Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

What do John Wayne Gacy Jr. and Sufjan Stevens have in common?

Gacy as "Pogo The Clown"

That other John Wayne: Gacy as Pogo the Clown.mon?

No–it isn’t songwriting, or sympathetic followings, per se–it is secrets, hidden underneath their floor boards.  And their polar opposite reactions to being sensitive men or sexual men in a society that has a problem with sensitive, sexual men.

Is Sufjan Stevens gay, or just very very homo-romantic?  I don’t know–what really matters is that he, through the feat of human compassion,  brought my attention to an obscure fact about a serial killer, the effects of  labeling theory, and the self fulfilling prophecy of criminalizing male sexuality, and rendering men as demons–before they actually become demonic.

Sufjan Stevens’ Ballad of John Wayne Gacy

Another thing they have in common is that neither  men ever knew this other man, Harold Wayne Lovell,  who was long thought to be  one of Gacy’s eight unidentified victims. Lovell was recently found alive living in Florida, and his surviving family members are overjoyed at their reunion.

“Tim Lovell and Theresa Hasselberg hadn’t seen their brother, Harold Wayne Lovell, since he left their family’s Chicago home in May 1977 in search of construction work. At the time, Gacy was trolling for young men and boys in the area. He was a contractor, and he lured many of the 33 young men and boys he killed by offering them work.” More story here

Youtube is full of videos about Gacy, but here is one with footage that I actually remember from that time:

The Gacy story touched me directly when I was young, because I grew up in the windy city, not far from where he was stashing bodies like a squirrel stores nuts for the winter– young male bodies, underneath his floorboards;  and he was one of the first “boogiemen” that I was actually afraid of. The city went into ‘evil gay boogieman overdrive,’ when his victims were discovered.

But it was the song by Sufjan Stevens some decades later that made me LOOK AT Gacy differently, to actually see part of him that I was not even made aware of: Gacy himself was sentenced to ten years in prison, essentially for being a gay man, and it wasn’t until  later, after he got out, that he became a serial killer.*

Such are the effects of sexual repression and oppression of the rights of human beings to have consensual, or private  sex;  and the effects of social mechanisms that selectively enforce the way our bodies are categorized, objectified, labeled, used, and abused by society. Such are the effects of mis-directed rage.

If Gacy was wiser, maybe he would have just taken a shotgun down to the local police station and aimed for a few heads. Silent complicity is still silence when it comes to oppression.

And American prisons are rape factories, with some 216,ooo reported rapes or sexual assaults per year. American prisons are routinely cited for human rights  violations by Amnesty International.

I am not a criminologist, or anything other than an amateur profiler, yet neither do I trust the profiles in any sense other than confirmation bias, as the constructions or the constructors and their interpretations of social reality are almost always devoid of causal factors that deny us insight into the society that creates them. We give the jobs to those who uphold the norms, not to those who challenge them.

Mugshot taken of John Wayne Gacy, taken follow...

Gacy Before society applied the label of deviant, and ...

I do not condone homicide or rape, or the rape of men and boys. However, it is not a stretch that one could  imagine that Gacy’s crimes were preventable, had society not criminalized homosexuality at the time. And the deaths of 33 men and boys could have been prevented.

I remember the first footage I ever saw of the scene of the crime, and I remember thinking “that could be anywhere; I could have been under those floorboards.”

But, now, looking back, I realize that Gacy buried a piece of himself under those boards as well, because it takes quite snap of the mind and lots of rage to do something like he did. I also takes a society that criminalizes male sexual urges as well.

Oh: what did John Wayne Gacy look like in his last booking photo?  What did he look like after his wife left him, he was imprisoned, and he lost everything that he had ever worked for? What did he look like after being imprisoned for consensual sex? AFTER the label of deviant stuck?

He was smiling that last time, in his last arrest– a strange, ironic, almost relieved and painfully annoyingly smile–the smile of an ‘anti-social sociopath.’

