Monthly Archive for September, 2009

Breaking: patriarchy is actually real

Blamer maidden writes:

While I understand Jill’s position on the badness of a member of the sex class performing a submissive role in the bedroom (or dungeon, as the case may be), I haven’t been able to find her opinion on the opposite situation: dominant women. Could somebody point me to the appropriate posts and/or comments? Or perhaps she herself could clarify.

She herself could clarify! With pleasure.

What maidden refers to as “the opposite situation” isn’t opposite at all. Any practice that furthers the interests of patriarchal oppression, regardless of the sex, gender, race, diet, type of refrigerator, underwear, or political affiliation of the practitioner, is crappy and antifeminist. This includes sexay domination practiced by women; these behaviors are dictated by male fetish. As are all feminine behaviors.

Then maybe somebody could explain to me how it’s possible for a woman to participate in any (heterosexual) sexual activity without subjecting herself to fulfilling a dude-centric fantasy of some kind.

It isn’t. Sorry.*

Is it down to a choice between lesbianism and asexuality?

Not even lesbians and asexuals are 100% patriarchy-free. Its ubiquity, see, is what makes patriarchy the dominant paradigm. The invisible, indefeasible pervasiveness of the culture of domination is the key concept of this blog. Sadly, I fear that many readers are reluctant to fully embrace the horrific truth that patriarchy isn’t just some abstract academic conceit. The don’t wanna face that they themselves, as members of an honest-to-fuck sex class, are well and truly screwed.

This reluctance is completely understandable. The enormity of domination culture is physically sickening when confronted for the first time. It is physically sickening when confronted for the 435,647th time, too.
______________________
* Yes, I know. You have a deeply fulfilling sex life with your Nigel. That’s nice. Please refrain from describing it in detail in the comments section. Also, consider this: whether he likes it or not, when Nigel hoists up his Dockers and saunters out of your dungeon into the public square, he’s enjoying the privileged status he has had the pleasure of internalizing all his life. You are not.

“Hip, hip, hooray for BDSM!” Comment Excerpt of the Week

From the moderation queue:

“I find your broad categoraization [sic] of BDSM to be rather narrow minded.”

Pure poetry.*

Another textbook-style internet ode to painfully silly rape-based patriarchy-reenactment boinking is probably not on your list of Great Works I Must Read Before I Die. However, the commenter I have quoted — who inconveniently signs herself “a,” thereby obliging me, for the sake of clarity, to call her Gladys — touches on another subject in dire need of address. We’ll get to that in a second, but first, the conclusion of Gladys’s word-for-word recital of Paragraph 1 of the Submissive Ladies’ Guide to Defending Submissive Ladydom on Radical Feminist Blogs:

“It takes great strength to be a submissive. Submission is a choice, a gift to that submissive’s Dominant. In life I am my Dominants equal. In the bedroom I CHOOSE to hand over control because that is what makes me happy. I make descisions that impact us both on a daily basis. It is twisted and quite rude to act as though submissives are less than those who are not. In my experience, Dominants find no joy in dominating the weak. There’s no point. If BDSM makes the men and women involved in it happy,and it is all consensual, then who are you to judge? And yes, I did begin my post with “I” because I am expressing my opinions. If you have a problem with that, there is always the delete button. I also realize this is an old thread, but obviously you need something to do so I’m sure you will read this.”

Ha ha, that last zinger — ouch, by the way, Gladys! Woe betide me for trying to pit my feeble wits against yours! — is goddam apt. Because it’s true! This morning — I cannot lie — the tectonic forces of boredom finally squishened me under their quelching, relentless gargantuation. Hours of empty time stretched out before me like so many doormats at a surrendered wives convention. What to do with myself, what to do? I might have taken the “Is it spam from my inbox or is it a Robert Pollard lyric?” quiz I found in the back of one of Stingray’s indie-rock magazines. I might have tucked a tisket-tasket-basket into the quaint crook of my bucolic arm and gone skipply-dippling over hill and dale a-hunting psilocybin mushrooms. I might have paid my propane bill by check. But ultimately these schemes were dwarfed in elegant simplicity by the idea I finally came up with. I would fight torpor with pure indolence! I would read my own blog!

But holy shit, Gladys? For a controlled-but-equal submissive you are quite the defiant little firebrand, at least when it comes to asserting a non-existent basic human right, which non-existent basic human right is second only to the right to buy cheap crap from China, or possibly the right to order sea bass in upscale bistros. I allude, of course, to your right to uncork on my blog an uncongealed discharge of clichés beginning with the personal pronoun I, invoking self-expression as your motive.

A word or two about self-expression.

