The ubiquitous evil thread.

[BO]

Or should I say, evil has become ubiquitous thread.

Some say it's during times like these that we will witness the true character of men.

Well, here's a little snippet from today's news that shows that sometimes when the going gets tough, and the tough are getting going, some of the morally and financially bankrupt assholes that helped jump start the depression think they deserve a Mediterranean cruise. On taxpayer's money no less. Twas then I realized we're going to be seeing a lot more of this. The darker side of human nature...

For insensitivity, Wachovia refuses to be outdone
"While waiting to see if the government will relieve it of bad loans, the bank prepares to send 75 employees on a Mediterranean cruise."

Stick that up your ass, Pelosi and Franks.

[Mark]

Yes, appalling. Thank you, Hannah.

Patriachy inculcates the concept that males are the rightful owners of the world, of land, of animals, of women, of anything and anyone they can conquer and subdue. There is no respect for people, everyone is property. Notice that in patriarchal religions males are supposed to submit to their wargods--nobody is free. But in submission, they gain power over others, the hierarchy forces males to submit to war, but gives them the right and power to own land, animals, women, children--everything is commodified and privatized.

Sex becomes separated from love. It becomes what is done to, rather than what is done with. Of course if there don't happen to be any females or animals around to rape, males rape each other. Not because of natural needs, as those can be satisfied without rape, but as an exercise of power. The guys who raped Andrea Dworkin weren't physically attracted to her and had drugged her so that she was unconcious--their motive was to violate somebody who had suggested that sex be mutually fulfilling. Patriarchy teaches that sex only need be fulfilling for the male and that it is something females must submit to.

Funny, I came to this topic to post something that had nothing to do with sex. I'd found this article about Iceland:

Recovering from Neoliberal Disaster
Why Iceland and Latvia Won’t (and Can’t) Pay the EU for the Kleptocrats’ Ripoffs

It struck me that there's a possibility that we won't be invading Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, or Cuba after all. The next country we invade may well be Iceland. Even if it is only in an economic sense, they are refusing to be screwed.

Here's the last few paragraphs from the article:

"The moral is that Newton’s Third Law of motion – that every action has an equal and opposite reaction – is applicable to politics and economics as well as to physics. As the most thoroughly neoliberalized disaster area, Iceland is understandably the first economy to push back. The past two years have seen its status plunge from having the West’s highest living standards (debt-financed, as matters turn out) to the most deeply debt-leveraged. In such circumstances it is natural for a population and its elected officials to experience a culture shock – in this case, an awareness of the destructive ideology of neoliberal “free market” euphemisms that led to privatization of the nation’s banks and the ensuing debt binge.

Iceland promises to be merely the first sovereign nation to lead the pendulum swing away from an ostensibly “real economy” ideology of free markets to an awareness that in practice, this rhetoric turns out to be a junk economics favorable to banks and global creditors. Interest-bearing debt is the “product” that banks sell, after all. What seemed at first blush to be “wealth creation” was more accurately debt-creation, in which banks took no responsibility for the ability to pay. The resulting crash led the financial sector to suddenly believe that it did love centralized government control after all – to the extent of demanding public-sector bailouts that would reduce indebted economies to a generation of fiscal debt peonage and the resulting economic shrinkage.

As far as I am aware, this agreement is the first since the Young Plan for Germany’s reparations debt to subordinate international debt obligations to the capacity-to-pay principle. The Althing’s proposal spells this out in clear legal terms as an alternative to the neoliberal idea that economies must pay willy-nilly (as Keynes would say), sacrificing their future and driving their population to emigrate in what turns out to be a vain attempt to pay debts that, in the end, can’t be paid but merely leave debtor economies hopelessly dependent on their creditors. In the end, democratic nations are not willing to relinquish political planning authority to an emerging financial oligarchy.

No doubt the post-Soviet countries are watching, along with Latin American, African and other sovereign debtors whose growth has been stunted by the predatory austerity programs that IMF, World Bank and EU neoliberals imposed in recent decades. The post-Bretton Woods era is over. We should all celebrate."

So it really pains, hurt that guy in the film that there might be some woman somewhere who isn't willing to submit to him simply because he is male. I think it really does. It threatens his concept of who he is. It must make him as angry as a slaveowner in the antebellum south learning that slaves were escaping on the Underground Railroad. For thousands of years patriarchy has inculcated the concept that people aren't people, land isn't land, animals aren't animals, everything is property that rightfully belongs to whoever conquers it.

The patriarchs (the oligarchy if you prefer) must be incensed that Iceland doesn't want to be screwed by them like all other countries they own. It must be causing them real pain. I'm sure they'll want to teach Iceland a lesson and make an example of it. Of course they have inflicted so much pain on the rest of the world, that this could be very interesting.