After the label stuck: The Smiling Sociopath

Personal notes for later thought: 1) The name John Wayne carries a lot of masculine baggage 2) False expectations on men cause sexual deviance , re: the diathesis stress model 3) society has a need to create a criminal class, and then, to police that class. 4) scapegoating males begins early, and often until they become monsters 5) I am against the death penalty even more now.

Below is a short list of how normal deviance is pushed by ‘normative’ social forces into becoming abnormal deviance.

* From Wikipedia: “On December 3, 1968,[27] Gacy was convicted of sodomy and sentenced to 10 years at Anamosa State Penitentiary, located in Jones County, Iowa.[27][28] The day Gacy was sentenced, his wife petitioned for divorce[29] and requested possession of the couples’ home, property and subsequent alimony payments.[30] The Court ruled in her favor and the divorce was final in September 1969. Gacy never saw his first wife or children again”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wayne_Gacy

Female police officers, and women in general, are always kind, and always willing to do the right thing, which is why the Washington Post ran this story about dispersing protesters in Oakland.

Don’t believe the people who tell you that police used tear gas, or other forms of violence, it simply isn’t true, as this photo demonstrates. Women simply do not use violence to get what they want, and they always help society enforce the laws against miscreants.

And they all love kittens!!

nuttin’ much?

Posted: October 18, 2011 in Uncategorized

nuttin’ much?

This is just a quick post to vent a minute, about something that I bump into on the internet quite frequently: Hate.

And I hate hate, almost as much as I hate love–because both are such arbitrary, stoopid, flawed human constructs.

The former is what everyone knows, the latter only a few, and even then–if they are wise–they keep it mostly to themselves..

And if I love anything it is dialogue–good robust, humorous, and lively dialogues. But they don’t really exist anymore, and I will go into that in a later post today.

And if I hate anything–any one thing? It is censorship, and the resultant flame wars on the internet–oh: and I hate being used, which is the net effect of conflation, rapeflation, and internetz warz.

The Left used to be so much fun–liberal topics have always been dear to me–and the right had always been so dull, angry, violence prone and just evil.

But the left and the right have merged, and it is killing dialogue. The only difference between the two? Old versus new money.

Same as it ever was? Yup. But that saddens me greatly.

Female judge busted for taking pee pics in men’s restroom!

Women and women’s Sexual Voyeurism are coming out of the closet–and bathroom stalls. Female judge busted for taking pee-pictures in men’s restroom!

Long after lesbians and other female sexual ‘deviants*,’ like sex positive feminists have revealed themselves as normal people who are biologically homosexual, or just intellectually kinky, it is no longer a surprise or an anomaly, but just a fact of life–hey, guess what? Women vary in their sex drives and fantasies like racing Matchbox cars, and their kinks are all over the Kinsey scale!

Now STFU!!

Or not: real equality of the sexes demands that we explore womens actual sexual deviance and ‘perversity’–by the same standards that men have been judged, and imprisoned, by for centuries.[Marquis de Sade, etc]

[If feminism has anywhere to go after the charade of ‘elevatorgate’ it is in examining women as human beings, with both human functions, and dysfunctions.]

Florida Traffic court Judge Rhonda Hollander, 47, was arrested for trying to take pictures of a man using the urinal at here courthouse.

Part of the profile of women’s deviance is that they are at least as capable as men of most of the sex acts and ‘sexually deviant behaviors’ defined by the DSM-4. But we don’t actually or ‘actively’profile, investigate, suspect, or prosecute women as such, and so we have the occasional woman getting caught by random chance doing what human beings often do: spying on others sexual and quasi sexual practices.

Female voyeurism is perhaps as old as time, and all of the stereotypes apply,yet there is a biological twist involved: women, long idealized as ‘nurturers’ and ‘concerned, maternal protectors’ are revealed at times in the modern society as mere voyeurs.

Why? Is it because a womans ‘drive’ to ‘nurture’ has long included the role of examining sexual organs for medical necessity? Is it because women have for so long been cast in the role of mothers that they cannot help themselves but desire exposure to genital functions? Is it the lack of intimacy, and a whole range of other dysfunction that makes women thus?

Or is it an innate drive or sense of ‘allo-licking’ behaviors that all female mammals share, that drives them to bathroom stalls, and their childrens bath-tubs[…] to examine genitalia and nude humans, with human body functions?

