February 28, 2014

What a stunning nerve you have!

That's your answer to this? I highly recommend The Kentuckian's whole post:

February 28, 2014

Tonight will be fine

Simply something beautiful to share.

Song, "Tonight Will Be Fine" by Leonard Cohen, sung by Teddy Thompson

Sometimes I find I get to thinking of the past.
We swore to each other then that our love would surely last.
You kept right on loving, I went on a fast,
Now I am too thin and your love is too vast.

But I know from your eyes
And I know from your smile
That tonight will be fine,
Will be fine, will be fine
For a while.

I choose the rooms that I live in with care,
The windows are small and the walls almost bare,
There's only one bed and there's only one prayer;
I listen all night for your step on the stair.

But I know from your eyes
And I know from your smile
That tonight will be fine,
Will be fine, will be fine
For a while.

Oh sometimes I see her undressing for me,
She's the soft naked lady love meant her to be
And she's moving her body so brave and so free.
If I've got to remember that's a fine memory.

And I know from her eyes
And I know from her smile
That tonight will be fine,
Will be fine, will be fine
For a while.

February 28, 2014

I agree.

Firstly, it turns active discrimination which can be identified and fought, into the flip slide of itself, passive privilege, a vague all-encompassing blame game which changes nothing. In doing so, the issue becomes less clear, and people who have nothing to do with perpetrating it get blamed for it. So substituting that term creates more confusion, and results in more injustice. When seeking justice results in more injustice -- that isn't very credible.

Secondly, it's inaccurate. Privilege denotes benefits in EXCESS of what is the NORM. Treatment of whites should be considered the norm, and treatment of people of color should be improved to meet that standard. Use of the word "privilege" means that abusive, unacceptable treatment of people of color becomes our standard or norm. Is that what we're trying to say? So is the word useful, or not? Is it appropriate, or not?

I say it's a bullshit term, just another attempted corruption of language by fad fuzzy thinkers of the moment.

In fact, it reminds me of something that might've been thought up by someone who was intentionally trying to render the rights movement ineffective (Karl Rove would be proud of whoever it was). Look at this thread, or others, and the dissension it causes is easy to see.

(And that goes for using it about males as well.)

February 26, 2014

Your thread has reminded me why I don't support certain feminists on DU.

(Many here remember the same several years of episodes with them that I do, and some newer members have missed some very enlightening chapters.)

Ever since DU3 got started they have been insisting on favoritism for themselves, and those followers who will forego disagreeing with them at all. They insist the rules here don't apply to them, and say they are persecuted on the rare occasions when the rules do in fact get applied to them At the same time, they reject any need to treat others as they demand to be treated. It is always done with a very overbearing and arrogant air of entitlement, and freely peppered with as many demeaning insults as they think they can get away with. I (still) completely oppose that attitude and those who promote it, and want nothing to do with it.

So while I agree that the SISI cover is OTT (not because of a feminist theory but simply because it depicts women in a degrading way -- that's the quality that needs to be resisted from my pov), the discussion about it has been worthwhile and there certainly couldn't be a discussion without first seeing the image. For the most part, I don't think what's ok to be shown should be a matter for rules and laws, but for subjective opinions and voting in the marketplace of ideas.

So at this point, I would switch my "vote" and yes, allow it here. I have a bigger problem with the SISI cover itself being displayed openly in publc though, which as I see it is just adding to the stifling level of degrading garbage already in pop culture. On that public aspect of it, I'm not going to bend my opinion much. I think it is really damaging to our society as a whole, especially women and girls, and I think it's outrageous that any sector or wave of feminism supports it.


(Btw, I'm a woman too, 64 years now. So I do understand women. Very well.)

February 18, 2014

Objectify!

Polythene Pam / Bathroom Window

Well you should see Polythene Pam
She's so good looking but she looks like a man
Well you should see her in drag dressed in her polythene bag
Yes you should see Polythene Pam
Yeah, yeah, yeah
Get a dose of her in jackboots and kilt
She's killer-diller when she's dressed to the hilt
She's the kind of a girl that makes the "News of the World"
Yes you could say she was attractively built
Yeah, yeah, yeah




This thread is a new low, it broke the internet for me -- because it made me sympathize with the HoFers more than the anti-HoFers. This week, the anti's keep reminding me of this, over and over, every thread...



"...I'm a m-model, you know what I mean, and I do my little turn on the catwalk... I shake my little tush on the catwalk..."

Just goes to show this objectifying schtick is anything but new (roughly the same age as tv, and me). And it's getting real boring by now. I keep thinking this fad has to end sometime, but no, decade after decade it never does. And all the while, it's taken to be so trendy, the latest thing. HA! That does crack me up!

February 17, 2014

Woman here, and I agree with your point.

As to the semantic circle-jerk up and down this thread, it shows the mentality you're referring to... reveling in sub-human identification as if that justifies some sort of license to be crude, or worse.

We make up a definition that humans are apes, and then insist that it's a fact. Ok, what-the-fuck-ever. Tell you what, when the other apes that we're related to develop their own space program and produce a writer on a level with Shakespeare, then it might have some relevance. Until then humans and apes are more different than alike, which is pretty much self-evident.

And I love how people always intentionally forget that at one time "science" insisted that the world was flat... which is to say that science is only "right" until the next discovery, which usually tends to prove that the previously believed science was wrong. There's still some science left to figure out today, so there's no need to act so absolute about it -- that in itself is stupid and unscientific imo.

Speaking of science, I've come up with a new hypothesis, that people become what they constantly look at. That is why those who constantly look at asses become an ass. I think it has possibilities.

February 9, 2014

This is old news.

The only thing new is Woody Allen's film award recently. This controversy is nothing more than an attempt to detract from that. Thus, regardless of the past, Dylan is the abuser now.

I never was a Woody Allen fan, I didn't like most of his films long before this controversy came up the first time, but regardless of what he did or didn't do, I don't think Dylan, Mia, and Ronan are any better.

This current episode is total bullshit and a manipulation of public opinion. The timing of it tells the whole story and shows it up for exactly what it is.

If Dylan had a case it would've been won in court at the time. She does not have a case. As far as the court of public opinion is concerned, it has all been heard before in the past. This is nothing but a rehash. This is Dylan's problem, not mine or any of the public's, and the behavior of her and her faction recently hasn't made me any more sympathetic to her. It also hasn't made me think any worse of Woody Allen than I did before, which is clearly what she was going for in doing this -- turning his public against him. Nice. That's hardly what someone in the mindset of a hurt little girl victim would do, that's a deliberately destructive action out of hate, and yes, hate will sometimes dare to falsely accuse. What we're being asked to just take on faith is that her hate comes from an an allowable reason, and it also comes off as very similar to her mother's behavior and m.o. in the past -- also looking to attack the public's opinion about him... frankly, I wouldn't be shocked if this whole thing largely originated in the first place out of Mia's jealousy of WA's career success.

This won't cause me to go see a Woody Allen film that I wouldn't have seen before; it also won't keep me from seeing a Woody Allen film that I would've seen before. There is no other involvement I have in this, other than whether I see or don't see his films, same as the rest of the public. So to me, this whole effort by Dylan was a fail. His achievements in film are a fact, and that isn't going to be erased by her no matter what whe says. And that is as it should be.

She is attempting to assassinate his lifelong work, and that is just as bad as what she's accusing him of.