
That's dying in a corner of the sky
These are the days of miracle and wonder
And don't cry baby, don't cry
Don't cry..."

--Paul Simon, "The Boy in the Bubble"

"They're all Muslims, doing what they do."

The ever-charming O'Reilly, incredibly, seems to have outdone himself. via Media Matters:

"On the November 29 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Bill O'Reilly denied that Iraq is in a "civil war as NBC News wants you to think" and asserted that "they're all Muslims, and they're doing what they do. They're killing each other. And they're killing Americans."

As Media Matters for America has noted, while criticizing NBC's decision to use the phrase "civil war" to describe the situation in Iraq, on the November 28 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly said, "[T]he American media is not helping anyone by oversimplifying the situation and rooting for the USA to lose in Iraq."

From the November 29 edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:

O'REILLY: So all of those things have combined. It's not a civil war as NBC News wants you to think. It has nothing to do with that. It has to do with a lot of bad guys going into an area and seizing the opportunity to create death and mayhem. And they're all Muslims, and they're doing what they do. They're killing each other. And they're killing Americans."


****

Yeah, I know: it's O'Rilly? whaddya expect. that doesn't make it any better. The man has a nationally syndicated radio program and TV program; -someone- must still be listening, seeing as how he still has a damn job at all.

And this is what passes for commentary. "Oh well, bunch of savages: that's just what they do! Certainly -we'd- never act in such a way in similar circumstances, even though I -already- clearly am in the process of melting down and no one's even bombed my family or destroyed my drinking water supply! No, I would -never- come after you with a chainsaw! I am 100% sane!! WoohooHOO, hoo HOO, hoo HOO!--"

jesus wept. yeah, I dunno about you, but personally I don't find this shit amusing anymore.

*****

update--oh, I'm kidding myself, of course it gets worse! Here:

"
From the December 5 edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:

O'REILLY: The United States will never be conquered by Muslims -- ever. But you don't want it to reach the point where, we have to, example, you know, level cities like Tehran, kill hundreds of thousands of people, which we may have to do -- which we have already done in Germany and Japan. OK? We have already killed hundreds of thousands of people on one day. Now, do we want to do that again? Of course not, but we may have to.

Example: If Iran takes over Iraq and then fosters a revolution inside Saudi Arabia, which Iran wants to do, and overthrows that kingdom and gets control of all the oil and says we're not selling to the USA, we are going to level that country, because you, [caller], need gasoline to live. See? Now that's the biggest example I can give you."

Male survivors of sexual violence (link)

Discussion going on over at Alas a Blog. active participants (to the thread, not the blog) limited; check for guidelines.

28th Carnival of Feminists is up

...at Diary of a Freak Magnet. check it out.

Math's not THAT hard, is it?

Let's not go shopping!

And now, for something completely different: the wealth gap.



He steals from the poor...and gives to the rich...Stupid bitch!...

*****

And now:

Progressive Gold reminds me of a post I'd been wanting to make, with this Scotsman article:


TWO per cent of adults on the planet command more than half of the world's wealth, while the bottom 50 per cent possesses just 1 per cent, according to comprehensive new research.

While income is distributed unequally across the globe, the geographical spread of wealth - which includes property and financial assets - is even more skewed, the study by the World Institute for Development Economics Research of the UN University showed.

"Wealth is heavily concentrated in North America, Europe and high-income Asia- Pacific countries. People in these countries collectively hold almost 90 per cent of total world wealth," the survey said.

The Helsinki-based institute said this was the first global research on the topic, for which there are only limited data. The study is based on figures from 2000. According to the report "the same degree of inequality would be obtained if one person in a group of ten takes 99 per cent of the pie and the other nine share the remaining 1 per cent.

...The two most asset-rich countries are Japan and the United States. In the US, average wealth amounted to £72,800 per person in the year 2000, and £91,500 in Japan.

In India, the figure was just £560 and in Indonesia, per capita wealth was £710.

Even among high-income nations, the amounts vary, from £18,700 per person for New Zealand and £35,390 for Denmark to £64,200 for Britain.

Although North America has only 6 per cent of the world's adult population, it accounts for 34 per cent of household wealth."


If you're reading this and saying, well, shit, I live in North America/Britain/wherever and i don't -feel- rich, you might be right:

Still, many in the wealthy West are house-poor, with assets well below this number due to mortgages and other debt.

