Opopanox, Home of the Arrogant Worm

Simply put, privilege is what you get because you are viewed as something, (be it white, having socially acceptable opinions, class, male) power over is what you have when you use that privilege for ill purposes.
-Anon

…Make me an offer
that I can’t refuse
make me respectable, man
this is my last time
in the unemployment line
so like it or not…
-Styx

The most unpardonable sin in society is independence of thought.
-Emma Goldman

“I called them mad, and they called me mad, and damn them, they outvoted me.” -Nathaniel Lee

Purity is not a revolutionary value. Insisting on all or nothing is a one way ticket to status quo.
-Sly Civilian

Yes, I’m angry. Why? Aren’t you?
-Anon

Still on that cartoon, are we? I thought it was beginning to calm down, but no, the righteous outrage against Amp’s cartoon is still coming on strong from certain circles. Well, circle. Mandolin wrote a post titled “Mandolin Responds to Seelhoff: Gender Is a Constellation.”

Link located here

It’s very, very good. Very Good. Her post is concise, easy to read, and reaches the core of what she wants to say quite efficiently with plenty of examples listed. It’s one of the clearest pieces of writing I’ve seen that takes down gender essentialism. Her post starts off on Sally C’s comment from I Blame The Patriarchy;

“Knowing that someone is a woman does not tell me anything about her fate, but it does tell me she knows what I know about what it’s like to bleed.”

It runs the track from why that comment is essentialist (not to mention really fucking rude by basing someone on what their body does or does not do n’ leaving many people in a lurch, imho) to why ‘woman’ hasn’t (or can’t, personally, right now I’mma leaning toward can’t) be defined. Mandolin goes on to write such pretty snippets as;

The idea that biology bleeding creates women is part of an essentialist stance – a stance that is shared by many sectors of the religious right. It reduces my varied experiences to the fact of my blood or lack thereof: an inadequate measure.

I don’t know what defines woman. As commonly phrased, it is a boring and irrelevant question, as has been acknowledged. It is attempting to take a semantic concept — woman — and reify it in a way in which it can not be reified. The truth is that the concept woman is complicated. It is not binary, it is not either/or, it is not on/off.

When we add the concept of gender, the whole of it becomes even more complex.

Although, my absolute favorite part is this;

My external genitalia can tell you certain things about me. It indicates likelihoods and probabilities. It indicates that I am part of the class that is likely to undergo sexual abuse or harassment, although I have been fortunate enough to live most of my life free of these things. It indicates that I probably was urged toward the arts and social sciences, instead of the hard sciences. It indicates I was probably touched less often as an infant than my brothers were; it indicates that I am likely to be paid .76 on the dollar compared to men in my profession.

It indicates these likelihoods, but it does not make them fact. I am an individual. Some probabilities apply. Others do not.

I think, although I’m not sure, that it’s my favorite because it doesn’t lump a class of people as having to have a checklist where everything must be marked off in order to belong. So many people get squashed that way, and it isn’t like it doesn’t happen in casual conversation. This listing of womanly qualities creates a heirarchy that some people insist on ignoring, as long as it benefits them.

Oh yeah, that’s right. Heirarchies. Pesky little things, ain’t they.
Defining anyone but yourself, extending that process to defining groups you are part of and/or identify with ~ That way lies madness.

And, lo!

Seelhoff responded!

(To be fair, her trackback was already there for the picking, there wasn’t any hunting involved, I just snatched the most recent contribution Seelhoff aka Heart made to her blog.)

So, pardon me, but a critique is in order. I’ll be gentle.

Really.

Seelhoff’s responding post is titled “Seelhoff Responds to Alas’s Irrelevant “Response” to Seelhoff”

Link Located Here

So, from the get to, Mandolin’s response is considered irrelevent, and the word response is in scare quotes, as if it wasn’t a ‘real’ response and should not be considered as such.

Seelhoff starts out with

Mandolin, in all sincerity and good faith, what you have written on Alas, directing it towards me, has nothing to do with anything I believe, have said, or have thought, for that matter, here or anywhere else.

Sincerity and good faith do not the title of Seelhoff’s post make. NosireeeBob. Sincerity and good faith don’t seem to be anywhere near *that* title. Sincerity and good faith do not include scare quotes toward your respondant and calling their response ‘irrelevant’.

Now that we’re finally past the title…

My observation is, you consistently believe what people say about radical feminists and our views about transgender over at Alas and presumably, elsewhere.

Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but Mandolin’s Response consisted of what she saw some self-defined Radical Feminists saying and defending, that is, biological essentialism, ‘You are your body. No, really’.