We may never know, but one thing IS certain: women’s sexual ‘deviance’ is once again being examined, and the questions above are just a starting point.

The currentr tendency is to ascribe deviant sexual behavior to male bodies–sexual deviance is constructed as the exclusive territor of men and boys, because for all of history, women’s sexuality has been repressed, or suppressed by social forces, according to the literature.

Whereas the societal expectation and indeed, encouragement of men’s sexuality has been profiled, criminalized, and penalized, women’s sexuality has been mythologized, idealized, and stereotyped into behaviors that exclude ‘perversity’. And as of this writing, most women, and especially feminists, derive direct benefits from, appreciate, and endorse that reasoning, despite claims toward equality.

In fact, it would be accurate to say that feminists as a whole not only exclude women’s actual criminal deviance as a topic of discussion, but work actively against engaging in the topic in public forums, and social discourse.

However, the future is not so bleak: many women in the social services have taken notice, and do stand up against female sexual deviance in its true, egalitarian manifestations, like rising rates of incarceration for female child sex abusers.

Here are some links to truly sex-positive feminists and resources that examine women’s sexual deviance:

http://feministing.com/2011/04/09/clpp-2011-sex-positive-feminism-101/

http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2011/05/09/towards-my-personal-sex-positive-feminist-101/

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Sex-Positive+Feminism-a01073863023

*deviants: defined by prevailing social and psychiatric models, deviance is roughly, anyone and any behavior that is outside of ‘normal’ constructs; defined by standards that ‘we all agree’ upon, sans political affiliation, gender, sex, race, etc.

A chart showing the avalability of food in the...

Food pyramid or secret symbol !!!????

Staring at a blank white page has never been my problem ; but staring out into the void that precedes reception and receivers is petrifying.

I literally have nothing to say to ‘ordinary’, or ‘normal’ people.

Hoi, polloi–How’s that?

Just me again, not normal, as usual.

Yeah, I thought I would lose you there, and I did. Go away now, and relish your normalcy with catch up; I never had that common gift to bring to the table, and never will.

I HATE furniture.

There’s privilege for you–I’m so special, right? Predictable, you are. What a luxury.

I am personally, and so full of myself; I can just die, but I can’t find the painless method or gizzard enough pebbles to croak; as you think I am trying to  compare.

Competition is the active verb waggling at the cock headed idolatry of the middle classes, a tall church on every corner, and stained glass shards put together to form myth pictures that keep the ladies and all their children from falling asleep between their sighs.

So fuck your God, in it’s huge ass with shards of glass, and spear heads. I live for creation, your God died for your sins, and shits them out everywhere upon me.

Sins are a luxury in a world where sins are predictable, and then forgotten. Until they are remembered, by omniscient, consequent, not-at-all selective lottery picks, and named, gendered names.

I can’t forget luxury, here on the side of the river, wondering if they are coming for me yet.

That guy upriver lived in a cave, after prison, and then, the city kicked HIM out for ‘disorderly house‘ or something deeper.

And that millstone is grinding, killing me. Again.

While you are structuring glass arguments, housed by monolithic pillars, and lots and lots of the hoi polloi to sing the paean for you, who aren’t aptly appointed to count the cost of forgetting the overall structure .

I hope that works out for you, while your thighs rub there, fat like a cricket before my beak.

I think the frogs can have you this morning, or another bird.
You’ll fly, alright, to heaven–as it shits you out its sphincter, a pip, then a splat from high altitude.

I wonder what THAT would look like on paper?

I would read it, for one, as graffiti on a monolith.

Sigmund Freud, founder of psychoanalysis, smok...

Sigmund F.asks the question: "where DID I put my mind and all of it's blurry, overlapping inter-sectional, digressions???" <------------------------------------------ Julia Kristeva replies.

The word-mangler machine below is currently proudly owned and operated by feminist theorists and rhetoricians, although it was once the property of other cannon fodder suppliers, enablers, and other Global oppression producers.

