Dear Men, This Is Why We’re Tired

DAMN STRAIGHT.

Drifting Through

PicMonkey Image

Emotional labor is unseen. It’s the energy women spend managing other’s feelings and emotions, making people comfortable, or living up to society’s expectations… the barrage of expectations we feel from the time we’re told to be nice and polite while boys are told not to cry. It’s a thing. It’s also a weight carried by some femmes and some men, especially if they’re the main caregiver in the family.

But this is not about that kind of emotional labor.

When I read Cara Delevigne’s account of her harassment at the hands of Harvey Weinstein, I felt every word. When I heard the recording of Ambra Battilana Gutierrez pleading with Harvey Weinstein to let her leave, I felt it in my bones.

In the words these women bravely shared with us, I heard everything they felt. The fear. The confusion. The disbelief. The shame. All of those feelings are a cocktail…

View original post 1,646 more words

Advertisements

Why is this so hard to understand?

I read the Guardian (UK edition) daily, usually in the mornings, with my coffee.  With the events that happening in Las Vegas this the past week, I have been struck by a few things:

  1. Law enforcement is either really stupid or simply in denial of the reality of white men.
  2. People want to “feel” better, no matter what that takes.
  3. Politicians will say anything & do nothing.
  4. Very few people have any idea of what domestic violence really is, believing it to be “just a few bruises” & “if it’s that bad, leave”.
  5. Paddock’s woman (abused or not) was obviously bought off.  Or she figured she’s out of it now, stay out it.  Which is understandable.
  6. And the biggie … “what was his motive?”

That one really gets me.   Like isn’t it wicked obvious?  Let me tell it to you in plain words:  HIS MOTIVE WAS TO MAIM & KILL AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE.

Why is this so hard to understand?  Why do people need something more than this?  A political ideology, a religious angle, some other philosophical bent.

Some people live to kill.

My ex-boyfriend is a hunter & really nothing else.  He’s a union pipefitter & a welder but he lives to hunt.  He believes that Ted Nugent is “working for our rights”, that is, our rights as gun-owners & hunters.  I like to hunt & fish but please, don’t associate me with Ted Nugent in ANY way.

One of his friends once called him a “murdering bastard” cuz he would fill all his tags & then he’d fill everyone else’s tags, too.  He’d shoot every bird out of the sky, if he could.  He hunted so many geese that he got bored with it.

This is my point.

I doubt my ex-boyfriend will ever do anything like Paddock did because he’s really too lazy to do it & he hunts with primitive weapons – he’s that kind of guy.  & he can’t afford a personal arsenal.  & for years, he had me to terrorize.

But because of hanging out with my ex & guys like him, I know that the big thing is the “action”.  You want a lot of “action”.  So if one field is boring, you go to another field.  That’s why you put up cameras & make sure there’s lots of deer hanging around.  In the old days, we checked for actual deer sign, but technology is changing this.  Anyway, I can easily see how some bored rich guy with an arsenal at his disposal might get bored with regular hunting & want to try out his fancy guns on something else.

When I was a kid, I read a short story called “The Most Dangerous Game, by a writer called Richard Connell.  It was in an old short-story collection at my grandmother’s house & I must have been really bored to have reading it.  Here’s a link to the story: https://fiction.eserver.org/short/the_most_dangerous_game.  There was a 1932 movie made of the story, starring Joel McCrae & Fay Wray, so you understand that this story is almost 100 years old.

People don’t want to think about a man wanting to shoot down people for “fun” because it doesn’t make them “feel safe” in the world, but this idea has been around for a long time.  My attitude about “feeling safe” is it’s just an illusion anyway, but that’s a whole ‘nother blog post.

Reports say that Paddock scouted out several placed for this massacre, including Fenway Park and sites in Chicago.  But as every hunter knows, you look for the place that’s easy to get in & out of.  Where you can enter & exit without being noticed.  Paddock was a gambler.  As a “high roller”, he would be able to get a luxury suite & privacy.  He wouldn’t have to worry about being noticed by the staff, because they were used to seeing him anyway.  That’s a kind of camo right there.

So again.  What was his motive?  What was he doing up there?  He was SHOOTING TO KILL.  That was the motive & the only motive.

You can talk about mental illness, you can talk about domestic violence, you can talk about pure evil in the hearts of men.  But until you remove the instrument that allows them to do these kinds of human destruction – these high-powered guns – it’s going to keep happening.  & honestly, the motive doesn’t matter.  Or really – the mind of the person doing the shooting.  Because the end result is all the same.  People dead & wounded.