It is a myth that self-expression (on radical feminist blogs or elsewhere) is a health-giving antidote to mental and physical diseases precipitated by dangerous levels of pent-up creativity or opinions. Self-expression is merely a pop-psychology franchise that grants captive audiences to the self-absorbed.

Of the 20th century’s gifts to modern culture, none is more enduring than the notion of self-expression as a sort of catharsis or exorcism, the relentless practice of which is crucial to our sanity and perhaps to the very fabric of society. We are encouraged from the cradle to condense our inner passions into 8 waxy colors and puke’em outward at brittle sheets of manilla paper, the mundane and inarticulate results of which are praised by those who wield power over us and Scotch-taped to the fridge, which appliance, I don’t need to tell you, is the stainless steel incarnation of the tribal hearth, i.e., the center of the universe.

Later, adults are urged to express, to vent, to confess, to explicitly reveal, to synthesize feelings into artistic statements, and to expel their “demons,” often by writing memoirs that, horribly, sometimes get published and marketed on “Oprah.” Alternatively, it is considered just as healthful to use self-expression to provoke reactions in an audience, which audience is conditioned to be grateful for the experience of having had its worldview all shook up.

In fact, except in rare cases of extreme eccentricity or mad genius, self-expression can’t exist without an audience, real or imagined. Ideally this audience will exhibit a tolerance for manipulation, if not a compulsion to indulge the expressioner in what amounts to her plea to be taped to the fridge at the center of the universe. Because of early attention-seeking training, should one’s inner provocateur languish in obscurity for too long, so increases the likelihood that the audience requirement will devolve into a craving to inflict one’s inner self on an ever-widening universe. Results as diverse as publishing vacation photos on Flickr, assassinating John Lennon, or blogging about punctuation may obtain.

But I digress.

On to the actual topic of today’s essay. It’s a simple prose-writing tip. Here is the tip:

When stating an opinion in the comments section of a radical feminist blog, it’s stupid to begin with the personal pronoun I.

For example: say it is your opinion that a certain spinster aunt’s broad definition is narrow. Now, from the examples below, choose the statement that is more muscular and persuasive (this will be difficult, I realize, given the incomprehensible absurdity of the premise):

A) “Her broad definition is narrow.”

B) “I personally find her broad definition to be rather narrow.”

If you chose B, you flunk!

If you chose A, congratulations! You have realized that the audience for your self-expression is less interested in you personally than you might have imagined. A lot less interested. The truth is, you are boring. You exude ennui from every pore. Any sane reader would rather have root canal than subject herself to your moldy old first-person secretions. But, by expunging boring old you from the subject of your statement, you might stand half a chance of actually engaging in discourse that people give half a crap about.

Unless, of course, you are trying to argue that BDSM should be exempt from contempt because it “takes great strength to be submissive.”

Only through obedience can you know the freedom that is slavery! Only through discipline can you revel in the love that is hate! Only through appeasement of the oppressor can you experience the unfathomable mysteries of the great submissive gift of unconditional masochism! For it takes great strength, Grasshopper, to order patent leather spandex French maid outfits off the internet so you can get off sucking up to some asshole who gets off on rape fantasies.

Cocktail weenies on a stick! This hackneyed crap makes my boob scars twitch.

Here’s another tip:

Dump him!

_________________________
* If you’re new to I Blame the Patriarchy, you may not be aware of the spinster aunt’s long and colorful tradition of mocking the corny BDSM lifestyle. I am unapologetic in my impatience with arguments in praise of this ridiculous dude-centric fetish; some of my ancient remarks on the subject can be found here and here.

Yay and boo

Punctuation pain

From the perspective of the cinquagenarian spinster aunt-on-the-go (a dying breed, literally), this screen grab (from the iTunes store comments section; the commenter is bitter because s/he is not getting something for nothing in an iPhone internet radio application) illustrates practically everything that is both right and wrong with the Internet and the world. iPhones: yay! Capitalism: boo! Internet radio: yay! Whiny iPhone user entitlement: boo!

Etc.

But damn (and certainly you’ll agree one hundred and ten percent); an ellipsis — a fucking five-dotter — followed by an exclamation point? It can but harbinge what we all knew was coming: the evolution of H. sapiens into a non-cerebral, plant-like species. Only an insouciant stalk of kelp could type those characters and not feel obligated to commit sepukku afterward.

Update: I mean seppuku. Dorkwad’s Law: any blog post critiquing the slackening standards of today’s written English, even when the written English is Japanese, must contain an error.

CrotchWatch ‘09

Today Spinster HQ kicks off our much-anticipated new feature, CrotchWatch ‘09. Through CrotchWatch ‘09 we’ll keep careful tabs on global genitalia. Because the state of being female is a medical condition, we’ll start with NetDoctor.