"Many people in high-income countries have negative net worth and - somewhat paradoxically - are among the poorest people in the world in terms of household wealth," the report said.

*****

So, this probably isn't news, right? I mean, we've all heard of the "First World, "Third World," right?

What about the news that this trend has actually been getting worse, not better, over the last few decades?

And that it's not just about one country's wealth versus another's; it's about a HUGE amount of wealth becoming increasingly concentrated in a very few individuals' hands?

From the Global Policy Forum:

Let us take some accepted, indeed indisputable, facts. One, the combined wealth of the world’s three richest people is greater than the total gross domestic product of the 48 poorest countries.


I'm going to just pause and let that one sink in before going on. I don't know about y'all, numbers and statistics and so forth tend to make me glaze over; but this one, well,


Let us take some accepted, indeed indisputable, facts. One, the combined wealth of the world’s three richest people is greater than the total gross domestic product of the 48 poorest countries.


Okay? Okay. Moving on:


Two, in 1960, the average income of the richest 20 per cent of the world’s population was 30 times higher than that of the poorest 20 per cent. By 1995, this had become 82 times greater (United Nations Development Programme Report 1998). Three, in 1970, the gap between the per capita GDP of the richest country, the United States of America ($5070) and of the poorest, Bangladesh ($57) was 88:1. In 2000, the gap between the richest, Luxembourg ($45,917) and the poorest, Guinea Bissau ($161) was 267:1.


That article goes on to lay out the most common responses to these figures, by what they term "neoliberals," i.e. defenders of the current economic model: "growth," "free trade," "globalization," deregulation, that sort of thing, one presumes. Apaprently they boil down to, "well, you have to break eggs to make an omelette" and "lies, damned lies and statistics." (My own somewhat flip reading: read the article for their own words and citations).

*****

But so okay; maybe at this point you're thinking, well, the entire world, that's a bit abstract; global village, schmobal village, I live -here.-

Well, let's assume for now "here" is the U.S., as it is for me and it is for a goodly chunk of y'all reading me here, based on my stats (more numbers!), if obviously not all of y'all.

So, here we go.

From United for a Fair Economy: this is a chart roughly breaking down the rise of income for Americans, divided by relative wealth into five chunks, (with an extra category for the top 5%; you'll see why in a minute) from bottom to top, during the "boom years," the "wonder years," 1947-1979.




As you can see, here in fact, at least within the bounds of this country, it probably is as fair as it ever is to have said that the "rising tide lifted all boats." In fact, the relative income of the bottom 20% rises by more than does the top 20%. (by 116% and 99%, respectively). And within that top 20% sector, the wealthiest 5% income rises by--percentage-wise, you understand, they're still the "wealthiest 5%"--even less, but still a healthy 86% increase, overall. Okay.

Now, this is the chart they have for 1979-2001: (yes, this is including the golden Clinton years, it would seem):



So, bottom quintile (that's a great word, isn't it? "quintile") income rose in those 22 years by...3%.

Wealthiest 20% of the U.S. pop's income rose by...53%.

And the richest 5% of the population's income increased by...81%.

Oh, apparently this is before taxes. After taxes, it breaks down like this:




So, relatively speaking, the bottom 20% does a little better than before: 9%. On the other hand, the top 20% makes out at a 68% increase, over the years.

And the very richest 1% sees an increase of income of 201%, from 1979-2001.

Now, "income," (what you earn) as we know, is not synonymous with "wealth" (what you have).

Here's the chart for how that breaks down as of 2001, mkay:



Yes, you're reading that right, assuming I am and you're reading it as I'm reading it: the wealthiest 1% of the U.S. population--so, what, about 3 million people or so?--between them, own just about exactly one third of ALL the "wealth" in the country, as estimated by and how whoever estimates such things (approximately $43 trillion dollars).

And, while this particular chart doesn't say so, I am willing to bet--and will back this up, later, if i find the stats--that of that 1%, a much much small percentage owns a relative even huger chunk of that. Without the actual figures, I won't swear that the wealthiest .1 or .01% of the population own more than even the rest of that top 1% put together, but it wouldn't surprise me either.

also remembering, again:

Let us take some accepted, indeed indisputable, facts. One, the combined wealth of the world’s three richest people is greater than the total gross domestic product of the 48 poorest countries.

