Monthly Archive for March, 2006

Behind The Magic: The Making of “Public Cans of Austin: Donn’s Depot”

bend over
The graffito reads “DUDE some-one seriously needs to show me what it feels like to get my ASS giggled.” “Bend over” suggests some subsequent respondent, reasonably.

Because the compulsion to illuminate the infinitely tedious minutiae of Central Texan existence is what separates the spinster aunts from the boys, today I inaugurate my latest project, a new photo series I like to call “Public Cans of Austin.”

It began thusly: After getting outside four exquisite courses at the excruciatingly decent Jeffrey’s on West Lynn, Stingray and I sped off into the night. Forty-seven seconds later Donn’s Depot Piano Bar and Lounge hove into view.

“Why not?” I asked.
“Why not?” Stingray agreed.

When liquid refreshment lies on the other end of a proposition, Stingray, it must be noted, is Congeniality itself.

So I crammed the truck into the last parking space, and the stoop of Donn’s Depot—already afflicted with an unnatural crepuscularity—we did proceed to darken.

Donn’s Depot is a capacious, shambling dive reeking of denial, Ben-Gay, and crumbled dreams. Keepin’ it real, I ordered a Budweiser, a habit formed during my 25-year exile in St. Louis, but Stingray kept it local with a Tito’s Handmade Vodka (“handmade” vodka! The American fetishization of an utterly flavorless booze is a constant source of mirth to the cynical spinster aunt/wino. Verily I say unto thee: vodka, like Jesus, is encrusted with baloney).

Smoking in Austin bars, even one like Donn’s Depot which is begrimed with enough nicotine residue to immobilize the lungs of anyone who so much as drives by, is by unpopular decree considered a crime against humanity punishable by 25-to-life. So, bearing our cocktails like chalices, Stingray and I lambada-ed on feather-light feet across the parquet dance floor and made for the deck to fire one up (an Austin bar without a deck is like a day without Fox News reporting on a serial killer against a backdrop of bouncing teen boobies).

god bless america On the deck a perfect breeze whipped up from the lake. In the cavalier fashion of spinster aunts who have just been well stuffed with exotic cuisine and New Zealand bubbly, we leaned back with both elbows on the rail watching the SUVS roar hypnotically down 5th Street. Stingray chatted of this. I chatted of that. Some little time later we observed a booze cruise pull up and disgorge into Donn’s Depot a murder of revelers who, sharing but the flimsy bond of some tedious daytime interest, couldn’t spend the evening in one another’s company without being imprisoned on a bus together and fed quantities of alcohol.

The band began an ill-advised cover of “The Lion Sleeps Tonight.”

“Hmm,” I ventured.
“Hmm,” Stingray agreed.

A whipping sound above our heads caused us to glance upward. We could naught but perceive an enormous sheet of red, white and blue fabric snapping in the night wind.

What was this thing? A strong sensation of familiarity washed over me. I felt deeply as if I’d seen something very like it, yet very unlike it, before. The enormous Twisty brain eventually formulated the most likely explanation. It was some poor, inept outsider artist’s attempt to create one of those “Kill Iraqis” ribbon magnets one sees on all the Ford F-150s. Only the poor chump had gotten it all wrong. It was too big, too flaccid, too unmagnetized to be of any use to a truck-driving bigot. And so here hung the failed endeavor, a drooping, emasculated, almost nonpartisan anomaly, suspended from a lonely pole at Donn’s Depot, helping to Keep Austin Weird.

During these deep ruminations, the Budweiser had worked its singular magic upon my internal systems, and it became necessary to repair to the Ladies Room. Behind the door of which privy I beheld a spectacle of uncommon and romantic magnificence. Whereupon tears of red velvet kitsch welled up in my eyes, and Public Cans of Austin was born.

4000-year-old joshua tree in Donn\'s Depot can the absinthe drinker
Left: Donn’s Depot’s little-known 4000-year-old joshua tree. Right: Stingray enraptured by the grimy red shag grandeur.

And I Love You, Susan

I’ll have half of what she’s having.