If you would like to use the word mangler, insert your word below :


INPUT:                   [—-individuality-—]
“the source of the concept of intertextuality, while at the same time underscoring the difference between this concept and that, for example, of dialogism. I see the following differences. In the first place, there is the recognition that a textual segment, sentence, utterance, or paragraph is not simply the intersection of two voices in direct or indirect discourse; rather, the segment is the result of the intersection of a number of voices, of a number of textual interventions, which are combined in, the semantic field. but also in the syntactic and phonic fields of the explicit utterance. So there is the idea of this plurality of phonic, syntactic, and semantic participation. I think that what is new with regard to Bakhtin is seeing this intervention of external plurality at different levels—not oniv at the level of meaning but at the level of syntax and phonics, too. What interested me even more—and this seems to me unique—was the notion that the participation of different texts at different levels reveals a particular mental activity. And analysis should not limit itself simply to identifying, texts that participate in the final texts, or to identifying their sources. but should understand that what is being dealt with is a specific dynamics of the subject of the utterance, who consequently, precisely because of this intertextuality, is not an individual in the etymological sense of the term, not an identity. In other words, the discovery of intertextuality at a formal level leads us to an intrapsychic or psychoanalytic finding, if you will, concerning the status of the “creator,” the one who produces a text by placing himself or herself at the intersection of this plurality of texts on their very different levels—I repeat, semantic, syntactic, or phonic. This leads me to understand creative subjectivity as a kaleidoscope, a “polyphony” as Bakhtin calls it. I myself speak of a “subject in process,” which makes possible my attempt to articulate as precise a logic as possible between identity or unity, the challenge to this identity and even its reduction to zero, the moment of crisis, of emptiness, and then the reconstitution of a new, plural identity. This new identity may be the plurality capable of manifesting itself as the plurality of characters the author uses; but in more recent writing, in the twentierh-century novel, it may appear as fragments of character, or fragments of ideology, or fragments of representation. Moreover, such an understanding of intertextuality—one that points to a dynamics involving a destruction of the creative identity and reconstitution of a new plurality—assumes at the same time that the one who reads, the reader, participates in the same dynamics. If we are readers of intertextuality, we must be capable of the same putting-into-process of our identities, capable of identifying with the different types of texts, voices, and semantic. syntactic. and phonic systems at play in a given text. We also must be able to be reduced to zero, to the state of crisis that is perhaps the necessary precondition of aesthetic pleasure, to the point of speechlessness as Freud says, of the loss of meaning, before we can enter into a process of free association, reconstitution of diverse meanings, or kinds of connotations that are almost undefinable—a process that is a re-creation of the poetic war. I think. then, that this kind of writing, whose formal aspects I try to stress along with its intrapsychic aspect—and I think we must never discuss the one without the other—can be accounted for only by a reader who enjoys the complexity of the text and who places himself or herself on both levels at once. This logic and dynamics, which may also be applied to classical texts seem to me to be absolutely necessary for modern texts. This is true for poetic texts, which are characterized by great condensation and great polysemia: as examples I can cite the writings of Nerval or Mallarme in particular. It is also true for the modern novel. The texts of Joyce are a very special example of this type. It is impossible to read Finnegan’s Wake without entering into the intrapsychic logic and dynamics of intertrextuality.”

PLEASE REMEMBER TO PICK UP YOUR RESULT BELOW:

     OUTPUT : [—-national security threat—-]

Note: If anyone can turn the word mangler into an “active” working computer software program, I would appreciate the help.

Did you ever have a secret you couldn’t tell anyone? Men and boys often do, and it is imperative that we learn to listen, rather than chiding, or mocking them, or making light of problems that men and boys face.

12 year old boy faces prison–and it’s all his fault. He should man up or somethin… [Especially watch the womans comment at the end of the video, about how he should rot or get raped in prison]

I probably ask some of the same questions—and come up with the same answers as you do when it comes to trying to understand why a young boy would take a shotgun, and blow a person’s head off. But for some, the  likely the answer is because “that’s just what boys do,” or some derivative of ‘ boys and violence.”