And Seelhoff’s response to that is to…what, exactly? Well, she starts off with her observation that Mandolin believes whatever people tell her about radical feminism. She’s deliberately overlooking what Mandolin said some of her own experiences were. And anyone can have that experience, Sally C’s quote is just one of many, and they’re all public.

Next up,

Neither I nor anybody here is responsible for what Sally C on I Blame the Patriarchy might have said sometime about transgender issues. I have no idea who that is, where she might be coming from politically or ideologically, or anything else. She is (presumably) someone on IBTP, posting to IBTP, where I rarely read, and even more rarely post. Given recent events, anybody over there might have posted anything at all and called their position ”radical feminist”!

“..Anything else.” “Presumably?” It almost sounds as if Seelhoff has no idea what thread that was, no clue, no inkling, no possible whiff of the topic at all and the comments loaded throughout it.

Now, I do indeed remember that little blowup, although the title of the thread at IBTP escapes me. Something to do with lipstick, perhaps. I also remember one of Seelhoff’s comments sections talking about it, because I remember some deplorable comments her regular posters made referring that thread on her own blog in the same vein as that comment by Sally C. And she applauded, sent her love, all that, well, happy horseshit to comments from her regulars on her own blog. So if the types of comments and the sentiments of the comments are the same, we’re supposed to believe that somehow, they’re….still radically different? The mind boggles.

(Make sure to take note that “…anybody over there might have posted anything at all and called their position “Radical feminist”!)

Well, from her above quotation, I can (with relative safety) conclude that Seelhoff is not Sally C. But damn, those two seem to share similar views. No no, don’t take *my* word for it. Go check it out for yourself, she’s got plenty of transphobic posts and comments there.

Now, this little snippet I find very telling.

What these folks say about our views is wrong, pure and simple. Amp is wrong about our views, about my views, he always has been, for all the years I’ve interacted with him, going on seven years now.

Oh really? How….well, I was going to say quaint, but I find it more disturbing than anything. Here’s why.

She equates her views and ‘our’ views. A view is singular. ‘our’ is multiple. Very different, and not at all fair to define everyone elses views as one persons’ for someone to be ‘wrong about’.

The ego, it prevails!

He consistently makes references to, or argues with, positions I and other radical feminists do not hold as though we do hold them. I don’t know what that particular blind spot is about.

Now, this is the internet. One doesn’t get information by osmosis, especially in this medium. The idea is ludicrous. People read or listen to what others type, and they make judgments on the words therein. If someone say that MTF’s are men, than that is what people see/hear. When someone gives much applause and gives many X’s to Frankenstein comments and how trans people are a mockery. So I’d be interested where, exactly, the blind spot is supposed to be.

(I’m being incredibly generous here, a rather large chunk of her commenter’s statements are more along the lines of viscous bile wrt trans issues.)

I am, however, going to give Amp the (undeserved, because he has demonstrated himself to be untrustworthy and no ally to women) benefit of the doubt that so far as transgender issues go, he is incapable of comprehending what our viewpoint actually is and responding to what we actually say and write, for whatever reason He’s got some blind spot there. Any time I’ve observed him attempting to engage the issues, that blind spot is apparent front and center.

So…she’s willing to discount the women who do consider him an ally? Looks like it. It also looks like she’s conflating her opinion with all other radical feminists again. Then there’s some more of a blind spot that doesn’t seem to exist in reality, because you can only respond to what others actually type. Otherwise, you’d be lying. And of course the blind spot is apparent front and center, because from the long and involved thread that I’ve read at Seelhoff’s site, anyone who doesn’t agree has a blind spot. Again, don’t take *my* word for it, go check for yourself. Watch out for the comment editing, though. She’s got a rather heavy hand in that regard, from what I hear.

Now, onto a more important issue that’s getting insensitively swept under the rug.

You, Mandolin, start off with a long tirade about the fact that some women don’t bleed. This is supposed to be relevant to any of the issues around transgender precisely how?

But it *does*, oh, it does. I think it does on a few levels, actually, and I might write on one of them at a later date but for now, we’ll stick with the one Mandolin’s talking about. And ‘tirade’? I’d call it a legitimate grievance, myself.

I’m going to keep this sweet and simple.

The comment by Sally C and the a large chunk of the comments found on Seelhoff’s blog are of the same stripe. Said commenters constantly hold up the womb, the tribe that bleeds, the experiences of childbirth, et cetera and so forth as being representative of women.

News Flash.

They’re not representative of women, least of all all woman. The group is so large that no blanket examples can be made that everyone in the group experiences, and certainly not with regard to menarchy or having children. It makes me wonder if anyone has actually studied biology to get even a relatively loose grip on how those processes can differ (or not exist at all) between people, or that being capable of bearing children isn’t a good way to define woman.