Antidote

delicious leek and potato soup à la spinster

I am posting this picture of my transcendent soup because it is tasteful. Soup, unlike the thing from yesterday’s post, elevates humanity. Which is why I wish readers would rethink this tendency to refer to photographs of my dinner as “porn.”

To make Leek and Potato Soup à la Spinster, which I am happy to report requires only four ingredients, saute a couple three leeks in butter for 16 minutes. Add some chicken broth and a very thinly sliced potato (sniff the potato thoroughly before you buy it. I mean really give it the old nostril. Lately I’ve been running across some exceedingly musty specimens, and a musty potato can cause disturbances in the field). Simmer until the potato starts to fall apart. Purée two-thirds the stuff and return to the pot, unless you don’t want chunks, in which case purée all of it, duh. Add the milk product of your choice (heavy cream of course tastes best) until the soup reaches the desired consistency. My view is that it should be somewhat thinner than library paste. It should coat a spoon, but not glop.

If you chill this soup overnight and eat it cold for lunch it becomes Vichyssoise. Pronounce the S!

It Burns!

hideous sculpture makes me wanna hurl
“Pro-life” sculpture of—that’s right—Britney Spears ready to take it up the ass while giving birth on a bearskin rug.

“Why the sporadic posting, Twisty?” you ask. I’ll tell you. It’s because a couple of readers sent me this godawful thing. When I saw it the first thing I did was, I stared at the monitor with my giant mouth open. Then I made broken, gurgling noises. Then I snapped. I ran out into the street screaming like a mimi. My neighbor looked up from her gas-powered leaf-blower, observed that there was blood shooting out my eyes, and said, “What’s up, Twisty? A sub-par Oregon merlot again?” And I said, “Shit, almost! I’ve looked into the abyss, and the abyss looked back!”

My neighbor walked me back into the house, gave me an ativan, and put a cold cloth on my forehead. And I’ve been lying on the couch ever since, having spasms.

Repeat Offender


A spinster aunt cannot advise being offensive without a honkin’ big bowl of ratatouille with saffron rice.

As a consequence of my having been but a sporadic reader of Blac(k)ademic—a progressive blog on race, feminism and queer studies—Bitch | Lab has taken the opportunity to point out that I Blame The Patriarchy is offensive to women of color. Her remarks are here.

What she says about the Blog As Infinite Oeuvre interests me strangely. To wit:

“[Nubian] was speaking to a discussion that’s been going on among Women of Color bloggers and assuming, as many of us do, that people who were familiar with the discussions would understand what she was saying without elaboration.”

The idea that blog entries are not stand-alone essays, but may in fact depend on not just the whole rest of the blog, but on whole clumps of blogs for context, is one behind which I have occasionally taken refuge without entirely thinking it through.

The consequence of viewing, whether consciously or no, a blog as an open-ended work-in-progress, wherein all previous entries are to be construed as prerequisites, or possibly an indoctrination, to an acceptable level of comprehension of the post under review, is that the reader must have an uncommon dedication to the work of the blogger in question. If the reader is but an occasional visitor, she is liable to perceive the clevah verbiage du jour through the narrowed eyes of what Burke called “just prejudice” and interpret it, god forbid, at face value, without the benefit of months or years of implied blog-specific allusions, subtexts, in-jokes, and lexicons .

This methodology strikes me, upon reflection, as lazy, but in the end I can do naught but condone it, since a spinster aunt, despite her giant brain, is nothing if not indolent. Still, the gambit is hazardous. It may lead, for example, to the random or intermittent reader who encounters a post about the Korean government’s subsidy of Chinese bride-pimping only to conclude that its author is a racist assbag with an abiding conviction that all Koreans are ugly rednecks.

