Monthly Archive for March, 2007

Page 2 of 3

Arthropod of the week

millipede02.jpg

Hand in hand with the annual Sewage Backup arrives the annual Millipede Infestation. For where stench and decay harbinge, millipedes fear not to tread. With their zillions of feet. Today, summoning the kind of millipedian savoir-faire that accrues only after years of sewage backup/wildlife experience, and using tiny tranquilizer guns, and we were able to capture and relocate seventeen of these mighty invertebrates from the pink bathroom to the Twisty Diplopoda Compound.

Millipedes, you will be delighted to learn, have, like dogs, two pairs of legs per segment. Unlike dogs, they secrete cyanide.

The megalopatriarchy

The New York Times Magazine story about post-traumatic stress disorder in women in combat is 16 screens long, but it can be boiled down to this: Women in combat are likely to be sexually assaulted by their peers, and to get PTSD as a result, and the military pretty much turns a blind eye.

Oh, and the military is also pretty much a culture of misogynist barbarians fetishizing rigid heirarchy, which is what we refer to down at Spinster Aunt HQ as a megalopatriarchy.

”You’re one of three things in the military – a bitch, a whore or a dyke,” says Abbie Pickett, who is 24 and a combat-support specialist with the Wisconsin Army National Guard. ”As a female, you get classified pretty quickly.” (cite)

The article profiles several of the women for whom war and rape has not been an ennobling experience, describing them as haunted shadows of their former selves. They go AWOL, they attempt suicide, they become drunken recluses. As for the military, it’s the same old story. They don’t really want women around in the first place, so no one, it seems, is ever prosecuted for raping them, and nobody is interested in treating them after the system spits them back out in the US.

One interesting factoid from the article: many of the kids who enlist in the military come from backgrounds of abuse. Whereas women who have been sexually abused before joining up are typically subdued and passive from pre-existing traumas, boys who have been pre-enlistedly slapped around tend to be mean and hostile.

The army takes these aggressive, hostile boys and easily turns them into raping killbots who think women are toilets.

I suppose we’ll never know how many Iraqi women they have brutalized.

I can’t complain that the mainstream media are pointing out that aggressive men with guns rape women, a lot, and that this seriously fucks up the women, and that support systems are pretty thin on the ground, but it would have been nice if the author had managed to sneak in a tiny sentence about how (a) the devastating psychological repercussions from this kind of violence are in no way limited to women in the military, and (b) these bright young rapist-Americans had to have gotten their screwed-up ideas about women somewhere, and that place is our own encrapulated old American patriarchy. You will note, for example, that the photo at the top of this very story shows abused AWOL soldier Suzanne Swift reclining on the beach in the pose of an odalisque.

Come away with me now to the enchanted realm of Thiswouldneverhappen Land, and dare to imagine a male soldier striking the traditional recumbent pose of a prostitute on the cover of the New York Times Magazine.

Because Jesus loves you even if you are really, really good-looking

Sadly, Models for Christ is not, as I’d first thought, a support forum for the sandy-haired, blue-eyed white dudes who dress up in Jesus-togas for Xian propaganda photo shoots, but it’s still pretty funny, if, like me, you get a chuckle out of the inexplicably universal belief that an invisible dead Jew from the Roman Empire has been floating around the stratosphere for the past 2000 years performing concierge duties for mealymouthed Americans. Or, in this case, for 16-year-old models.

Christ is my best friend [...] He is completely involved with my modeling.”

The gifted author of the Models for Christ website, undeterred by what some might call oxymoron, crafts this remarkable sentence: “Models for Christ seeks to encourage and strengthen the spiritual growth of all who are interested within the fashion business.”

Once you stop laughing at the idea of the God-shaped vacuum inside every fashion model, it takes about 47 seconds to grasp that Models for Christ is actually a shill for “one on one consultations with today’s top industry professionals” (to the tune of $100 an hour), as well as “materials” ($6.95 – $19.95) containing “essential facts” about how to make it big in the modeling game. Imagine. Godbags preying on young girls.