Now, if it isn’t biology that defines woman, (Keep with me here!) than the biology of Mtf’s (as an example) don’t define them as Not Woman, either. Then there’s the rest of Mandolin’s post, which took into account socialization.

Seelhoff goes on to state that she blogged about the wrongful arrest of lgt (No bisexuals, I take it?) peaceful protesters at a christian college, they wanted to discuss things, the college had them arrested.

Let me be (no doubt not the first, and probably not the last) to point out that mentioning that trans people were part of the group being wrongfully arrested does not a supporter make.

She goes on to state that;

I’d like to see Amp applying himself similarly to the actual issues and confronting those who possess the power to subordinate and oppress.

Well, I’d like to see Seelhoff applying herself similarly to the actual issues and confronting those who possess the power to subordinate and oppress wrt trans people, since it seems she has such a vicious attitude towards transpeople and indeed, a type of power to silence and oppress.

Wait wait, everyone’s part of that, aren’t they? Oppression, I mean. One big tangled web of oppression and privilege. I doubt she’d want to take on such introspection that would be needed for that to happen, though ~ So few people do, because it hurts. I don’t see her becoming aware of what power and privilege she has over transpeople without such an introspection, though.

Then there’s a bit more about who the main oppressors are (slippery slope, that; if you only focus on Big Fish, all the niggling little bits of hatred and fear Littler Fish have get left and they fester while fighting the ‘bigger picture’. I was always more fond of perspective, anyway. All of ‘em can be shown, not just the worst of it.

I see Amp, and people with views like Amp, specifically targeting female persons: radical feminists, and more specifically, targeting lesbian separatists, a group with, for all intents and purposes, very little societal power, money, or influence.

I’ll not go into the level of paranoia there, others have pointed that out before.

The film she brings up as being targeted has the same types of views as other bigots, yes, those people who have little societal power, money or influence do have power over another group, particularly when their views coincide with society at large.

I see people who comment to Alas, and people like Amp, transgender people, lining up to applaud when a lesbian artist, who cannot manage to come up with $400 for a week at the Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival, where her own film is going to be shown, able to torpedo the showing of that film all over the country, ensuring her ongoing silencing (and impoverishment).

The film was called the Gendercator, and it was taken off the lineup because it was considered by some transpeople and others to be transphobic. She (the artist) isn’t and shouldn’t be entitled to get her film shown in a venue that claims to accept the people that the film stereotypes and are hurtful to the people the film portrays.

I see Amp and people like Amp lining up to applaud transgender persons bringing lawsuits against privately owned, respected, decades-old lesbian rape shelters with minuscule budgets for the most petty and specious reasons imaginable, tying lesbian separatist, radical feminist women up in litigation for years, by the time it’s all over, costing women hundreds of thousands of dollars which could have gone to the work of helping the victims of rape, and in some instances, closing down our struggling organizations.

I do believe I’ve blogged about this before.
I think it was in the month of May, I’ll hunt it up and link it later.

I see transgender persons forcing dyke musicians out of dyke marches. I see transgender persons denying the use of “GLBT” facilities to lesbians and radical feminists who are attempting to raise money to help poor women get to Michigan for a week of healing and encouragement.

I’m not sure what to say about the subsequent complaint, as I’m not familiar with either of those instances. I (very vaguely) remember something about a performance by Bitch being canceled or something like that, and I b’lieve it had something to do with her stance on something or other, possibly the music festival because it was decided she didn’t embody inclusion well enough. I know, I know. I did say my recollection was vague.

Seelhoff goes on to tell trans people (and everyone else) exactly whose boot is stepping on their (And by that, she also means mine) neck. Only one boot? How unimaginative. How droll.

And how very, very wrong.

Well now, I’ve some pertinent information in regards to footwear. There’s more than one boot of oppression. There’s even heels of oppression, sandals of oppression, sneakers of oppression…shoes of all kinds! They’re shared all the time, and everyone wears ‘em at different points, often through no choice of their own. Should she read this, “You’re stepping on my neck, Seelhoff, and that is most definitely a hobnailed boot you are wearing.”

It’s transgender persons and their supporters, barring the doors to, and causing ongoing, sometimes severe, difficulties for, the most marginalized group of female persons imaginable.

Imagine my surprise at the difficulty in trying to figure out how a group that isn’t really accepted in any part of society at the moment is responsible for causing severe difficulties for the most marginalized group. That is what was meant, right?

No offense, but it doesn’t make sense.

This isn’t the oppression olympics, no one is Most Marginalized. Some individuals have it worse than others, and different groups have different difficulties through interconnecting oppressions and hurdles to overcome.