And I am not a psychiatrist; I don’t know for certain why he did what he did, but I do know a bit about being a boy, and how that can hurt in weird ways. Especially when they tell you that girls don’t do bad things.

This idea is perpetuated by academics who believe that boys are harmful to society. However, actual scientists believe that there is massive gender bias against  boys in mental health diagnoses.

Boys are four times less likely to be diagnosed with autism, and autism might even be a factor in whether or not boys become murderers.

Boys also suffer from the under diagnoses of ADHD, and a host of other mental health issues.

Homicide is an extreme example of course, but an example of ‘male ascribed behavior’ that is perpetuated through gender stereotypes and under diagnoses like the above links. In fact, most violence is described as male behavior, part of a cycle of socially ascribed male status, until a boy “becomes a man” and achieves the status of violentoffender.

Most societies still encourage violence in males, despite the primitive nature of such a sexist belief system. Even the San people, who call themselves the  !Kung- who are reportedly one of the most gentle groups of people around the world,  believe that a boy is not a man until he kills.

Violence is socially constructed, and engendered  as male in discussions of domestic violence, and in the enumeration of the symptoms of mental disorders as well–which could be viewed as a form of violence directed at men, and in the least is sexist. Ascribing violence to males perpetuates violence, and is an inaccurate and misleading characterization, because women’s violence accounts for at least half of all domestic violence, and also takes many different forms, especially when they are drinking, and sometimes takes the extreme forms that this boy exhibits as well.

And some of those forms are well hidden in the family structure, and under discussed in mainstream dialogues. Even as I wrote this, a woman said to me (and I hear this quite a bit) “but you don’t know if the woman hurt him; how do you know the father didn’t do something to him?”

There is little doubt the father ‘did something’ but also he likely didn’t do enough, or could have. And the thing the father shouldn’t have done is to bring a strange woman with two strange kids into the center of a young boys life without some professional dialogue, or a counselor to oversee the transition.

But the dialogue with western women never progresses that far.The ‘it’s mens fault’  speaker is set to high volume, playing that old record every time you bring it up.

I have learned that this primary western female responsibility-negation response is to be expected when discussing causation of violence. Most if not all women reflexively deflect issues of violence onto men, and ascribe the results to male initiation—no matter how gross and evil acts of women’s violence are, or what different forms women’s violence takes. I have even come to the conclusion that this behavior—deflecting issues of violence onto men—is in fact a form of female violence.

But violence is every bodies problem. For an example: the bear comes to the mouth of the cave!! Do the man and woman each stand up and fight the bear? Do the children who have legs stand up and fight the bear?? Of course they do, if nuclear family has any meaning at all. It takes more than one woman kicking a man’s ass out of the comfort of the bearskin rugs to kick the ass of the next bear.

Anywhere except in America, the nuclear weapons capital of the world, land of the replaceable Uber-man, the ever fertile cannon fodder producing woman, and initiator of more than five current wars! And except for domestic violence issues and rape, violence is apparently wholesome, and socially acceptable.

Never mind statistics that prove that women’s sexual violence against boys leads to aberrant male behaviors—like rape and domestic violence.

From The Invisible Boy Report: Re-imagining the Victimization of Male Children and Teens

Statistics from The Invisible Boy Report, Health Canada

So I have learned the importance of ignoring this type of diffusion by women, because it only and forever leads to blaming boys for how they were raised, rather than examining women’s direct and indirect violence against boys which makes them “men” who fight bears all alone.

Anyone looking in on such a story, without proper social context, would conclude one of two things: the boy was angry and controlling, or the boy was homicidal—perhaps a sociopath. Maybe both, and maybe neither. Nobody can disagree on those two things, based on what we know about violence, except perhaps psychologists, and well- funded, well organized (invested) , biased social observers who define certain behaviors as “male behaviors” and certain other behaviors as ‘female behaviors.’

It isthis gendered schema which is the root of the problem of domestic violence, and those who parade such ideas don’t just define, or perpetuate the behaviors: they create them.