There was something I read about many years ago, where a group of women would go to the home of a male sexual predator or violent abuser, and physically demonstrate to him that he could no longer get away with it.

The oligarchy is small, and if the 99% who are owned rose up against the 1% who own us, it would be all over. But it is unlikely to happen because of divide and conquer. Most males are less interested in being free than in retaining their dominion over females, even when it means submission to patriarchy. Always death is seen as glorious and honorable. Better dead than red, better dead than female or gay, better dead than a coward, better billions and billions dead than empathy and respect. How do they do it?

Every slaveholder I've ever met insists that they treat their slaves well, that their slaves actually rule over them rather than vice versa, that slaves are better off being slaves than being free, that equality is impossible, that somebody has to be on top, and that it is their burden and obligation, and all the rest of the crap.

Even slavery itself is sexualized--bondage is seen as freedom to express different inclinations, rather than as the fetishization of slavery.

I think of a friend of mine. Brilliant, a decent person, dedicated totally, heart, soul, and mind, to democracy, loving his wife and kids, at times dependent on his wife's income or loans from his parents to support himself and his family, NEVER thinking of himself as a slaveowner. A great admirer of the slaveowner Thomas Jefferson who was reputed to have sold his own daughter (by a slave) without ever deviating from his love for democracy. But the institution of marriage IS the institution of slavery. Patriarchal conquests killed the adult males and took the females and children as wives and slaves, the only difference between a wife and a slave being that the wife had to be female and to be selected by the slaveowner as a wife/slave whose male children would not be born slaves but whose female children would.

There were slaveowners who treated their slaves well and slaveowners who didn't. There are men who treat their wives well and there are men who don't. There were cases of slave revolts and there are cases of spousal abuse by wives of husbands. But the institution that commodified living things, turning people into property, is a ubiquitous evil. Would freeing his country from the yoke of neoliberalism change the heart of that young man in the film? Of course not. He knows what's right and what's normal.

There have been a few tentative baby steps. The Zapatistas insist on dignity, equality, and liberty. Venezuela has taken strides in the same direction. Iceland had also...so there are more than just economic reasons to invade. From wikipedia:

"In 2007, it was ranked as the most developed country in the world by the United Nations' Human Development Index and the fourth most productive country per capita.[7][8] In 2008, the nation’s banking system systematically failed, causing significant economic contraction and political unrest that lead to early parliamentary elections making Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir the country's prime minister. She is the first openly gay head of government in modern times."

Neoliberals (in the U.S., at least until Obama, they were called neoconservatives) don't think that it is normal or nice for a country to have a lesbian Prime Minister. It hurts and pains them. And when they are hurt or pained, they rape and kill.

[hannah j]

http://www.jonesbahamas.com/news/45/ARTICLE/20194/2009-08-06.html
Men, Women Divided Over Sex Bill
By Nikia Deveaux
Tongues are wagging over a proposed amendment to the controversial Sexual Offences Act, which has men and women all over The Bahamas sounding off.

The bill, which is designed to outlaw marital rape, was tabled in the House of Assembly last month.

However, many Bahamian men, like taxi driver Pemmie Sutherland, say the bill is "simply unnecessary."

"It is ridiculous for them to try to make that a law, because I don’t think a man can rape his own wife. After two people get married, the Bible says that they become one – one flesh. How is it possible to rape what is yours?" asked Mr. Sutherland.

Elvis Russell told the Journal that he does not support the bill either because there is no such thing as rape within a marriage.

"Even if a woman says no to her husband it still can’t be considered rape because she is his wife. He already paid his dues at the church and she already said ‘I do,’ so from then on, even if [a man] forces sex on his wife, it isn’t rape," he said.

Despite popular belief that most women are in support of the bill, there were quite a few Bahamian women who share Mr. Sutherland’s and Mr. Russell’s views.

Deanne Sweeting said that she strongly disagrees with the bill and does not understand why so many women are supporting it. more at link

[Mark]

I remember the same thing happening here before there was a wife-rape law. Esquire magazine had a big cover headline, "Men Fear Wife-Rape Laws," and it threw me into a chuckling fit as I imagined guys all over the country cowering under their beds in terror that they might no longer be able to rape their wives.