You probably aren’t lying around with nothing better to do, but if you are, the life story of Jill Williams, a model who once had “everything in the world” (i.e. she belonged to a Saudi harem) but whose face, thanks to Jesus, bears no trace of “stress lines,” is just as good as a movie on Lifetime TV.

Amnesia

port_scar.jpg
I know how you all look forward to these close-ups of my fresh incisions.

Me: I always forget. How long does this stuff take to work?

Anesthesiologist [depressing syringe plunger]: You probably won’t even remember me saying th–

Me: What am I doing with this Taco Cabana taco wrapper in my hand? Why am I in your car? Man, it feels like somebody harpooned me in the collarbone. What’s that horrible smell?

My sibling Tidy: Dad-gum, how many times do I have to tell you this? You said you couldn’t wait to eat until you got home, and you ordered extra onions.

Vernal meditations on the vivisectional life

pink_shower.jpg
What is springtime without the traditional Sewage Back-up in the Pink Shower?

Spring is in the air here in sunny Austin, TX, and that means it’s time for my bimonthly surgery!

How time flies. In October of 2005, a few days after I got my cancer diagnosis but before I’d started any treatments, I listened in disbelief to a woman on the radio carelessly alluding to the seven surgeries she’d undergone as part of her cancer “cure.” I was all like, seven surgeries, are you fucking kidding me, I’ll sleep with Garrison Keillor before I’ll let any jagoff surgeon slice me open seven fucking times. Etc.

Oh, we’re cute when we’re young. Back then seven surgeries sure seemed like a lot of surgeries. That was eight surgeries ago.

Anyway, tomorrow I’ll be popping off for a jolly reunion with my pals down at St. Slice’n’ Dice Memorial General for the removal of my creepy chest catheter implant dealio (we professional cancer patients call’em ‘ports’). If you want to see what one of these fucking things looks like, or if you want to read a hilarious tale of port implantation hijinx, check out Spinning Liz. Her port could play my port’s butt double in a horror movie.

Anyway, I’ll be back in a couple of days. Until then, I invite you to discuss weighty issues amongst yourselves. Anything you want, as long as it’s blow jobs.

Or you might want to discuss Ms Jared’s report from the recent human sex trafficking conference in San Francisco. My favorite part is where some john asks, apparently in all seriousness, “What can johns do to help these women?”

Ay yi yi.

Public meatloaves of Austin, now, sadly, with Garrison Keillor

meatloaf_the_woodland.jpg
Somewhat better than lutefisk: the loaf of meat at a new joint on South Congress called, I am sorry to say, The Woodland. It is the sort of place that sells plates of “comfort food” for $12, has a fake tree growing in the middle of the room, and alludes to whipped potatoes as “mashers.”

Great news! I have figured out how to defeat patriarchy.

No, wait a minute. Upon further reflection, I’m afraid it turns out that all my solutions involve the intervention of imaginary 3rd party aliens.

One of which aliens, as long as I am winging along on a flight of fancy, would be under strict instructions to deal sternly with humble down-home liberal gasbag Garrison Keillor, perhaps by stuffing a quantity of lutefisk, made by modest Lutheran church ladies, into his folksy old piehole and applying ducktape thereupon. For though the dude makes it easier to accept as an axiom that old people are all bigots, one despairs to hear him in action.

I allude to remarks tendered by Keillor in a recent essay published in Salon, wherein he lets loose, in a mocking tone, a string of gay stereotypes that, if I had hair, would’ve curled it. Surely you’ve seen it by now? It’s the one where Keillor, a sexist asshole and serial mack-daddy of some renown, makes himself ridiculous as a shill for heterosexual monogamy, on the grounds that it protects innocent children from the horrors of “hyphenated” — i.e. step — relatives, and from pairs of “sardonic,” “flamboyant,” campy-performer-worshipin’, chartreuse-pants-wearin’ “daddies.”

Lake Woebegone is where Rockwellian fantasies of a honky smalltown godbag greatest-generation America go to rot; would that it could also contain the paternalistic, pretentiously faux-rustic prattlings of its delusional old fart creator.