But I will suggest the bizarre, and the extreme: maybe the boy was neither angry, nor homicidal. Because boys respond to threats and challenges differently than women do because they are enculturated to do so. And boys who respond to challenges with extreme violence often are over-reacting to remembered violence that they have experienced. Fight or flight responses gone mad, escalated to a point where there is no turning back.

Maybe the boy was being preemptive in protecting ‘his home.’

Boys re-experience past violence when they are challenged or threatened. The sensitivity that is cultivated in girls is discouraged in boys. So instead of resorting to tears, and tantrums, or being encouraged to discuss his feelings, or even incorporated into a body politic that ascribes them validation through ‘victim status,’ boys can become isolated to the point of making irrational statements of protectiveness, or independence.

O.K., GAME TIME!

Let’s play a game—whether you want to or not, but if you’ve read this far–you will play. I will give you an example, you will follow it: rock, paper, and scissors. You will pick one of the three.

You picked one of the three, right? Even if you didn’t want to, or you chose not to play along, there was one of them in your head—I would bet it was rock. But playing, or not playing–either one is normal behavior.

But I know you picked one of the three even if you didn’t admit it. I told you to pick one of the three. You had to pick one of the three, and whether you wanted to or not, you did. Didn’t you?

DIDN”T YOU?

I personally would have picked option two—I wouldn’t have played the game, because I didn’t like the language that was used to get me to play. It sounds authoritarian, manipulative, and un-inclusive of my feelings.

And I cannot imagine what a boy might be feeling or thinking as he blasts someone in the back of the head with a shotgun, but I suspect he was remembering, feeling, or re-experiencing similar word games, and scars they had left on him, and possibly other more physical memories–after all, hitting boys is still common in American households.

But this kid is the kid who doesn’t understand normal, and his choice was “shotgun.” Shotgun wins every time over people who play games with your sense of safety (your rock), and your sense of expressing fairness ( paper), or your ability to separate the two (scissors). When grown-ups fail you on all three levels, there can be extreme consequences.

Living of East Slavs. In russian: «Жилье восто...

Slavs, the genetic source material for blue eyed Askenazi Jews. Image via Wikipedia

Awhile ago I posted about white female privilege, the ritual fiction of women’s oppression, and its net negative effect on other people who actually take risks for all people, like Ellen Beth Wachs.

I was breaking the second to the  last* taboo, talking about white women’s privilege…and also talking about the blonde haired Jew!

Ellen Beth Wachs is an atheist, humanist hero facing 15 years in prison for making orgasmic noises.  Most white women don’t know that, because they have never risked anything except  fear of big openings that transport human life up and down–you know, like Rebbeca Watsons now famous fear of elevators.

Nor do American white women take actual risks for truly noble and self sacrificing  dissent anymore because lying, hating, and fearing, AND getting funding for phony social morality crusades is soooo much easier! But they sure do talk a lot about it. And Talk, and Talk, and Talk some more.

White women sure can talk!! They are good at that–it’s in their jeans–their true religion descended panties.

Sisterhood is cool as long as woman-whiteys don’t take real risks, and don’t do no time! Sisterhood is even more cool if you can ride your bike with your ass to traffic, and not get called on ‘your shit.’

But where are all those verbose white women on Ellen Beth Wachs??

“A circuit judge granted bail Friday for Ellenbeth Wachs, the embattled legal coordinator for the Atheists of Florida who’s facing criminal allegations that she made sexual noises inside her home that were heard by a 10-year-old neighbor,” says the Ledger.com

I understand deconstruction, and the rhetoric of the body as concerns privilege and the imagery of the human form; i understand the whole white people deconstructing their privilege and all–what I don’t understand is white women not getting it for the long haul.

And then, I remember…I remember for for them, because their fears of lost privilege keep them negotiating for their ‘safety,’ and ‘safe passage.’

White women, especially blondes with blue eyes, were once highly prized slaves from the Khazar kingdom to the middle east, where they were seen as exotic, and alluring; wild animals that were caught and tamed; trained and sold by slavers–may of those slavers Ashkenazi Jews, other Slavs, or Arabs.

And man, did ‘inter-breeding’ piss the Sephardic Jews off to no end!