Now I do realize it isn't funny. Some dudes are so disrespectful of and inconsiderate towards females that they only way they can have sex is if they rape their wives or pay a pro. I remember that economic adviser to Ronald Reagan, George F. Gilder, who wrote a book called Sexual Suicide, and a bunch of other stuff along the same lines. He suggested that males were very animalistic and had to be tamed by means of marriage, but that females were falling down on the job and his suggested remedy was to deny females all means of survival outside of marriage, such as jobs or social programs, so that they would be forced to marry. He gave an example, but for some reason it didn't have anything at all to do with marriage that I could see, only with sex. In his example, which he claimed to be a true story, some very well-dressed, high-class, powerful men went to a massage parlor and flashed around a lot of money, but couldn't get the females who worked there to put out. He attributed it to the fact that the females were able to make a living just through massage and didn't have to actually put out.

I saw it a bit differently. Massage parlors are often accused of being thinly disguised brothels, and vice cops are always looking to bust them. I figured that when Gilder's friends (had they told him about it, or was he with them?) went to that massage parlor, the workers there assumed they were cops and that it was a sting operation. But it also cracked me up that he seemed oblivious to the fact that he had recreated the old joke about dudes so obnoxious that they couldn't get laid in a whorehouse.

Ah, patriarchy. Where a horny female sees a good looking guy, gives him the eye, and instead of asking her, "Your place or mine?" he says, "How much?" and she goes home alone, her self-esteem and her respect for men shattered.

Years later, I heard that somebody actually married Gilder. I wonder what luck she had working on a broken man......


Fuck patriarchy. What nature has meant to be joined together, let no god put asunder.

[Mark]

Somehow there's a widespread idea that there is more equality for females in western than in Islamic countries. Trading purdah for prostitution (which is what is happening to women now in Afghanistan) isn't really a step forward.

A useful test is putting yourself in the other person's shoes. Even whites who claim that there isn't any discrimination against blacks in America any more, would not be willing to be black (because they know darned well that discrimination is alive and well). Young males in western countries would no more want to be female than young males in Afghanistan. There has been no progress. None.

There is a difference between being able to buy a slave and being able to buy sex, but for those being sold it is a difference without a distinction. Whether they are child brides in Kabul or underage prostitutes in New York, the situation for females cannot be described as freedom or equality. In neither place can a female live without the constant fear of rape. I've been told that in Cuba, females can walk alone at night safely. I've never been to Cuba and I can't imagine a situation like that, so I suspect it is a lie. How could something like that be possible? It isn't possible in the U.S. It isn't possible in Afghanistan. So I think it must be propaganda, just some glorious revolution bullshit. It isn't possible, so how could it be true?

[Mark]

Pan asks: "So, are you saying that males are incapable of not subjugating women under any and all social orders? Is this due to testosterone, genes, social conditioning or a combination of all three?"

I think it is impossible in patriarchal social orders, and I believe it is due solely to social conditioning rather than to testosterone, genes, or anything else.

Pan: "While it is impossible to protect all humans always from the threat of violent crime from other humans, there are indeed different social structures and regions that have much lower incidences of violent crime."

Right. It can't be done through policing, but it can be done through a different sort of social conditioning.

Pan: "To claim that all sexism is equivalent and that there is no differentiation between cultures that have legalized wife rape, no suffrage, and legal structures that overtly define the 2nd class status of women with societies that have legal protections (even though prostitution and rape still exist) yet still are sexist is hyperbolic and I don't see how it is helpful in ultimately fighting the patriarchy unless, of course, one is accepts the very radical lesbian position that segregation is the only solution."

I wouldn't want to accept segregation as a solution. The Abolitionist Robert Purvis also rejected segregation as a solution, both for racism and for sexism. I remember when we didn't have wife-rape laws here in the U.S., and female suffrage happened here within my mother's lifetime. I do equate the second class status of women with the second class status of women, whether it is overt or covert, de jure or de facto, and no matter what form it takes. If A is not equal to B, A is not equal to B.

As for wife-rape laws, this site says:

Until 1976, marital rape was legal in every state in the United States. Although marital rape is now a crime in all 50 states in the U.S., some states still don't consider it as serious as other forms of rape. The only states that have laws that make no distinction between marital rape and stranger rape are Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia. These states have no marital rape exemptions.

So I was 36 when the U.S. first made wife-rape a crime. I left Afghanistan in 1972, and at that point in time wife-rape was no more a crime here than it was there. When I lived in Afghanistan, visiting Americans liked to joke that Afghanistan was struggling to reach the 13th Century. I fail to see the humor when we're only 33 years ahead of them.

Pan: "Yes....the west cannot honestly claim that sexism has been eradicated.....but using the plight of underage sex slaves in New York to claim equivalence to the legalization of wife rape for the entire population seems more than a little hyperbolic."

Perhaps. If you were a young female, which one would you find preferable, being in a country like the U.S. until 1976 or Afghanistan now, where wife-rape is legal, or being in a country like the U.S. now (and starting to happen in Afghanistan) where prostitution is so prevalent that the laws against it are a joke?

