Urgent spinster auntly business compels me to buzz off to Dallas for a couple of days. In the highly likely event that there’s no WiFi in my temporary HQ, posting will necessarily be lite.
In the meantime, please compare and contrast the images above. Or make witty remarks about the Foley scandal, whatever.
32 comments
vera
October 17, 2006 at 1:30 pm (UTC -6)
I have no comment on the Foley scandal. But in the mid 1980s, I was an intern in the office of Rep. Gerry Studds.
Gorgeous photography! I opened the Twisty site to show my radical feminist daughter that she really must heed my advice and read Twisty every day. And lo! A lovely photo. Thanks.
Jennifer
October 17, 2006 at 1:47 pm (UTC -6)
But whose skin eruption is it?
Jodie
October 17, 2006 at 3:11 pm (UTC -6)
Beautiful butterfly. Did Bert knock you down again?
saltyC
October 17, 2006 at 3:14 pm (UTC -6)
ew.
Rose Connors
October 17, 2006 at 3:27 pm (UTC -6)
Compare: #2 reminds me of ringworm. #1 used to be a worm. Foley is a worm.
Contrast: #1 is beautiful. #2 is a bit repulsive. Foley is more than a bit repulsive.
vera
October 17, 2006 at 10:01 pm (UTC -6)
Yikes! I was an intern in Gerry Studds’ office in the mid-1970s, not the mid-1980s. I’m old, I’m old, I’m old. But I don’t feel bad about my neck.
Twisty
October 18, 2006 at 12:43 pm (UTC -6)
I must add that Stingray took the lovely nature foto (although behind her back I photoshopped it to within an inch of its life). It’s a pipevine swallowtail, one of a swarm we encountered jockeying for position on a few stalks of Indian paintbrush out at El Rancho Deluxe the other day.It seems like only yesterday they were a swarm of pipevine caterpillars. They grow up so fast.
Mandos
October 18, 2006 at 7:03 pm (UTC -6)
And she does not tell us what the second one is.
Ms Kate
October 18, 2006 at 10:01 pm (UTC -6)
The second one looks like those small pavement burn scars I have on my left hand – they were small, so I didn’t bother with the cream and the bandaids and all of that. The road rash healed better than the scalding hot pavement burns, so I’d wager “mostly healed 1.5 degree burn” as my guess.
maggiethewolf
October 18, 2006 at 11:28 pm (UTC -6)
Mandos: “And she does not tell us what the second one is.”
Perhaps because she only tells us what we can bear to hear…and with that, I have elevated Twisty to Goddess. She is Twisty, the Goddess of Hunting the Patriarchy.
amy_b
October 19, 2006 at 7:19 am (UTC -6)
I hate to be a Plant Nazi, but your butterfly perch is actually cardinal flower, or Lobelia cardinalis.
Puffin
October 19, 2006 at 7:33 am (UTC -6)
That might make you a Plant Pedant, amy_b, but not a Plant Nazi. What with Nazis being mass murdering fascists and all.
Kenny
October 19, 2006 at 7:43 am (UTC -6)
The second photo could involve a splinter. My guess is that it would be a splinter of Indian paintbrush. Make that a splinter of cardinal flower.
vera
October 19, 2006 at 10:10 am (UTC -6)
Last time we were in the Truckee area we encountered swarms of yellow butterfies. The first photo makes me wish I was hiking around Lake Tahoe right now, even if I ended up with a bug bite resembling the second photo.
But alas, I must go off now and work in a cube. I blame the patriarchy for my enormous workload.
cycles
October 19, 2006 at 11:45 am (UTC -6)
It’s Morgellans!
And now, for a newbo’s off-topic drivel, with your permission. The patriarchy is short one week’s worth of productivity from this automaton, thanks the Twisty archives. My patriarchy-blaming skills have increased, my fried oyster acceptance is coming into focus, and I’m a little homesick for A-town, despite its proliferation of the smarmy red-faced “little lady”-spouting white dudes that caused me to flee several years ago. Thank you. I am ffucjibg fucknig amazing.
Because I am unworthy of emailing Twisty directly, I thought I’d befoul the comments section with this lumpy gasbag’s treacle, for your amusement:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6057734.stm
“Women, on the other hand, will develop lighter, smooth, hairless skin, large clear eyes, pert breasts, glossy hair, and even features, he adds.”
justtesting
October 19, 2006 at 1:38 pm (UTC -6)
That BBC article is a load of misinformed rubbish. It starts “Humanity may split into two sub-species in 100,000 years’ time as predicted by HG Wells, an expert has said.”
Why is the BBC giving this joker the airtime ?
cycles
October 19, 2006 at 4:26 pm (UTC -6)
I know jack-squat about physical anthropology and how one goes about predicting the future of our body shapes, but, patriarchy aside, it struck me that the characteristics he calls out for women are all easily attainable today through surgery or products. No need to have this stuff become part of whatever sexbot genome dominates 10,000 years down the road in this guy’s jerkoff fantasy masquerading as scientific conjecture.