So. Of the remaining 2/3 of the wealth--money, "goods," property, stock, what have you--of the U.S., according to the above chart, HALF the country--the poorer half, natch--has to divide a mere 2.8% between them. So that's, what, 150 million people, give or take? and 3% of 43 trillion bucks...christ, I don't know. All I do know is: it's a lot a LOT less than what the richest 3 million or so own all by theyselves.

(of course, that is slightly better, percentage-wise, than the stats for the ENTIRE WORLD, as we've seen; in which half the world (i.e., what, 3-4 billion people?) share between them 1% of all the wealth in the world.

And then, the so-called middle class--the next 40%, so, you know, of the people who aren't in the bottom half, all but the top richest 10% of the population--they get a bit more than a quarter more, of the wealth, between them.

The remaining chunk is divvied up between what i guess would now be the, well, I don't know how you'd "class" people according to this chart; my guess is that a lot of 'em, this top-10-except-for-the-very-richest-1% of the population, still think of themselves of middle class--as do a lot of people in that lower 50%, because everyone in the U.S. is middle class, you know? There is no such thing as "class"--

--anyway, that lot, the wealthiest-except-for-the-very-tiptop, shares somewhat more than another third of the country's entire wealth between them. Surprise surprise, the richer half of -that- strata has more than twice as much as the rest of 'em.

(Speaking of pre-1980's; anyone else remember this bit from Sesame Street? "Let's share a banana, Ernie; I'll have the banana, and you get the peel!" perhaps i misremember; i was but a babe. anyway Bert is Evil, as everyone knows).

*****

Okay, so, but what does that mean in terms of actual dollars, currently?

Wiki breaks down thusly:



As you can see, a goodly chunk of folk making under 20K a year; another goodly chunk on top of it making under, oh, what, 40k?


*****

So, but, okay: did we indeed "make the pie higher," since oh say 2001 or so? You do hear tell that the economy is "recovering," here and there, no?


Well, according to the Economic Policy Institute:

1. Profits are up, but the wages and incomes of average Americans are down.

Inflation-adjusted hourly and weekly wages are below where they were at the start of the recovery in November 2001. Yet, productivity—the growth of the economic pie—is up by 14.7%.1 (



...Consequently, median household income (inflation-adjusted) has fallen five years in a row and was 4% lower in 2004 than in 1999, falling from $46,129 to $44,389.

2. More and more people are deeper and deeper in debt.

The indebtedness of U.S. households, after adjusting for inflation, has risen 42.0% over the last five years.
The level of debt as a percent of after-tax income is the highest ever measured in our history. Mortgage and consumer debt is now 120% of after-tax income, more than twice the level of 30 years ago.
The debt-service ratio (the percent of after-tax income that goes to pay off debts) is at an all-time high of 13.9%.
The personal savings rate is negative for the first time since the Depression [emphasis mine]

3. Job creation has not kept up with population growth, and the employment rate has fallen sharply.

The United States has only 1.9% more jobs today than in March 2001 (the start of the last recession).

Well, but, see, there is growth! Growth is good, right?


Private sector jobs are up only 1.5%. At this stage of previous business cycles, jobs had grown by an average of 8.8% and never less than 6.0%.

...oh.

The unemployment rate is relatively low at 4.6%.

...yay?

But the percent of the population that has a job has never recovered since the recession and is still 1.3% lower than in March 2001. If the employment rate had returned to pre-recession levels, almost 4 million more people would be employed.

and, I don't have the cite here, but there've been studies that indicate the reason unemployment is "down" is because they're simply going by the people applying for unemployment, on the welfare rolls, on record as actively looking for work, you know. It doesn't take in that in fact a lot have people have simply given up. or fallen, and can't get up.

And, poverty's on the rise, especially child poverty, rising health costs...you get the picture.

Oh, and it also doesn't talk about how many of those new jobs are in the "service economy;" and how many of those are at minimum wage. Yeah, let's talk about minimum wage for a sec, shall we?

From the Hartford Courant:

On Saturday, we broke the record for the longest period without an increase in the minimum wage since it was established in 1938. The prior record of nine years and three months lasted from Jan. 1, 1981, until the minimum wage hike on April 1, 1990.

That current federal minimum wage, in case you didn't know, is $5.15 an hour. And has been since 1997.