A geek’s story

FindX.jpg

According to blamer Metamanda, somebody commenting on a recent thread, perhaps swept up in the frenzy of the moment, typed this:

Is there anything about being a geek that makes a person more attractive?

There were apparently other unfortunate statements, such as “no social skills” and “can’t get dates.”

“Those are low blows,” responds self-identified geek Metamanda, “of exactly the same sort that reactionary men use against feminists.” [Read her entire post here.]

[Because the spinster aunt's eyesight ain't what it used to be, I am unable to locate the comment in which is nestled the anti-geek remarks quoted by Metamanda, but I will proceed on the assumption that it exists.]

This is not really a personal blog, but in the interest of subsequently enbiggening a broader point, I might as well reveal unto you a little something about myself: I am a geek/nerd/spazz. Or, more accurately, I can be said to possess traits in common with other persons so categorized by the cold, cruel world.

For one thing, I am, when observed through the encrapulated lens of patriarchy, funny-looking; I walk with a limp, and sport a pair of 8-inch scars where my tits used to be. I have stringy, greasy hair, zits, glasses, and a Frinkian overbite. I am said to be “bird-like,” probably because of my emaciated physique and prominent honker.

For another thing, I am uncool. I own a visor and a fanny pack. Just the other day I said “nee” several times. I then translated it into Latin and said it again. I possess the DVD boxed set of Star Trek TOS (actually, the one I have is more ‘encapsulated in plastic space-pods’ than ‘boxed’). I look at bugs through microscopes. I have a fascination for a species of amphibian called cricket frogs. I watch those corny “British Comedies” on PBS every Saturday night (I fall asleep before “Monty Python” comes on, but that’s OK; I’ve got that boxed set, too). I would read science fiction all the time if it weren’t, alas, so incompetently written. While still a child, a freak accident with a subset of negative integers left me almost entirely differentiated by derivatives, and thereafter I lost all mathematical ability. I was in denial at first, but if those math teachers told me (n) times, they told me {(n) + 1} times: I was doomed to infinite regress.

The other nerds cast me out. I was a geek without a gang.

Thus, my own “social skills” developed such that I have been variously diagnosed as afflicted with Tourette’s, with extreme eccentricity, with some sort of as-yet-undiscovered high-functioning autism, with charismatic narcissism, and/or with a low-ish high IQ. I have not matured emotionally or intellectually beyond the age of 17 (some experts disagree, and put the figure closer to 14). On an average of twice a week, fair weather or foul, I am compelled to run across the lawn waving my arms as though I intend to take flight, or to take a stroll on tiptoe with my ass sticking way out. I am physically awkward and have been known to tip over without cause, straining the plausibility of Newton’s Third Law. Sometimes I involuntarily utter strings of meaningless syllables ending in “P”: bup bup bup bup pip pip pip pip. I stutter on telephones. Quite often I am incapable of communicating to people behind counters at coffee bars or pharmacies in anything but preverbal grunts or twitters. Sometimes, when I hear myself make a particularly funny noise, I involuntarily collapse into a state of violent merriment or lunacy, perhaps best described as hysterics, that can span half an hour. If this happens while I am driving, look out, Austin!

Thus am I considered odd by most and rude by many. Often I am taken for an imbecile.

Unlike most of the Brotherhood of Man, however, I find many of my aforementioned deviations from the norm to be pretty agreeable, or at least comical. Like, until you’ve tried it, you have no idea how liberating it is to do the butt-walk in the $700 Extra Virgin Olive Oil aisle at Whole Foods. And that episodic convulsive laughter, from which accrues all the benefits of the conventional orgasm without all the inconvenient effluents, stickiness, appliances, legal restrictions and political issues, is fucking awesome.

It is an asset, not to mention a joy and a relief, to be unencumbered by social skills. What are they, after all, but a set of arbitrarily-conceived customs meant to sort people into classes, the more conveniently to be dominated by those whose mastery of the arbitrary customs is superior? I’m sure I need not point out to you, O my fellow blamers, that the stability of patriarchy as a system of social control relies on the mass assimilation of these customs. Customs are the currency of culture; the more you absorb, the greater your rewards. But closer examination reveals them to be nothing but taboos and commandments designed to restrict human conduct to a finite set of ritualized mannerisms constrained by foul ideals of deference, appeasement, and conformity.