His assumption that the patriarchy will continue to thrive eons from now is also depressing, but a bright spot of hope abides in the thought that we may be 9,990 years extinct from man-made environmental factors by then.
I am truly sorry to digress, but it’s been nearly two days since new Twisty love, and I’m getting desperate enough to de-lurk. Have fun in Dallas. If possible.
Mar Iguana
October 19, 2006 at 4:30 pm (UTC -6)
I notice the illustration of the elite human is male and the underclass one is female.
Ms Kate
October 19, 2006 at 4:44 pm (UTC -6)
I suppose when “all women” develop these luscious characteristics in the eyes of 21st century patriarchy anyway, then natural zits and such will be en vogue, no?
After all, us righteous and sturdy women with full hips and famine-resistant physiques were previously Teh Beauty when all other women struggled to look less like goitered Olive Oyl’s.
I blame the patriarchy in either case for making ideals and forcing women to conform to them. Harrrumph.
Ms Kate
October 19, 2006 at 4:47 pm (UTC -6)
Oh yeah – when do we get to the part where the master race gets wiped out by a master epidemic to which the trogdolytes are immune?
In terms of evolution, this is bullshit anyway – it isn’t mate selection that drives it, it’s environmental change and adversity which select adaptive genes IF there are any around (hence the need for genetic diversity). Such elites will be sitting ducks given their controlled environments and limited genetic variation. BWAHAGAGAHAHAHAHAH!
scratchy888
October 19, 2006 at 6:43 pm (UTC -6)
Oh, I think that generally people are becoming more childish (and emotional) for sure. Our current political leadership says as much. Also, knowledge is becoming less important, as current patriarchy moves the goal posts. Now, the ability to scratch one’s arse with zest is all the proof that’s needed that you’ve climbed to the top of the ant pile.
Mar Iguana
October 20, 2006 at 9:13 am (UTC -6)
Facts were all fine and good when they were being examined only through the male lens but since women have entered every area of male endeavor in the last thirty years, excelled and given lie to the “fact” of male superiorty, who needs ‘em?
kathy a
October 20, 2006 at 3:50 pm (UTC -6)
i’m late to the party, as usual, but think that rose connor’s compare and contrast is prize-worthy.
ps
October 20, 2006 at 5:10 pm (UTC -6)
“He carried out the report for men’s satellite TV channel Bravo.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6057734.stm
since when is Bravo a “men’s” channel?
cycles
October 20, 2006 at 5:57 pm (UTC -6)
I was wondering about that too. Looked it up. Bravo TV in the United States is different from the Bravo satellite channel, which claims to be “A televisual broadcaster for the modern gentleman” (http://www.bravo.co.uk/).
Gentleman, as in Gentleman’s Club?
I keep hoping the BBC article will be unmasked as a Man Show-type joke, like the Onion story a few years ago that was picked up as fact by the Chinese newspaper. It’s just too perfectly awful to be true.
Patti
October 20, 2006 at 11:14 pm (UTC -6)
On the other hand, looking at their graphic is making me remember to sit up straighter.
BubbasNightmare
October 20, 2006 at 11:24 pm (UTC -6)
You make me laugh and think at the same time, Twisty. Your wordsmithing often gives me a mental charlie horse, though.
I just wish you wouldn’t sugar-coat your commentary.
jess
October 21, 2006 at 11:59 am (UTC -6)
Hope things are going OK in Dallas, Twisty.
It explains why you haven’t posted about the new Lifetime movie, “Why I Wore Lipstick to My Mastectomy.” The title alone is right in your strike zone — seems hardly necessary to actually see the film.
Forgive the sports metaphor, and blame on.
Marie-Elise
October 21, 2006 at 12:56 pm (UTC -6)
The Dawkins thing again:
If you haven’t read it already, Terry Eagleton has written a good, critical review of Dawkins’s _The God Delusion_ on the LRB website:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html
I’m no nun, but I must say I agree with Eagleton.
Twisty: I’d enjoy reading your thoughts, if you’d care to revisit the question.
caffein8ted
October 21, 2006 at 5:37 pm (UTC -6)
Last night’s fever dream:
Twisty organized a world-wide patriarchy-blaming tour in which a band of merry blamers trekked to various points around the globe for the purposes of vociferous blaming while enjoying each destination’s particular gastronomical delights.
A good time was had by all.
Sniper
October 21, 2006 at 6:01 pm (UTC -6)
The BBC guy is an idiot and was probably put on the air as something to laugh at. For one thing, some of us “squat, goblin-like” people are also intelligent and creative, I’ll have you know.
Cast Iron Balcony
October 22, 2006 at 6:44 am (UTC -6)
This is a shout-out to Chris Clarke, because I can’t do it on his blog, to say I’m in a rage. How dare he/she/it.
If you don’t know what the hell I’m talking about, click on Creek Running North.
Big hero, threatening an elderly dog. Chris, people are jumping up and down worldwide with rage on your behalf. How dare they. HOW DARE THEY.
You know what to blame! Twisty, thoughts to you during whatever they’re doing to you.