 

Slimed

“notion” vs “nation”. Brilliant. Wish I’d written this.

his vorpal sword

Screencap from NBC. Commentary by HW

AP-NORC Poll: Low marks for Trump’s Puerto Rico response
By LAURIE KELLMAN AND EMILY SWANSON, ASSOCIATED PRESS 
WASHINGTON — Oct 4, 2017, 1:22 PM ET

Americans are more likely to disapprove than approve of President Donald Trump’s handling of the Puerto Rico hurricane relief effort.

According to a poll by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, just 32 percent approve of how Trump is handling disaster relief in the U.S. territory, while 49 percent disapprove.

“It took him how long to get to Puerto Rico?” said Bree Harris, a 25-year-old chef and Democrat from Los Angeles. She suspects Trump “didn’t even know that Puerto Rico was an island that was part of America. It’s embarrassing.”

Embarrassing? Well, yes, but then that is a monumental understatement.

I guess it was the spectacle of watching the Hirsute Cheeto Beast pretending to be a t-shirt gun in distributing…

View original post 1,728 more words

re: Preproposal Statement of Inquiry to amend Chapter 246-490 WAC, Vital Statistics (USA)

This kind of thing must be stopped in all states. Sex and gender are not the same thing, and you cannot change your sex based on your “feelings”.

Gender Identity Watch

The Women’s Liberation Front, Hands Across the Aisle Coalition, Safe Spaces for Women, and the Just Want Privacy Campaign, along with a list of individual signatories, submitted a letter in response to the Washington State Department of Health’s proposal to “creat[e] a new rule regarding changes to sex designation on birth certificates.”  The state’s website with information regarding the proposal can be found here.

According to the letter, “The Department is proposing to allow people born in Washington to change their vital birth information for any reason or no reason at all, a move that would render the state’s vital statistics inaccurate and unreliable, and raise a raft of complicated questions the Department does not appear to have considered. We urge you to scrap this proposed rulemaking as it is unnecessary, outside of the Department’s statutory authority, and harmful to women and girls.”

The letter points out that “a…

View original post 165 more words

Doesn’t Matter Where Your Heart Is

First Draft

Just stop it:

This is why I keep yelling about money. The money behind Free Speech Week, the money behind Fake News, the money behind the NFL and how none of this “unity” bullshit matters until Kaepernick has his job back.

We keep acting like “racist” is an insult instead of an adjective, like it’s something you can be or not be, like it’s not actions. Like it’s feelings. Look, I personally hate a lot of people but I don’t go around punching them in the face. Likewise, I like a lot of people but if I treat them like shit my inner child’s moods don’t really matters that much.

It’s why the “black friends” thing is so laughable. I can have black friends and…

View original post 164 more words

Gang Rape of AI Sexbot Supports ALL MEN Theory of Sexual Assault

This is why I want nothing to do with men anymore. Except my son, of course, & a few select friends of long standing.

I had read about this a few other places but this blog really nails the total disgustingness of what happened here.

To. A. Robot.

The Psy of Life

As if we needed more evidence that men under the right circumstances will commit sexual assault, the Arts (sic) Electronica Festival in Linz, Austria teams up with Synthea Amatusto bring you one of the most disgusting stories ever told! It would seem that the right-good gentlemen, maybe a few ladies? who knows, were so thrilled to see the display model of the “intelligent” sex doll on display there, that they serially gang raped it until it needed significant repairs and a very deep cleaning.

A quick bothersome irksome annoying aside: The HuffPost article and other articles identified the festival as the Arts Electronica Festival in Linz, Austria. A yahoo search — I’m in China and use one of the incarnations of Mozilla Firefox because China blocks google and an illegal VPN is needed to access google stuff, but the VPN frequently slows the already slow shitty connection down…

View original post 1,427 more words

What it means to be ‘woman-identified’ or ‘male-identified’

This post is two years old, but still a very important subject in today’s world. Maybe more so, after the attack in Manchester, England, which was, after all, an attack on WOMEN.

Purple Sage

The idea of women being ‘woman-identified’ or ‘male-identified’ is a concept that came out of the feminist consciousness-raising of the 1970s and seems to have fallen out of use; I rarely hear feminists use this phrase. Currently, the word “identify” is only being used in the context of transgenderism where people ‘identify as’ a certain gender, but that’s not what I’m talking about here. ‘Woman-identified’ as it was used in the feminist consciousness-raising groups had to do with women’s identification with their oppressors—women seeing ourselves in terms of how we are defined by men.

In Feminism is for Everybody, bell hooks explains:

“In the early stages of feminist movement we used the phrase ‘woman-identified woman’ or ‘man-identified woman’ to distinguish between those activists who did not choose lesbianism but who did choose to be woman-identified, meaning their ontological existence did not depend on male affirmation. Male-identified females were those…

View original post 1,193 more words