Some state laws have an increase beyond that--I think here in NYC it was 6 bucks, may've been raised recently; on the other hand, and this is going to have to be another one where i don't currently have the cite, but in just a bunch of states, don't know if you knew, they can pay you less if your primary income is deduced to be via tips. As in, waitroning, etc. Two something an hour, was it? I do need to look that one up. I remember that, because there was something or other about how someone recently was trying to push a federal bill to override the few states that had provisos that insisted on the full minimum wage for everyone, not just those who get to collect coins and singles from the ashtray. Guess which party. Hint: it's the same one that, (via the same Courant article), wanted to simply do away with the whole thing:

Murray Weidenbaum, chairman of President Reagan's first Council of Economic Advisers, has acknowledged they wanted to eliminate the minimum wage. But as The Wall Street Journal reported, "Because that would have been such a `painful political process,' Mr. Weidenbaum says that he and other officials were content to let inflation turn the minimum wage into `an effective dead letter.'"

Today's minimum wage is less than the 1950 minimum of $6.28 (adjusted for inflation), according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator. It takes nearly two workers to match the $9.28 buying power of one minimum wage worker in 1968.

So what that means is,

A full-time worker at minimum wage makes just $10,712 a year - less than $900 a month to cover housing, food, health care, transportation and other expenses. Today, family health coverage costs more than a minimum wage worker's entire annual income.

The minimum wage sets the wage floor. As the floor has sunk below poverty levels, millions of workers find themselves with paychecks above the minimum, but not above poverty wages.

Which means:

CEOs have enriched themselves and their families for generations to come while workers struggle to support themselves and their children. The highest paid CEO in 1968 made as much as 127 average workers and 239 minimum wage workers. The highest paid CEO in 2005 made as much as 7,443 average workers and 23,282 minimum wage workers.

Specifically,

...average CEO pay in Business Week's survey was $7.4 million. It would take 241 years for an average worker paid $30,722 to make that amount.

Since 1980, average CEO pay has skyrocketed 442 percent, adjusting for inflation, from $1,364,524. Average worker pay has inched up just 1.6 percent from an inflation-adjusted $30,244 in 1980.

...If average worker pay had grown at the CEO pace, it would be $164,018.



And while, as noted way the hell back up there, this growing disparity is a global problem, it is also true that the U.S. is even worse about this growing gap than other "First World" countries in many regards. From the above article,

According to the Towers Perrin worldwide pay report, U.S. CEOs are paid more than twice as much as Canadian CEOs, nearly three times as much as British CEOs, and four times as much as German CEOs.

and from the Courant article:

Ireland's minimum wage is $10 and England's is more than $10, calculated in U.S. dollars.

Now, (also from the Courant)

Democrats promise to pass a minimum wage hike in the first 100 hours of the new Congress. The long-delayed Fair Minimum Wage Act would raise the minimum wage in three steps to $5.85, 60 days after passage, $6.55 one year later in 2008, and $7.25 one year later in 2009.

Which, yay, okay. The AFL-CIO has a calculator you can use to work out how far you'd get on the minimum wage, based on how many hours you work and your monthly costs (it's a good exercise for personal budgeting, anyway if you don't already do such things). So now, i guess, instead of plugging in $5.15 an hour, you can plug in $7.25 an hour. In two years, I mean.

These are steps in the right direction for workers for whom every dollar counts in the struggle to make ends meet. But workers should not have to wait until 2009 for a $7.25 minimum wage that only partly restores buying power lost since 1968.


As they (Courant again) say.

And that's not even getting to the crap about, o, transnational corporations, effects of globalization...

*****

I'll be honest. I had a bunch of reasons for not tackling this shit before; dunno if they're the same as y'all's or not. Well, one, I suppose relatively speaking I am comfortable enough to sort-of pretend this isn't actually happening (although denial works in mysterious ways, doesn't it); certainly more so if you factor in my family background, who by now i expect is in, oh, i don't know what percentile, but i suspect it's up there. Not in the supra-wealthy micro-fraction percentile, no, but...and especially globally...so.

And, gender stereotypes or not, I've always had issues with numbers, personally. I wasn't kidding: math and anything related literally gives me nightmares. (I dread my upcoming statistics class).

And let's face it: this shit's boring compared to, oh I don't know, blowjobs.

And yet.

Somehow, you know, call it a hunch; i have the feeling that even if I, we, most, all? of us? don't start concerning ourselves with this shit pretty soon?

It's gonna concern itself with us.

I mean, the rest of us; the ones who aren't already reading this and going, um, HELLO? film at eleven?