“Attractiveness” is one of those mannerisms. You know what? Fuck attractiveness and the establishmentarian horse it rode in on.

So, back to the question posed by Person X, “is there anything about being a geek that makes a person more attractive?”

I am happy to say, no there isn’t, and isn’t that nice.

By the way, using my highly advanced scientific method, I have determined that 73.4% of the readers of this blog are geek/nerd/spazzes. The sci-fi thread of last week has broken all attendance records.

More Komedy Korner: “Damn you and your patriarchy!”

twistynorbiznessbaby.jpg
In a mood of melancholic nostalgia for the good old days when he was still in the Guinness Book as World’s Hugest Infant, Norbizness sent me this snapshot, taken in the Sugarland Home for Unwed Mothers just before I put him up for adoption in 1948.

I can’t say for sure, but I think feminism may have a slight image problem, at least among dudes who identify as “Geek men.” Sadistic blamer Pris goaded me via email into perusing the afore-linked forum, wherein “feminists” — although nobody is suggesting that they should be denied “equal rights” — are lamented most poignantly as having abandoned femininity. The burning question is this: “Are there any aspects of feminism that make a woman more appealing to you, as a geek man?”

The answer, according to the responding experts on feminist theory, is ”no.” Feminism is a universal uglifier, in that it requires its apostles to betray their Prime Directive, i.e. The Pursuit of Pornaliciosity, in an effort to fulfill their unholy destiny as masculine men-haters.

Says Geek man Mac D:

I am in no way saying that the female gender should not have equal rights and be able to pursue her dreams what ever they might be. It’s just when I go out on a date with a girl I like them to let me open the door for them and pick up the check. [...] Feminazi’s go just way to far. They think to be equal they need to be exactly like a guy. My ex-wife [...] has what most people would call a mans job but she still acts like a girl.

Hear that, potential “female gender” dates of Mac D? So that everything he believes about what is right and good with the world does not come crashing down around him, you must pretend to be an impecunious weakling. FYI: he doesn’t specifically demand this, but, woman to woman, you might further bolster his precarious sense of privilege by coyly revealing a bit of décolletage at dinner, while speaking (when spoken to, of course!) disparagingly about the 19th Amendment. Play your cards right, and he just might throw his sportcoat onto a mud puddle for you, you sexy little equal, you.

To further illuminate the deplorable condition of feminist sex appeal, feminist scholar nerdwithnofriends has helpfully compiled a compendium of the different species of feminists, so that such women might be more easily identified, and reviled, by his fellow Geek men. The “man-haters,” for example, “tend to have lots of stock phrases that they bandy about,” one of the most fearsome of which is the ubiquitous “damn you and your patriarchy!”

Feminists, according to nerdwithnofriends, are also frequently heard stampeding around town intoning other common catch-phrases, such as “If women ruled the world, there would be no war, starvation, disease, or death” and “You can’t possibly understand, you’re an emotionally closed off MALE!!!” The din kicked up by these women is deafening.

Nerdwithnofriends, I should point out in the interest of fairness, wishes to set the record straight when he avers that of course men feel emotions; it’s just that men are “simply (on average) more capable of controlling how they affect [them].”

And then there are the “new-age feminists.” This unfuckable bunch base their ideology on the core belief that “men are incapable of true creation because they are incapable of bearing a child. (See Terminator Two for a quote).” Nerdwithnofriends’ analysis of the new-age feminist critique of the U.S.’s “truly amazing system of electrical distribution” (telephone poles are “not very pretty”) is not to be missed.

Our professor’s closing remarks identify the “problem” with “‘modern’ feminism”: “it no longer seeks equality for women, but superiority.”

I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking that because these statements are merely the unsophisticated Internetian (rhymes with “Venetian”) prattle of terrified young honky dudes with Oedipal issues, this bit of blaming more or less constitutes shooting fish in a barrel. And you’re right. But lately I’ve been seeing a resurgence of a disturbing trend, which resurgence these Geek men illustrate perfectly.