Seems to me that you might, if you happened to be in such a position, wish there were other options.

The social conditioning of patriarchy which makes it almost impossible for males to visualize themselves in the position of females, is what engenders inequality.

You were female once. In the womb. We all were. All embryos are. Then the hormones kick in and they start to differentiate. The SAME cells, under the influence of different levels of hormones in the womb, turn into DIFFERENT structures. Sometimes the hormones don't work right and we get intersex kids, and the doctor looks between their legs when they're born and says, "It's a....it's a.....excuse me--I've got an emergency call right now. Nurse please tend to the baby and I'll be back as soon as I can." Usually the doctors then try to determine whether the child's genitalia appear to be closer to male or closer to female, and they then genitally mutilate the child so that it can be given a name, assigned a gender role, and treated the way that girls/boys are treated. But the way that girls and boys are treated is SO different, that when psychologists in controlled studies would hand somebody a diapered infant with no clue to its sex (the diapers were all white and neither the child's name nor any pronouns referring to it were spoken), and then leave the room, saying they'd be right back, observers looking through one-way mirrors found that instead of talking to the baby or playing with it, the way that people did when an infant's sex was known, the volunteers were silent, immobilized, and perplexed--most eventually tried to peek under the diaper so that they'd be able to relate to the child. These were ordinary volunteers, not pedophiles, and they knew the doctor would be right back, so they had no intention of sexually molesting the infant. So why did they feel a need to look under the diaper?

Gender roles are so strongly inculcated that most people really can't imagine being the other sex, and not even transexuals can imagine people being people without gender roles. In fact I think they call them transgender these days, as what they're doing is not a sex change but a surgical gender role change. There was one married couple who both had sex changes, the male becoming legally female and the female becoming legally male. But after a few years they decided to change back. A few years later they did it again. And again. And it never occurred to them to attempt to relate to each other without regard to sex. Anyone who thinks people couldn't or wouldn't have sex without gender roles, has never had a human sex drive.

If brother can't imagine being sister, and sister can't imagine being brother, father can't imagine being mother, and mother can't imagine being father, why is it called a family?

That's how patriarchy controls us, by not allowing us to be people but assigning us the roles of men or women so that it can set each man's/woman's hand against the other. It is entirely due to social conditioning that squeezes the empathy right out of us so that we cannot relate to each other as individuals, but can only relate to each other in the ways that patriarchy dictates.

In both the United States and Afghanistan, if a little boy and a little girl become friends, society will intervene and push the little boy to play with other boys and the little girl to play with other girls. They are not allowed to be individuals and to make their own choices, they have gender roles they must conform to.

Equality is our birthright, Pan, so it is entirely possible, but not in patriarchal societies. We been robbed!

[waldopaper]

Bleagghhh... I don't have TIME for this shit... but Bageant nails it again:

"...ideological cupcake land. It’s a big neighborhood, a very special place where “Your vote is important,” and “by electing the right candidate, you can change our beloved nation.” "

Maybe I'll have the stoods research this. But, like the Military Commissions Act, it will be a done-deal by the time they finish their papers. Pan figured rightly... two full-time jobs for the pay of one. Nice deal... for THEM. I should consider myself lucky to have any work AT ALL.

"As usual, the straw boogeyman of socialism is once more invoked."

Maybe I'll have them research THAT... and then I get the usual crap about "this is SUPPOSED to be an ENGLISH class!" feh.

[pan]

Bageant does nail it - one of his better recent essays IMO.

Funny......I usually get this complaint "All of this reading and writing......isn't this supposed to be a DANCE class!"

Hang in there Waldo - being on the other side (only assigned 3 credits) I'm having mixed reaction...."gawd that's an inhuman load.....but at least he has work". We are the serfs in the "business model" university.

[BO]

I love Michael Moore. Here's the trailer for his next movie--'Capitalism: A Love Story'. Maybe this will spawn a little revolutionary behavior amongst the peeps. (wishful thinking)

[Kate]

Bo,
Michael Moore

Executive See no evil

Legislative Hear no evil

Judicial Speak no evil


Dont'cha love those three monkey's

[Kate]

Bo,

Michael Moore US A wake

[pan]

Picked up The Yes Men at the video store.

I think Mark wrote about going to see their latest documentary (the one I saw was the first)

Quite entertaining - these guys are performance artists who impersonate the powerful (the movie I saw had them as WTO representatives) giving interviews and speeches to the public in order to expose what these organizations really stand for.

Highly recommended.

[BO]

Thanks for the reminder. Been meaning to watch Yes Men on Netflix. Gonna watch it today.

In the same vein...don't forget to see 'What Would Jesus Buy?' this season. Funnier than hell.