And, I suspect, even those of us who aren't currently calculating whether to buy soap or toilet paper (because it can't be both), seriously freaked out about keeping the lights on, food on the table...it takes its toll, in ways probably not thought about at the conscious level. This Alternet article puts it well, I think:

Contra the right's liberal media conspiracy theories, the major media from across the spectrum are reporting the good news about America's booming economy with zeal.

That endless drumbeat comes with social costs.

First, it fuels the bubble mentality. If the economy's going gangbusters but you're struggling, of course you want to get in on the latest billionaire-creating wealth machine. That mentality infected anyone who bought tech stocks in 1999 hoping to become a "dot-com millionaire," just as it has them running around today buying houses at any price with the expectation that they'll get a 10 percent annual return. Alan Greenspan characterized the mindset as being one of "irrational exuberance." But what could be more rational than piling onto the latest bandwagon after watching a half-hour of CNBC's economic triumphalism?

Less easy to quantify is the psychic cost this has on us. The message we get all the time is that our unrivalled, dynamic economy affords opportunities for us all. So, if you're one of the majority who is not doing so well, it must be your fault. It is you, and not any external economic factor, that is keeping you from profiting from the Ownership Society. You are a loser.

...Despite our great wealth, we're an unhappy people; we lead the world in mental health problems year in and year out. It's impossible to know to what degree that results from failing to live up to the economic expectations drummed into our heads every time we hear about the wonders of the American economy. But the message to all those families struggling to get by should be: You're not alone, it's all of us.

*****

Dennis Moore:
What did you sing?

Singers:
(speaking)
We sang... he steals from the poor and gives to the rich.

Dennis Moore:
Wait a tic... blimey, this redistribution of wealth is trickier than I thought.

Questions for the women in particular

although i won't forbid anyone else to answer, if the spirit moves you.

How comfortable are you with saying "no," in general? In any particular situation?

How able are you to identify and ask for what you want? In general? In any particular situation?

How do you deal with anger?

How "in your skin" do you feel? Are you at home in your body? How easily do you identify physical sensations and/or emotions?

Curious. thanks in advance.

Search string of the day

what state is the biggest consumer of spam and what two locations is spam mad

**

I also liked:


im just a sole whose intentions are good lyrics please don't let me be misunderstood

s-l--o--o----w

how i'm feeling these past few days. i think it's the weather. well specifically the cold outside plus the stupefying indoor heat. can't seem to think straight. don't like it.

Quote of the day, 12/4/06

"[I]t occurs to me that the peculiarity of most things we think of as fragile is how tough they truly are. There were tricks we did with eggs, as children, to show how they were, in reality, tiny load-bearing marble halls; while the beat of the wings of a butterfly in the right place, we are told, can create a hurricane across an ocean. Hearts may break, but hearts are the toughest of muscles, able to pump for a lifetime, seventy times a minute, and scarcely falter along the way. Even dreams, the most delicate and intangible of things, can prove remarkably difficult to kill.

Stories, like people and butterflies and songbirds' eggs and human hearts and dreams, are also fragile things, made up of nothing stronger than twenty-six letters and a handful of punctuation marks. Or they are words on the air, composed of sounds and ideas--abstract, invisible, gone once they've been spoken--and what could be more frail than that? But some stories, small, simple ones about setting out on adventures or people doing wonders, tales of miracles and monsters, have outlasted all the people who told them, and some of them have outlasted the lands in which they were created."

--Neil Gaiman

In other news, firedoglake has just changed its name to Assberets, Inc.

See Dark Sun, feministe (zuzu), feministe (piny), Shakespeare's Sister, Republic of Dogs, and/or Tom Watson for details.

-on edit: Donna at The Silence of Our Friends probably has the most complete roundup.

Lemme just explain this:

1) It's not the use of the word "cunt" that people have a problem with, you disingenuous festering gobshites. It's your sexism. Gross, neanderthalish, reactionary sexism. Makes a nice matched set with the racism (google: Hamsher + blackface or Liza + TRex; i'm too tired now, kids), but doesn't really do much for your progressive creds. Which leads me to:

2) "Progressive" does not, in fact, mean "partisan Democrat who IS NOT A PUSSY, GODDAMIT, and will act as vile and lgf/freeperesque as necessary to prove that this is so." One can quibble about the -actual- meaning of the word today; just, you should know? it actually has to do with foreign concepts like, o, theory, policy, that sort of thing. I know, I know! Wacky notion! Politics is just like football! WIN!! WIN!! But some people seem to think these things are important. Maybe even more important--I know, radical notion--than your social climbing.