Such a conclusion may strike the author as pretty comical, but then again, the author has made certain erroneous assumptions about the reader’s intimacy with the blogular oeuvre. If she were a better writer her essay would require no previous apprenticeship. But as it stands, the thing has no expository preamble. It fails to alert the reader that, because the author does not consider it justifiable, even for Koreans, to purchase Chinese women for slave labor, she is exercising some poetic license in describing those who indulge in this practice as undesirable fucktards. Another idea that the nonextant preamble might address is that the author’s unflattering remarks about unmarriagable Korean farmers should be construed as a negative pronouncement on the overall physical beauty and intellectual sophistication of Koreans as a class only by those who wish to see malignancy where mere satire exists. In relying on the previously-established spirit of the blog to imply a general lack of racist enmity towards Koreans, the author is clearly bringing this unpleasantness on herself. No surprises there. White chicks, to paraphrase Nubian somewhat, are fucked up.

Bitch | Lab is for social justice, and she stops short of calling me a racist. Still, I’d like to meet the white chick who writes pretty ceaselessly about the violence wrought by the dominant culture, yet who isn’t accused, at least once a month, of racism. I won’t hold my breath. White chicks are, after all, beneficiaries of racism—automatic racists, whether we like it or not— and essentialism prevents us from being trusted, understandably, by black chicks. That our racism is also pointed out fairly often by those “good” honkys who “get” race is pretty good for a laugh. Of course, I don’t really trust white people, either.

Bitch | Lab does aver that I Blame The Patriarchy is exclusively concerned with what she calls “breeders*” and “whether to take your husband’s name.**” She further declares, and I agree, that there is more to fighting The Man than that. Do I see white chick liberation, she wants to know, as connected to that of women of color?

Yipes. We’re women, aren’t we?

For interested parties, I have provided, for the past year, a synopsis of my personal feministo-blogular views in the FAQ, with which FAQ I always implore (to little avail) visitors to familiarize themselves prior to tackling the blog proper. The synopsis, if you’ll forgive me the presumption of quoting myself, goes a little something like this:

“My views are centered on evidence that patriarchy is a violently tyrannical but nearly invisible social order based on an oppressive paradigm of dominance and submission fetishizing class and status. Patriarchy’s benefits are accrued according to a rigid hierarchy at the top of which are rich honky males and at the bottom of which are poor women of color. The Twisty Revolution envisions a post-patriarchal order free of theocracy, gender, race, marriage, prostitution, exploitation, reproduction, caste, pornography, rape, and government interference in private uteruses, domestic arrangements, drug habits, lives, and deaths.”

While I disagree with Bitch | Lab’s characterization of this blog as suffering from quite such a narrow scope as one of breedering and surnames (she neglects to mention the divers photographs of my dinners, for instance, or the time I flipped off Lance Armstrong), I do concur, as should be evidenced by the afore-quoted blogifesto, that patriarchy-blaming can and should be approached from numerous angles. Racism’s intersection with misogyny, unlike math, is hard. I do not pooh-pooh writers who choose to focus on such aspects of the evils of white supremacy that fall within their area of expertise, even if this expertise has nothing to do with tiny handbags. In fact, I hold these writers, when they can actually write, in high regard. If that’s not good enough, please bite off my left one and feed it to the dingoes.

Because although it’s not a free country, it’s still free enough that everyone is welcome to read whatever modicum of the blog will satisfy their desire to be offended.

* I discourage breeding of every kind

** To the best of my recollection I have never written Word One on whether women should change their names when they get married. Although, now that she mentions it, of course they shouldn’t. They shouldn’t get married, period!

Sunday Jesusianism

Over breakfast—a humorless, hairy cup of herbal tea and a bowl of curried dung granola—I’ve been reading the Patriarchy Manual. By which I mean the Bible, the durable bestseller that gives modern misogyny its legs.

Boy-o, is that shit a hoot. Like the part where Jesus says, “Woe betide the Dean of Admissions who accordeth that women may comprise greater than 60 percent of any university student body, for upon him or maybe her if she was lucky enough to get the job will fall the painful thwack of the Sword of Legal Dude-Approved Sex Discrimination.”