Radical feminists, lesbian separatists do not have that kind of power and we never have.

Ahem. If anyone has a belief that agrees with someone who has power that is squashing another person under a boot, than they’ve got power as well, of a sort.

But no, we’ve got Amp busy drawing cartoons which compare radical feminists to fundies, har de har, what a novel approach. That is trite, that is old, that is irrelevant, that addresses none of the actual issues, it is a cheap shot which satisfies itself, again, with the tickle for a nickle.

It is not trite, it is not a cheap shot and it is most certainly not irrelevant. It is true, as Seelhoff’s blog (and other’s comments) can fully attest to. If only the opinion he drew was old and forgotten. I can dream.

~ The title is not meant to disparage radical feminists as a group, I’m using it tongue-in-cheek to illustrate that such transphobic radical feminists do indeed exist, despite their own claims to the contrary. Also edited for clarity.

Daisy at Daisy’s Dead Air has a thought provoking post titled “The Girls Want To Be With The Girls”, about how women relate to each other (or don’t) and competitiveness. Damn, that description does it a disservice. The comments section is rather enlightening too (I’m surprised at all the different parts in the comments section that I can point and go “That’s familiar”) but I couldn’t figure out if it was okay to post my experiences in that particular thread wrt relationships. I mean, it did have to do with growing up female and relations with women, which I suppose I’ve got under my belt in a manner of speaking, but it also seemed to have to do with identity, and we’re on different pages. So I decided not to, on the whole, because I couldn’t figure out if there was a cutoff line of some sort. Well, except where discipline was brought up and someone asked about a two parent household and taking sides, I did comment there, but I kept it short. Such is confusion. It’s almost one in the morning, and since I’m probably not explaining very well, best to go check the thread out for yourself.

Link located here.

Reading her post did remind me of something else, though, connotations of the definitions of vocabulary that can be rather unpleasant, (totally not her fault, my brain is just evil) and how *do* you sort yourself out to talk about things (like interpersonal relationships with others) when technically there really isn’t any place for it? Social norms dictate that there’s only two gendered experiences and never the twain shall meet.

I suppose I could go check out livejournal again, it’s been awhile, but those things ~ like, oh, how to talk to people and bond when your history is mixed, and where’s the cutoff line for said nostalgic bonding and understanding with other people not of your identity/sex (because I absolutely refuse to ignore a large chunk of my life. Socialization, that’s it. How do you talk about differing socialization when parts of it are the same?) ~ well, if those messages exist there I haven’t found ‘em yet. I’d be tempted to try and create them myself, but I’m not that good of a writer, at least for engaging posts. And you know, I don’t think it’s a topic most ftm’s want to talk about otherwise I think I would’ve found something about it online in all the years I’ve been floating around. So I’m afraid the answer seems to be “You don’t talk about it at all” so far, because really, who are you going to talk to?

~If anyone knows of a discussion like that, point me in the right direction please.

Alas A Blog’s Amp has drawn a, shall we say, relatively truthful cartoon in an eye-popping style titled ‘An Easy Mistake To Make’. In it two women were having a conversation about transwomen (dratted qualifiers. But they’re both qualifiers, really, in the grand scheme o’ things…) with in the end panel being revealed that while both conversationalists have different identities, (conservative christian and radical feminist, respectively) they share the same opinions about trans women. La Di Da, big surprise there, that particular belief has been floating around for a long, long time and has been held by people all across the board.

Also, I don’t mean to be rude, really, but why should anyone get a ‘free pass’ on spouting bigoted beliefs, no matter how small (or how large) the faction in question is? Is there a percentage cut-off point I’m not aware of, where it’s A-Okay! as long as your Good Deeds quota for the week are filled?

I was reasonably astounded at some of the responses he’s gotten for the image.

Link located here for “An Easy Mistake To Make”

Here then, is a lesson in safe logic.

~Cue Guitar~

It is a political cartoon, if I’m not mistaken. It’s what he does, and he does them rather well, which is no faint praise from myself as I’m picky in what I like. I was under the apparently erroneous impression that when political cartoons are viewed, people are aware that much like the “We’re not talking about YOU (if you don’t do such and such, even if some of the group you belong to does” in the discussions that go on with every other issue (like class, gender, ability et cetera) was easily viewed and that if you or I don’t do something that a rather vocal part of an identity group that you or I belong to seems to do readily, than guess what? It isn’t about you or I. It isn’t personal. No one embodies everyone’s beliefs and opinions in a grouping that you (or I, again) belong to.

Which is also why “You’re not a real ________ doesn’t fly, either. If you don’t consist of the thousands of people that identify as you do (And you don’t, there’s no question ’bout that, I’m just waitin’ for someone to exclaim that ‘Yes! They’re all Me!” (It’s happened before, and what a riot that was) then you can’t claim to define a movement or an ideology that they also claim for themselves.