3) With allies like you, who needs enemas? Pointless fuckstains. Go sit your ass down.

Two quizzes, and two to grow on.

You may have seen this before--hell, even at my spot, i don't know, i'm apparently up to my 500th post now--but alphabitch reminded me that this is a fun little quiz:
Beliefnet's Belief-O-Matic. You may (or may not) be surprised by the results.

You may also learn something new about yourself from another oldie but goodie, The Political Compass Test. It's not just left/right.

anyway if you do take either, lemme know the results in comments. Inquiring Minds and all.

***

So, there's been a lot of talk about "empowerment" in the feminist-verse. What does that mean to you, womenfolk? Renegade Evolution wants to know.

Meanwhile, from the individual to the collective: Lauren has an ongoing project where she wants to know what knowledge you can share, particularly wrt money issues and getting by: Help Us Help Ourselves. read the first collection/carnival here.

Okay. This search string did bother me.

Usually they make me laugh, but this one did pull me up short:

"sliced off tits."

(and yeah, i'm just pulling them in more by reposting: "Jehovah! Jehovah!" but).

I know why; it's this post, a rollicking good time of a hideous theatre experience-fisking which may or may not have been what the searcher was looking for. let's hope so.

ech.

...and still more mullings

...or, I don't know, maybe it's a question of it's New York?

but the thing of it is, well, this doesn't apply to feminism per se so much; but when i was coming out in Connecticut, went to the local LGBT center and the bars...yeah, definitely there was a lot more let's call it old-school going on, out in the so-called provinces;

and yet you know i still remember hanging around with a group of wildly disparate dykes (the way you do in a smallish place with not many resources and you're just coming out), and us talkin' sex. And one at least LOVED the girl-girl flicks, yeh, the cheesy hetlez boy-made ones that are by far easier to obtain than artsy independent stuff (of the sort i now perfer) and why not? at least they were something. Another talked about wanting "Helen Hunt printed bedsheets," with clumsy lasciviousness.

What I really remember was the awkwardness, the timidity, about That Subject, which in truth i see -so much more often-, even among supposed sophisiticated people, of all orientations.

"What's your favorite body part" (to be touched).

and one woman shyly answering, "My...my...my...you know..."

and another, more wordly one (and we were all grownups, you understand, many in their forties and fifties), "Okay, your 'Dolores,' sure. Anything else?"

...you know, erogenous zones.

oh, so exciting! i hadn't been in any such discussion with -other lesbians-...and i was still so profoundly uncomfortable with myself, so out of my skin from -years- of practice, that i couldn't really enjoy it. instead agonizing over my lack of experience, how little if anything i had to tell, even at my advanced age...

More mullings

...off both this earlier post and a thread in the comments of another. I said:

...Before [encountering the wacky world of online feminism], i was a member of a primarily lesbian womens' theatre collective (aka Dyke Drama, Cll.), which was obviously very politicized. and yeah, there were certainly familiar thrashes , familiar dynamics. the older women were more likely to have been ID'd with the second wave, i've no doubt, and indeed there were generational clashes. the younger ones tended to be i guess now i'd call 'em anarcha-fems, some socialism, a few Greens, some more moderate Dems (not as many), some who were just...doing their thing, pretty much. it was trying to be many things at the same time, i felt, was one problem.

but y'know a lot of familiar core assumptions about womens' space, collective rather than hierarchical, overall quite left-leaning, feminist, anti-homophobia (obviously), yadda.

Some of the main thrashes included:

whether and to what degree to include transfolk;

whether and to what degree men could be part of the individual productions;

how much one ought to charge, and whether a sliding scale was adequate or classist or what;

some fidgeting over to what degree het women were or should be comfortable (a lot of that was primarily coming from one very crazy woman, i think, but my perspective is no doubt skewed);

racism, that was a big one (it was very white);

classism, in a muted sort of way, as it always or often is I suspect in the U.S., especially these days (just extrapolating wildly from my own admittedly very limited experiences)

whether and to what degree to be collectively linked to other organizations and causes, theatrical and political;

and a whole lot of intrapersonal shit, of course, mainly having to do with the care and feeding of the organization itself, the productions, the space, and so on and so forth.