Here is a kosher link to that factoid so that I don’t get labeled an !! Anti-shemite!! as so many herd-oriented white women, liberals, and

White Female Privilege Has a Long History in a Different Kind of Slavery--their own. The Princesses in the Towers of privilege.

schmucks tend to do once you bring up Jewish history , or Jews owning slaves.

I mean, even Jews have a hard time recognizing he importance of talking about that.

I would be better off being a closet racist who could be called out, a homophobe, a pedophile or a Republican among the feminist leaning left, and liberals, because at least then, they could hate me for something specific that fits into their hate script, and is well documented; something that they could ‘change’ in me or despise. Something they could point a jaded rubber phallus a, or whack me over the head with.

A disembodied, de-humanized, theoretical entity that could be labeled white, and male, or just male –hell that’s enough with some of those people–an objectified persona that they could direct hate , and self righteous missives at. But that’s been done already, long before white females had the social power that was given to them which they now batter people with.

If i never hear another of them talk about circumcision!

…Jews bought slaves who they then circumcised and converted into ‘half’ Jews. In the event of manumission the slave became, with certain very slight reservations, a full Jew, and even while he was a slave he was for ritual purposes regarded as a Jew. He could handle the wine of his owner and do his cooking. Not so the Christian servant, to whom the restrictions of the segregative laws applied.

Man, I can hold my own damn wine–but you whiners? Get another drink, and settle down already….

If I called a spade a spade it is clearly racist, right? If I used a racial epithet, or a sexist trope, I could be called on that and duly crucified in the rhetoric; but I don’t do that. I simply maintain that white women’s privilege is far more ‘un-examined’ than most every other privileged class in our species.

And man, do they hate me for it–you can hear the rage and violent urges kick in, or the sound vacuity cheek to cheek against gravity and the walls of a conversation implode….

If only they would apply that rage to issues and revolutions that require it! Because one or two white women haven’t forgotten the feeling of chains, and have risen to the level that is required of a person in order to mobilise for any kind of equality, or solidarity, doesn’t a sisterhood make.

Running around in a skirt at a SlutWalk might feel great with the breeze between your knees, but try real dissent for awhile–hand cuffs, legal troubles, and three hots and a cot, like most men face every day in prisons across America.

But the point is, most white women do not understand their privilege, and women at large who endure hardship like men face every day are rare. Yet so many are willing to jump on any bandwagon of collective consciousness, or the traveling circus train that demeans the ‘evil white man,’ and sells them to the ‘other man’without ever knowing or caring where he comes from, too.

I think it is because they have forgotten where they come from, and yet expect others to bear the burden of remembrance for them. I am just not that chivalrous anymore; I am done babysitting Gloria Steinem/CIA-feminism inspired white female entitlement.

* the last taboo is discussing women who abuse children, and of course, the third to the last taboo is !!!anti-shemitism!!! with Jewish patriarchal fixation on shiksas of all kinds, and white women being the second to the last–for now: after all, them Asians and them Africans are sure working hard, moving ‘forwards,’ and not ass backwards to get some privileged cops, or YOUR attention…

Related articles

Sexual Abuse Against Males.

When little boys are murdered, I wonder: are there procedural differences in how they are autopsied? Is sexual abuse by women even suspected in cases where a femal;e caregiver reports that a boy has died in her care?

Are female caregiver to male sexual victim abuse symptoms different than the model for girl victims ?My research question is as follows:

Are little boys treated differently than little girls in the forensic assessments for child sexual abuse? Are the young male victims examined as rigorously, or is abuse sexual abuse specifically suspected when the murderer is a woman; and if so, is the fact that women abuse children in different ways than men taken into account?

For instance, are saliva samples taken, and do female to male sexual abuse victim bruise patterns in certain areas take different forms?If so, are saliva specifically samples sought from the genital or other regions?

Survivors of female perpetrated sexual abuse tell us that women sexually abuse children, and their methods are different, and often hard to detect, or talk about.

I have had the good fortune of having a series of questions posed at the  Forensic Nursing Chronicles © 2009-2011 Forensic Nursing Chronicles. All rights reserved. Email: admin@healthcare-online-education.com