You just can’t.

Now, since no one can logically claim to be any other person but themselves, and a single individual does not a group make, than why do people take it to heart (ooooo, there’s a pun in the making) that Amp meant every radical feminist instead of what some people who’re radical feminists espouse?

Hrm? It’s a fucking political cartoon, people. It no more represents every radical feminist than it does every conservative christian!

You can only fit so much in a picture, or a cartoon panel as the case may be. Two panels isn’t a lot, nor is four or six and you have to keep the reader engaged or they’ll wander off in boredom and your message will be lost, much like any other medium. An addendum at the bottom of the cartoon isn’t (or really shouldn’t be) needed to explain that if you ain’t doing what the cartoon says you’re group does, than it isn’t talking about, describing, pointing fingers, making references, eyeing you beadily or finger wagging at you. To explain in detail why *You* (or I) are not like whatever point a cartoon is trying to get across is not the cartoonists job, especially if the cartoonist wasn’t talking about you specifically in the first place. If ya don’t want a group you belong to to be illustrated like that than be the change you want, and call other people on bigoted behavior so others know there’s alternate voices in the crowd besides the loudest little buggers that foam at the mouth.

~”Here then, a lesson in safe logic” I unabashedly nicked from Phil Och’s, “Love Me, I’m A Liberal.”

This is a few days late, I forgot I’d written something.

Ahem.

Nezua has a post at Feministe titled Greed-As-American-As-Vat-Fried-Apple-Pie-And-Hamburger-Brain and he uses the book “Fast Food Nation” written by Eric Schlosser to springboard into topics like food production and the lack of honoring other species that keep getting booted back under the rug. Carpet’s so filthy m’suprised it don’t stand up on its own.

There’s another few books I’m particularly fond of, I’ll see if I can dredge them up, about the history of food production. It’s downright nasty what people will do to others for coin.

Link To Nezua’s post at Feministe Here

The book made me explore my views (again) eating meat a few years ago (along with a Simpson’s episode back in junior high, oddly enough), and it’s back to kick my ass along to do it again, although Nezua’s doing a much better job of that than the book ever did, because sometimes I do need constant reminders. I do like meat, but I abhor the way the animals are raised, killed and processed, not to mention what’s added and concealed. He also has “The Context of Corruption; A Backdrop of Oppression” which looks to be wonderfully comprehensive, and since Feministe is moving I might be able to read it with relative ease. I’m hopeful.

I caution against buying (and eating!) strongly spiced hamburg (Or anything spiced from a store’s meat department that you don’t thoroughly inspect when you get to a kitchen, really. I’ll admit, I’m a paranoid little fuck) at your local grocery unless you check it thoroughly first. Out of the three groceries that I can conceivably bike to here, two of them are from the same chain and hide bad, usually a fairly dark brown, dry and every-once-in-awhile a bit greyish-white hamburg inside the good, then roll the outside in a delightful smelling (very hot) spice and sell it for their specials. If it looks to good to be true, guess what? It probably is. Grocery’s are named P&C, if you’re curious and want to check it out for yourself if there’s a chain near you. Maybe your store’ll be better; one can hope. Granted, I haven’t checked in the last year, year and ahalf, but they’ve been doing it since I moved here with my parents when they checked it (which was mid to late eighties) so I’d be incredibly suprised if they stopped now. I occasionally buy a package and inspect it to see if they changed the practice but it hasn’t happened yet, should probably do that this month, but I hate encouraging them and it wastes money. Just …be careful. No hamburg is better than bad. The really pissy thing though is that they don’t have it out all month and I haven’t paid a close enough attention to see if there’s a pattern. Well, besides them avoiding the the health inspectors, that’s a given.

But back to a round about topic; quite a lot of other guest bloggers have also been rotating in and out at Feministe; wonderful choices all, from what I could snag offa the front page and I’d really appreciate it if someone would have mercy on my po’ wittle self and tell me how to work Firefox so that it (And a bunch of other blogs) would be readable past the front page. Hell, sometimes I can’t even make out that.

Quotes O’ The Day.

“Half of what we call madness is just some poor slob dealing with pain by a strategy that annoys the people around him.”