oh, and there was a BIG thing about transitioning from a collective to an incorporated entity, which move was necessary on account of the city was trying to foreclose on the space, and it turned out it'd be possible to buy it back for a dollar, but only with the right paperwork. that was huge and complicated and beside the point here.

point being: of all the various thrashes, "pornstitution" and BDSM were, if present, at least not on my radar. I mean, i know that some folk were personally squeamish about BDSM, or just not into it; but i never witnessed any sort of stomping off because -gasp- zomg Suzie's into leather. (if anything, it'd have been more about "how could you kill that cow?" than "your pervy fetish oppresses wimmin!" --yes, there were meat-eaters too, but a lot of veggies as well).

as for porn and sex work; well, one friend of mine worked as a receptionist for an escort agency; as i recall no one ever gave her any static about it; it was understood that we all gotta eat, so.

at least one other member is/was a pro-domme;

others were or had been sex workers in one capacity or another, again, no big deal;

and many shows were sponsored by the local women-run (heavily queer and feminist-slanted, although obviously straight/men-friendly, or wouldn't stay in business) toy & pr0n/erotica/workshop/yadda shop.

oh, and we had erotic cabarets, which often included burlesque, lapdancing, stripping, and so on. Again, in a quite queer context.

"we are of different worlds, madame."

So is that it, then? Is it different for queers? Or am I missing something else?

Because yeah, i'm sure there were wimmin there who loathed the hetpr0n and were against prostitution, too, but it wasn't such a, you know, THING; and fuck knows we didn't spend all day agonizing about other peoples' blowjobs and how OPPRESSIVE they are, for fucks' sake. hell, i'd say a good quarter of the women were too busy getting their own strap-ons sucked...

as for makeup and such: well, there were femmes, there were butches, there were crunchy-granola types. Any or all of whom may or may not have shaved (plenty of smooth bois and femmes with hairy 'pits in this world). There was i should say a certain amount of sexism toward femmes, especially from the butcher sorts, yes. and there were people who had personal contempt for such things as makeup, i am sure.

but again: we had enough other shit on our plates, we didn't sit around navel-gazing about ZOMG this lipstick is so OPPRESSIVE, i'd throw it away if only i were a good enough feminist, maybe someday...

There are at least a couple of people here who may or may not be reading at this juncture, but who i know either are or were members of this selfsame organization; if you know what i'm talking about, feel free to confirm or deny my admittedly highly subjective perceptions.

Quote of the day, 11/29/06

If you give me your attention, I will tell you what I am:
I'm a genuine philanthropist — all other kinds are sham.
Each little fault of temper and each social defect
In my erring fellow-creatures, I endeavour to correct.
To all their little weaknesses I open people's eyes;
And little plans to snub the self-sufficient I devise;
I love my fellow creatures — I do all the good I can —
Yet ev'rybody says I'm such a disagreeable man!
And I can't think why!


To compliments inflated I've a withering reply;
And vanity I always do my best to mortify;
A charitable action I can skillfully dissect;
And interested motives I'm delighted to detect;
I know ev'rybody's income and what ev'rybody earns;
And I carefully compare it with the income-tax returns;
But to benefit humanity however much I plan,
Yet ev'rybody says I'm such a disagreeable man!
And I can't think why!

I'm sure I'm no ascetic; I'm as pleasant as can be;
You'll always find me ready with a crushing repartee,
I've an irritating chuckle, I've a celebrated sneer,
I've an entertaining snigger, I've a fascinating leer.
To ev'rybody's prejudice I know a thing or two;
I can tell a woman's age in half a minute — and I do.
But although I try to make myself as pleasant as I can,
Yet ev'rybody says I'm such a disagreeable man!
And I can't think why!

Chorus.
He can't think why!

Gama & Chorus.
I/He can't think why!

--"Princess Ida," Gilbert & Sullivan

So, I made a new friend, and find.

On the way home, decided to take a chance and go into that new little restaurant on the main drag, partly because there's a review on the window which makes it sound like maybe it -is- better than the usual around here, partly because i really shouldn't be eating fast food yet -again,- as i'd been planning.

the chef-owner comes out. "oh, is this your first time here? Welcome! I hope you make a home here!" Ordinarily that'd be coming on a bit strong for my tastes, but somehow, it was okay. Warm, pleasant. I ordered the special.