Jesus. For a fictional character upon whom much of modern civilization pretends to be modeled, he’s one sick mutha. He puncheth in the gut with one hand, but patteth on the head with another. For instance, after ensuring the ascendancy of honky males in the US, he’s breaking with a 2000-year tradition in Kerala, India by allowing premenstrual girls to serve as altarboys in the Catholic church there.

But don’t get excited, Jesus hasn’t gone all feminist on our asses. A Kerala priest—priests, you may recall, are guys who claim that the ghost of a dead Jew from the Roman Empire talks to them all the time and yet are rarely thrown into nut-houses—reassures us that this is “certainly not a first step towards ordaining women as priests.” No, it’s just a clever gambit to lure preteen girls into the nunnery, where they will have fulfilling lives as celibate brides of Jesus and priest-slaves. Patriarchy is safe, for the nonce, in the Jewel of the Arabian Sea.

Blog Against Stuff

I love Blog Against Stuff days. What could be more ecumenical than being against stuff, writing about it on the World Wide Web, and having 23 like-minded people read it and cry out, “damn, you so rock”? Take heteronormativity. Nubian at Blac(k)ademic is spearheading Blog Against Heteronormativity Day on April 22. Anti-heteronormativists unite.

Not coincidentally—because I am against practically everything—I am totally against heteronormativity. Heteronormative againstness oozes from my every pore. It is something of a force. In fact, heteronormative ideologies scatter like cockroaches whenever I come sauntering along with my uniboobal spinster ambiguosity. And I am all the time going, “Hey queer girls, resist assimiliation! Reject the boy-girl paradigm of dominance and submission! Repudiate marriage and its subsequent nuclear family, which will only implant a patriarchal control device in your cerebral cortex and consign you to a lifetime of isolation and consumerist serfdom! Oh, and quit calling me ‘bitch.’ ”

I write this now in case I forget to do it on April 22.

Speaking of Nubian, she is contemplating bagging blogging because honky blogs get more recognition than of-color blogs, and she has had it up to here with marginalization. She sensibly hypothesizes that white bloggers only link to her when she writes about “how fucked up white people are,” and that this constitutes white guilt.

Yeah, the irony of my linking to her post in this context does not escape me.

Still, as a small-time feminist blogger who can count on one hand the number of times an article at I Blame The Patriarchy has been acknowledged via linkage by white dude blogs* (let alone of-color blogs of any gender), I can sorta relate. I now paraphrase a dead gay white dude: possibly the only thing worse than being linked to is not being linked to.

I hope Nubian will decide to keep up her blog. The more the merrier.

*most of which only do it to say something like “look at the hysterical humorless hairy feminist.”

Buy Her A Tractor Instead

Unearthed from a dark crevice deep inside my iPod, I give you the weirdest song about wife ownership ever recorded.

From the You Go Girl Dept.

Cecilia Fire Thunder, president of the Oglala Sioux Tribe on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota, has had it up to here with that woman-hating honky-ass abortion ban.

“To me, it is now a question of sovereignty [...] I will personally establish a Planned Parenthood clinic on my own land which is within the boundaries of the Pine Ridge Reservation where the State of South Dakota has absolutely no jurisdiction.”

Hot Mama

This morning I skimmed a blog I’ve never read before—let’s call it Morphing Into Mama, since that’s its title. I read only a few posts, so it is possible that I’ve misconstrued the gist of the blog (it wouldn’t be the first time), but I applaud the Morphing Mama as one of the increasingly uncloseted breed of saucy young broads who recognize that they had independent, autonomous selves before repurposing themselves as child-rearers, and who are now coming out to remonstrate that the virginmarial glow of new motherhood is a load of sentimental crap. She speaks authoritatively of sleep deprivation and nipple leakage, and of this indignity and that, and resents that, according to cultural narrative, she is supposed to be “in love” with her mewling infant. Which infant, if he looked when he was born anything like my newborn nieces did upon their natal days, resembled nothing so much as an undercooked brisket.

I can dig it.

Yet, according to this astonishing post, our Morphing Mama believes that if you gain a few pounds or cut your hair or in any way alter the physical appearance of your hot prenuptial self after you get hitched, you are guilty of “false advertising.”