- Mark Vorkosigan

“I have a headache. It’s my only symptom. I go to see three doctors. The neurologist tells me its an aneurism. The immunologist tells me I’ve got “Hay Fever.” The intensivist can’t be bothered, sends me to a shrink, who tells me that I’m punishing myself because I want to sleep with my mommy. Pick your specialist, you pick your disease.” -House

I looked up the word ‘anxiety’ last night. I’m shocked, shocked and appalled that apparently, I was working with a single definition of anxiety when there’s several different ‘versions’; I’d been considering it only in the extreme, scared-shitless one and not comprehending that it also means apprehension.

anx·i·e·ty audio (ng-z-t) KEY

NOUN:
pl. anx·i·e·ties

1.
1. A state of uneasiness and apprehension, as about future uncertainties.
2. A cause of anxiety: For some people, air travel is a real anxiety.
2. Psychiatry A state of apprehension, uncertainty, and fear resulting from the anticipation of a realistic or fantasized threatening event or situation, often impairing physical and psychological functioning.
3. Eager, often agitated desire: my anxiety to make a good impression.

Go figure. Unfortunately I distinctly remember telling a therapist back in ‘01 that I didn’t have anxiety interacting with people, so I think I managed to fuck up my own diagnosis way-back-when for the help I was asking for. Ugh. Well, that and I vaguely remember trying to save face with regard to the few friends and his “WHAT?! Don’t you want more?” thing. I was happy with the one I had, why would I want more? Sure, I’d imagined it would be beyond pleasant not to get dubbed ‘weird’ (eccentric only seems to be used regarding the well-to-do people) whenever I interact with people for more than a day or two (the shortest time limit was about twenty-fve minutes, give or take twenty) but at the time I didn’t connect my dislike of interaction with anxiety. So I guess I’ll have to correct everyone I know offline that no, it turns out I’m not in a permanent state of annoyance, it’s merely anxiety at people not reading me. (Although there’s still a helluva lot of annoyance because most don’t, even when I try) And sometimes that I can’t read them. Probably a lot, since I have trouble with the more subtle forms of communication unless I know someone very well. Even then I get confused a bit, like with my old roommate. He was great for a roomie, though. Not big on meaningless conversation. Yes, I’d figured out that meaningless conversation is way to show someone you care (or something like that) but…why? The info isn’t something people need-to-know. Are people honestly interested in the information in the exchange? And if people are interested, why do they want an answer of “I’m okay” all the time to “How are you doing?” instead of an actual report? Seems counterproductive to demand that if the social chit-chat is used to facilitate honest positive relations.

It me took absolutely forever for me to devise a concrete definition of ‘friends’ and ‘acquaintances’. I think there’s supposed to be a medium in between there, but I haven’t got that part in firm definition yet. Been ruminating on elementary school because something hit me the other night, but oh-My-God! is it depressing.

Got a few things I found and enjoyed and I’d like to share ‘em. The first is an mp3 titled “I’m A Bitch” by and written by Fred Barton and sung in there by Toni DiBuono. She sings “Pour Me A Man” as well. It’s edited to comply with the FCC, I’d like to hear the unedited version. Both their efforts are being highly appreciated, and Barton’s comedic Gold. I’ll admit I’ve also got a weak spot for Margaret Hamilton, the woman who played Elmira Gulch and the Wicked Witch of the West in The Wizard Of Oz. Nothing like Baum’s books, but I still liked the movie cuz of the bright colors, Hamilton’s character acting and that song Garland sung there, ‘Somewhere Over The Rainbow”. And the horse of a different color. Which probably falls into the ‘loves the colors’ bin, now that I’m meandering along in my thought processes. But Garland? Beautiful singing voice, that one. Her ‘Life Is Like A Bowl Of Cherries’ is my current favorite, warring with her ‘Me And My Shadow’.

Hamilton also had some interesting stories (along with her wonderful portrayal of the witch), but all the actoresses (Ha, new word.) had interesting stories to tell. Some of ‘em they’ve told about working the set were a bit jaw dropping.

I’ll elaborate later, they deserve a whole post of their own, at least. But anyway, the link for the songs are located below.

Link to webpage with the mp3’s located Here.

And because I can’t resist, there’s an excerpt of some of Barton’s lyrics to “I’m A Bitch” below.

“…My characteristics
Defy statistics
My peak has been unique
Since my very first day

My mother’s obstetrician
diagnosed my disposition
So I kicked him
My first victim
In my inimitable way…”

I also feel a bit bad taking down my poetry. I think it’s decent, and I’d rather share it. But since I also decided now is, well, not a good time, I’ve been strolling again collecting juicy bits of other people’s poetry (and quotes!) and stockpiling them here for enjoyment. Although I really don’t need an excuse, it’s always a fun venture.

“Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes”
-Walt Whitman

We forfeit three-fourths of ourselves in order to be like other people.
-Arthur Schopenhauer

The first step to getting the things you want out of life is this: Decide what you want.
-Ben Stein

As I know more of mankind I expect less of them, and am ready now to call a man a good man upon easier terms than I was formerly.
-Samuel Johnson

Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need.
-Kahlil Gibran

“Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal.”
~Albert Camus

All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.
-George Orwell “Animal Farm”

(I like dark humor, and it’s sort of …twisty and apropos considering the next bit of the post. I think, anyway.)

Equality…is the result of human organization. We are not born equal.
-Hannah Arendt

I was wondering what other’s thoughts are on the dichotomy of ‘equal’ vs ‘as good as’. Why is the likelihood of a person’s perceived possibility of accomplishment both worth more (and less when an individual is considered disabled in some way, or deviates from the socially accepted ‘norm’) than the concrete evidence of what they’ve already done? I’d come to the not so tentative conclusion long ago that most people claim to be for equality but that people in general don’t want to give anyone else any various kinds of people little if any leeway to help everyone achieve equal representation, and sometimes especially if the person/people in question are from their specific identity groupings.

I’ve also noticed quite a few people have conflated ‘as good as’ with being identical to every other group, or nearly so, and also that to be ‘as good as’ people must be able to accomplish the same things, especially in a way usually used by the majority of society instead of having all people be considered as worthwhile human beings because they’re of the same species. (sorry, my sleep has been shitty and my vocab seems to be limited this month). Maybe if that can get cleared up people’ll move forward at a decent pace.

But then again;

“It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence which could support this.”
~ Bertrand Russell

and of course,

If we were to wake up some morning and find that everyone was the same race, creed and color, we would find some other cause for prejudice by noon.
-George Aiken

Old Thing Became New Thing, Not In A Good Way.

Now, this happens rarely. Well, if I’m entirely honest, I b’lieve someone was only offended once. I can’t pronounce some words, I’ve mentioned that earlier, I think. ‘Pint’ happens to be one of those words. Along with Sean(the name), vinyl, and who knows what else, I don’t remember. Although I find I’m very glad that I don’t have to read aloud in school anymore even though for the most part, I found it fun after middle school hit because I got the hang of inflection and other odds and ends while reading. According to the English teacher at the time, most people can’t mimic vocal character emotion from a story. I’ve tried the same sort of, ah, ‘mimicry’ in the day to day world, though, and I can’t keep it up for decent periods of time. I’m also (quite frankly) just not very good at expressing what I feel. People want gestures and body language that I can’t seem to reproduce with consistent accuracy (alright, sometimes any accuracy) in whatever situation is at hand and some people still don’t get that I’m being friendly. Which, incidentally, is why I tried using what I learned in English class elsewhere, so people would quit assuming I’m in a horrible mood, telling me to cheer up or ask what’s wrong. Smiles are a big one. Most of the time when I think I’m smiling I’m happy I feel I show it but people can’t tell. It’s ridiculously annoying, is what it is. I’m also tired of getting pegged as hostile, eccentric and/or weird. Probably where at least half my headaches come from, trying to deal with everyone else and trying to mirror others. Family certainly doesn’t help, what with the ‘Can’t you try harder?’ and ‘You’re just not trying hard enough.’ Little to no appreciation at all.

But once I figured out I was reading ‘Sean’ wrong, I was always afraid that someone would have the name in a book and I’d constantly mispronounce it to a barrage of laughter. I’m aware of how it’s supposed to be pronounced, but for some reason it…doesn’t occur to me until long after the bumble, days, weeks or months later. I could possibly change the behavior but it would entail more effort than I really want to expand for a handful of words. Plus, I only have a vague idea of one possible process, and no reassurances that it would help in the least. It also doesn’t help that I forgot what most of the words I’m mispronouncing are. And then every once in awhile there’s a word I know but I don’t recognize it in conversation because it sounds so totally different from the way I read it. Only happens once in a blue moon, though, so really, I’m not going to fret over it. Much.

But back to the offending. How does one apologize for offending someone else because of speech? It was awhile ago, but I’ve been mulling the question over and I can’t figure out how to go about it without some long-winded explanation that people don’t want to hear.

I’d just finished up at the dentist and I went to the Chinese takeout place and got some fried rice, since it was the only place within walking distance that had food that I conceivably wouldn’t have to chew. I really wanted yogurt, but that was a no-go, unfortunately. So the lady behind the counter inquired as to what I wanted, I said a pint of such-and-such fried rice.(it was probably pork, for those whose palates care.)

But then the order had to be confirmed, and instead of just saying yes like I usually do or nodding my head, I made the mistake of repeating her. Not verbatim, just the word ‘pint’. Most people ignore slips ‘o the tongue when they happen, but when it’s repeated people tend to point it out.