As I'm waiting, an older man hails the owner, from outside; he goes out to meet him, they embrace. Congratulations on the new paint job. The man comes and sits at the table next to me.

I didn't really get started talking to him till i'd almost finished my meal; somehow, though, somewhere in there we ended up chatting away like the best of friends...

yeah, I was gonna tell this one in more detail, but you know, sometimes you just want to let it sit for a while. to cut it short, then: it was kind of lovely. sweet, smart, interesting guy. an actual neighborhood place, with other regulars. i mean, they're there, around here, i just hadn't really found myself at home at any of them; for one thing, as we were agreeing, the food around here is, by and large, -really- not good.

but it's always been that sort of place, my current 'hood: neighborly, really.

next time i bitch about New York (we also talked a lot about that, and compare-contrast with other cities, Boston, say), I'll remember this, one of many reasons why i -do- also love it here, and want to stay, at least for a while.

In answer to a question that I was not actually asked directly,

mostly because, i suspect, the askers in question are well convinced that they already know the answer, as i am firmly established as hopelessly beyond the pale.

but since i -did- see it interrogated of at least one other (well-credentialed, may i add) feminist, who correctly answered "none of your fucking business," but, alas, is no longer with us on the blogosphere, i suspect in no small part because of the sort of bullshit quasi-Red Guard treatment she encountered on this thread, for example, and since I'm in that sort of mood, I thought I'd answer the question anyway.

"Do you use porn?"

Well, let's see. For the most part, I "use" written erotica. I do own a couple of videos made by these producers, indie lesbians who film themselves along with real-life friends and lovers, for the most part. The latter company, btw, fatale/S.I.R., ( i -think- they're merged now, not positive) is also responsible for producing and distributing--not nearly widely enough, sadly--a truly excellent resource, "Healing Sex," a non-erotic film specifically geared toward education and therapeutic exercises for abuse survivors and their partners. Which reminds me: I think I'll buy the DVD. As for the others, the videotapes, well, my VCR's busted; I feel about as much desire to replace them as I would for any other movie I've enjoyed. Maybe not quite as much as say "All About Eve." We'll see.

I've also subscribed now and again to an indie online producer, same sort of deal (lesbians, self-made, self-shot, not making their living from it, keeping day jobs to support their actual passion). Like I say: for the most part, I prefer written stuff.

I've seen a handful of more or less mainstream hetpr0n flicks over the years. Can't say I'm particularly drawn by them either way, for the most part.

And I've had about as much exposure to all the wonders and horrors of the Internetz as pretty much anyone else with a mouse and any degree of curiosity. It's: there, pretty much. Is my take on it.

Oh, and I've been known to enjoy the hot boy on boy action every so often.

Before (and indeed after, as well) I discovered the world of actual pr0n, as I recall, I "used" scenes from mainstream R and even PG-rated movies, sections from books on my parents' shelves (Joseph Wambaugh police stories were good sources for kink, I recall; others were, what, Alberto Moravia, "The Conformist;" bits and pieces of "Ulysses," something or other by Thomas Pynchon, some seriously unlikely stuff as well, not what you'd think of as "dirty" at all, especially), and indeed pretty much whatever portion of the outside stimuli that for whatever reason clicked with my burgeoning little snowflake of a fantasy life in its own individual snowflake of a libido-making way, same as it's done for zillions of humans of all sorts since time immemorial.

Oh, yeah, and generally, I use my left hand.

Seeing as how at least one of the self-appointed Cardinal Fangs in question is apparently of the belief that even taking nekkid pictures of one's own consenting girlfriend is objectifying and woman-hating, i do not anticipate her or any such person finding this particularly persuasive.

Just, you know, I figure as a public service. Wank fodder for the masturbatory rages, you know.

Oh, did you know that there's more than way to wank? As in, using found material and/or one's projected fantasies about someone else as fodder for a psycho-physiological process that results in a pleasant (if perhaps not unambiguously so) build up and then discharge of feelings?

Well, there is.

Personally, I like those other ones, too--the fifteen minutes of hate one, the wrathy wroth of righteous outrage one, the wallowing in borrowed suffering one--but on the whole, i find actual literal orgasms rather healthier and more pleasant.

But each to her own...as long as it's consensually derived, your pleasure, your...discharge.

Tell me: are you sure all of yours are?

...fuck it.

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Quote of the day, 11/28/06

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.