Their remarks represent what I have scientifically determined to be the most prevalent misconception about American feminists (aside from our famed dedication to the Three Hs: Hairiness, Humorlessness, and Hate): that we desire “equality” with men. This notion of inadequate women clamoring for parity is undoubtedly a comforting one, since it postulates “men” as the ideal that is desperately sought by legions of shrill bitches who, ultimately, are doomed never to prevail owing to “innate differences.”

That equality with men is the last thing on the radical feminist’s To Do list will not blow any veteran blamer’s mind, but it is incumbent on the spinster aunt to reiterate every ten minutes or so that our objective is liberation from male dominance, not the opportunity to mimic the patriarchal model of oppression .

If you are not a feminist, you defend the conviction — here haplessly demonstrated by our Geek men — that women exist for male use.

It’s time for the annual link to Norbizness

twistbizness.jpg
Twisty and Norbizness at Woodstock.

The wait is over. Behold.

Old ladies shine light on old news

The spinster aunt catches a lot of flak for espousing the Men Hate You hypothesis. Not a day dawns over the Twisty bungalow when I am not the recipient of some fairly lively rhetoric proposing to acquaint me with the unsatisfactory nature of my views. Outraged dudes get their backs up and make with the “I for one don’t hate women you are wrong you must have been abused as a child you stupid cunt” argument. Women in relationships with men assume a defensive posture; perceiving that I have impugned the integrity of the doted-on patriarch, they loyally wish to enlighten me as to their husband/boyfriend’s sterlingness (“he does the laundry!”), an exception who surely disproves the rule.

This morning I do not propose to inaugurate a debate on the truthiness of the Men Hate You hypothesis. There can be no debate. I merely call to your woefully divided attention a study currently making the rounds (by which I mean I saw it at Broadsheet). This study of 370 English-speaking American women aged 65 and over found that 26.5% reported having experienced “intimate partner violence” at some point in their lives. In other words, sooner or later a quarter of these elderly women were abused, either physically or by the controlling behavior of some asshole love interest. Read the abstract, or this cheery bit of reportage, for the grim details.

[Broadsheeter Carol Lloyd takes what may be construed as a disturbingly minimizing tone when she speculates for no apparent reason that the "name calling and feeling controlled by a partner" aspects of the abuse might be brushed off as the normal consequences of "otherwise civilized breakups". To which I say, zounds. If it is considered normal for "otherwise civilized" men to be abusive, breakup or no, that's not much of an endorsement for the Men Don't Hate Women position. Or for civilization, either.

The actual study, of course, reports a median duration of 10 years for controlling behavior, so it's pretty clear that breakups, which typically don't last quite as long as that -- unless you're talking about lesbians -- weren't really the focus of the analysis.]

Anyway, if the study’s findings are accurate, a quarter of all women have (or will have, by the time they’re 65+) put in at least one hitch in the foulest trenches of misogyny (if this is at all surprising, it is because one rather expected the figure to be higher, and the study’s author apparently agrees; see the Broadsheet post for details). One quarter of women. In the U.S., that’s 37,305,527 human beings, raped, beaten, berated, controlled, threatened.

Which intelligence inclines me to make a couple of assertions.

1. Men hate women.
2. Male violence against women is a humanitarian crisis the enormity of which is unparalleled in human history.
3. The fact that women are hated — even by those who are not openly hostile except on lefty blogs — is the reason this shit continues unabated.

I leave you now with today’s reading from Andrea Dworkin, who herein explicates the misogynist pith of the preceding statements as originating in

the conviction that the male abuse of women, especially in sex, has an implicit logic, one that no program of social justice can or should eliminate; that because the male use of women originates in the distinct and opposite natures of each which converge in what is called “sex,” women are not abused when used as women — but merely used for what they are by men as men. It is admitted that there are excesses of male sadism — committed by deranged individuals, for instance — but in general the massive degradation of women is not seen to violate the nature of women as such. [1]

__________________________
1. Dworkin, Andrea. Right-wing Women. New York: Coward-McCann. 1982. 195-196.