It ended up sounding sort of like a brother or cousin of “Who’s On First.” You say poe-tay-toe I say poe-ta-toe, eh, it all sucks. To cut an uninteresting story short, I think I might’ve offended her because her voice deadpanned after I repeated to confirm. So how does one go about explaining to someone who probably thinks you’re mocking them that the problem isn’t them, and make it in a short enough time span so they’ll stick around long enough to listen and not turn away with a cold shoulder?

Just as importantly, how would one go about doing that without feeling like an idiot?

-Edited for clarity.

–Also edited to inform any people that happen across this blog that I plan on unloading a bit of contention the next week or so, hopefully with thought provoking musings to go with it.

Alright, I give. My new ‘desk’ is missing a spot for the keyboard, but with the chair it can be stuck on my knees. Means I’ve returned, so to speak. As if I’d gone somewhere in the first place.

I found a vanity a week or so ago. Someone tried to throw it away (still cringing cuz of that) so I rescued it from the dumpster. Needs a small amount of work, one of the legs is detached on its stool, the panels need to be tightened on the vanity itself and there’s four small panes of glass to be cut but other than that, it’s great. (There was a small war, however, with the colony of mold that thought it would stay. Put up a valient fight, it did, but twas not to be. Mwahaha)

I should probably point out that I’m a packrat. A bad one, I’m trying to curb the instinct. Which is kind of funny, because some (not all, by any means) of the stuff I’ve rescued or been given turns out to be either expensive, useful or both. An example would be the $80 soldering gun I gave to a friend of a friend cuz he said he needed one. I originally got it as payment from the lady I was helping to clean out a house. And yes, it was headed for the trash. For some reason that I haven’t been able to fathom yet that’s normally how I get paid. With things headed to the dump. (I already have a soldering iron, I didn’t need a gun, it would’ve just gathered dust. I like things to be useful. Ya can make some very pretty jewelry with soldering irons. If I don’t use it consistently for a period of time, I give it away, otherwise, what good is it? This does not extend to a handful of keepsakes that trigger fond memory.) I think I gave away a telescope and several knives in that box as well. There’s a brief sense of loss between when I consider giving something away and when I actually give said somethin’ away, but it never lasts long. Ends perhaps five minutes after the object in question gets carted off.

On the flip side, I collect specific things as well, and while I sometimes give away parts of a collection, I don’t give the whole thing. (Knives are a good example.)

Point being is I gotta stop collecting stuff. Place of living looks more like a flea market/antique store than anything else. Or it will if I unpack everything, haven’t decided yet. Rather like the empty look, gives an illusion of space. I’m used to living out of boxes in any case. It’s…comfortable, everything has a place and I know where things are when I need ‘em. Besides, one of these days I’m going to accidentally hurt myself on something I’ve ‘collected’. Like that window that was next to my bed that I kept tripping over. Only worse. I shudder to think. Or that piece of electrified concrete would be a better example. Did you know concrete is a pretty emerald green once it’s been electrocuted? Not a uniform color, some bits are darker than others. sort of a forest green. A telephone pole fell outside and hit the road/sidewalk in one of the houses I grew up in, so I collected a few pieces. Incredibly sharp, too. It puts Ginsu knives to shame, although it’s a bit delicate.

I found three things in the wordpress draft box that I’d forgotten about, so I was wrong. Turns out I didn’t lose everything in the wiping. After a brief inspection, one piece isn’t worth saving. The other two, however, have possibilities. They’re complete satire, each focused on a specific reasoning of, ah…views from certain sections I’m not overly fond of, to put it gently. One was posted (if memory serves) wayyyy back at the beginning in ’round Jan., possibly Feb. I took it down because I wasn’t sure if it read correctly as satire or not. Frankly, I’m still not sure if it’s blatant enough (at least to my satisfaction) so it probably needs a bit more tweaking. It’s gorgeous, but then I’m also biased. The other is mediocre at best, unfortunately. I plan on doing a lot of those, practice makes perfect. I do hope I get better, I’m very, very rusty.

I also took down my poetry. I’d forgotten (silly me) that some of it can be traced to my name offline and I’m certainly not living both land-ly and psychologically in a comfortable enough place for the rest of this blog to be associated with moi if a friend decided to google it and spread the lot o’ it around. Different people here know different things, but if they took it all in I think I’d probably be disowned. Town is awfully conservative, and not in a good way. I’m also a bit paranoid about someone yanking the rest o’ the poetry and claiming it as their own. Aye, I’ve a bit of an ego but I’ve had things of that nature happen before.

I am, however, suprised that it took half a year to occur to me that people steal shit online and that a measly warning in the sidebar isn’t that much of a detractor for it. I’ll put it back after I move to a decent spot.