Who might one construe as the consumer injured by this false advertising?

“Husband,” that’s who (that’s what the Morphing Mama calls the dude she married. “Husband.”).

Then the Morphing Mama drops the bomb that will cause the shitstorm that would eventually drive her to close comments on the post.

“Personally,” she writes, “I think it would be unfair to Husband if I gained a bunch of weight and did nothing about it.”

This remarkable statement reflects our heroine’s capitulation to the patriarchal feminine hotness imperative. Whereas she sensibly repudiates the absurd notion that she should be “in love” with her brisket-shaped kid, she cannot bring herself to reject the authority of the Male Gaze. For instance, the photo in her sidebar, presumably of the author, depicts a young woman in delicious contrapposto with a stroller, gorgeous shampoo-commercial hair, and a really hot ass.

The Morphing Mama (or “MIM,” as she is known on the blog) married a guy to whom she attributes this speech: “‘You’re not going to chop of all your hair now that we’re married, are you?’ he asked nervously.”

MIM believes that before she got married, she “advertised” herself to this hair-fetishist as a commodity: a weight-specific brand of sexy conformity to patriarchal hotness standards. Furthermore, she thinks it would constitute an ethical lapse if she were to relax her white-knuckle grip on skinny long-haired femininity. In other words, it is her wifely duty to maintain her hotness. “Husband” signed up for hotness, remains a big fan of hotness, and, as a male in a patriarchy, is entirely entitled to hotness. To deprive this hotness consumer of hotness would be “unfair.”

This is no mere Twistificational conjecture. Of Husband’s fascination with hotness there can be no doubt, for here he is, guest-blogging a “birthday tribute” to his hot wife: “Suffice it to say she’s proven to be intelligent, resilient, inquisitive, and loyal. Oh, and beautiful and hot, as the ‘butt shot’ confirms. And the best thing is, all this has only gotten better with age. So happy 35th birthday MIM. I’m looking forward to another 35 with you. By then you’ll be REALLY hot! Oh, and probably also still intelligent, resilient, inquisitive, and loyal. But at least hot.”

And, lard-jesus no! MIM, who says she “works” to maintain her figure “for myself and my husband,” goes on to suggest that a person’s weight is indicative, not, as a rational person might imagine, of how much she weighs, but of her degree of “self-respect.” Overweight people, MIM asserts, are probably “depressed.” She asks, “can you imagine still maintaining the same level of physical attraction for your mate when he’s depressed?”

So it’s not fat people who are unattractive, but depressed people?

Nice try, but it’s a well-documented fact that depressed people are among the world’s most fascinating. Some of the best sex I ever had was with my girlfriend who would soon shoot herself to death with a giant gun. I’m no psychiatrist, but it that’s not depressed, I don’t know what is.

The thing is, in a world where women are the sex class (by which I mean Planet Earth), even morphing mamas are expected to display themselves according to male standards of fuckability as defined by pornography, and those who fall short are subject not only to public censure and ridicule and fat jokes, but to the ultimate horror: not being hot enough for Husband.

Whether MIM and Husband find eternal bliss in their personal oasis of mutual hotness—and really, if it makes them happy, ¡buena suerte!—is of little consequence to this patriarchy-blamer; it is the larger stupidity of the sexist beauty mandate illustrated by this pair that smegs me off. Check out this agonizing post at a blog called The Homesick Home, wherein author L. has put on a few pounds and now endures her husband’s silent disdain.

“Hub,” writes L., “didn`t want me to go to his office Christmas party, nor has he invited anyone from work to our house. When I joked that this was because I was ‘no longer a wife worth showing off,’ he got very quiet. Saying nothing at all was infinitely worse than anything he could have possibly said.”

L. has failed where MIM has triumphed, but the spinster aunt would implore all women, regardless of the degree to which they have been assimilated by Dude Nation, to extricate themselves with all possible speed from the prison of male fantasy. Feminine beauty is a load of pornographic crap.

[gracias, Lori]