NetDoctor is a UK-based health tip website. It contains “all you need to know about the prevention, treatment and management of more than 500 diseases and conditions.”

That’s a fuckton of diseases and conditions!

Today’s post represents an effort to quell the incessant clamor for an in-depth analysis of NetDoctor Dr David Delvin MB BS LRCP MRCS DObst RCOG DCH FPA Cert MRCGP Dip Ven MFFPRCOG’s views on hetero women’s sexuality. His views are important because they appear on “more than 800 radio and TV programmes” as well as on the Internet, and because Dr David Delvin MB BS LRCP MRCS DObst RCOG DCH FPA Cert MRCGP Dip Ven MFFPRCOG is not just a dude, he’s a dude with pink skin, white hair, a stethoscope around his neck, and a serious alphabetical APU (authoritay-pile-up) appended to his name.

But on to CrotchWatch, and Dr David Delvin MB BS LRCP MRCS DObst RCOG DCH FPA Cert MRCGP Dip Ven MFFPRCOG’s pronouncements on the health problems associated with the dimensions of women’s junk.

Worries about vaginal and vulval size are extremely common among women. This is scarcely surprising, because a woman’s feelings about her own vagina and vulva are central to her sexuality.

I’m sure we’d all like to congratulate him on not using the word “junk,” and on grasping the difference between “vulva” and “vagina,” but this is clearly a misstatement of the facts. What Dr David Delvin MB BS LRCP MRCS DObst RCOG DCH FPA Cert MRCGP Dip Ven MFFPRCOG really means is, a woman’s crotchal insecurities are scarcely surprising because Porn Nation’s feelings about her own vagina and vulva are central to her sexuality. But this mistake is understandable. The difference between “woman” and “porn” is negligible. And anyway, the doctor is correct in identifying women’s “feelings” as a medical matter.

But what of this “size” stuff? Well, Dr David Delvin MB BS LRCP MRCS DObst RCOG DCH FPA Cert MRCGP Dip Ven MFFPRCOG postulates that the post-partum vagina really can be “too big,” pointing out that a vacuous vadge is prone to “fanny-farting” as well as the dreaded bath-water vacuum effect. News you can use!

Speaking of pornography, here are Dr David Delvin MB BS LRCP MRCS DObst RCOG DCH FPA Cert MRCGP Dip Ven MFFPRCOG’s remarks on that zesty topic.

There has always been a difference between men and women where porn is concerned.

Not true! Back in the Lower Paleolithic, Homo habilis chicks kicked it old skool, enjoying violent rape flicks on VHS as much as the next caveman. It wasn’t until the Mesolithic and the rise of the art critic that the female response to cinematic sex-based violence began to diverge from the established norm.

Men tend to be turned on by things they can see, while women seem to prefer the images and fantasies they have in their heads.

Which is why all blind guys are universally impotent, and all women are nuts. See how it all begins to make sense?

For this reason, women often don’t enjoy the sort of porn that men like. If the people on the screen don’t appeal to them, they don’t get turned on.

Is it possible that Today’s Woman finds the graphic representation of her own oppression less palatable than the myth of romance? I was rather under the impression that porn empowerfulizes women.

Also, women tell us they do not find sitting in front of a desktop very conducive to arousal.

Well, this is spot-on; it is a well-known fact that women have to be surrounded by piles of pink velvet laundry in order to visualize Fabio flexing his lovedong on a tropical beach.

Women can also feel uneasy and inferior about the bodily ‘perfection’ of the women in porn. This can put them off sex, rather than turn them on to it.

Pah. The Porn Beauty Standard has absolutely nothing to do with “a woman’s feelings about her own vagina and vulva being central to her sexuality.” Sometimes we just have a goddam headache, you know?

They can feel threatened by their man’s enjoyment of these images and quickly feel that if a man is enthusiastic about porn, he must be losing interest in her. We would say this is often not the case at all.

Yeah, rest easy, straight girls. Your man’s obsession with the graphic representation of rape is no reason to fret. Men can consume an infinite number of two-dimensional women while simultaneously remaining capable of keeping a 3-D version (i.e. you!) around to wash his socks.

Whether women like it or not, because porn is so available, most men are going to view it.

Suck it up, ladies. Porn’s not goin’ anywhere. And remember: while Nigel is furtively jacking off on his laptop, you can always have an affair with your Swiffer mop. But use birth control!

Spinster aunt recommends non-sucky blog

Autoharpophilia

Yesterday morning, as I clawed my way out from under a pile of various retrievers and leaped from the TempurPedic with my customary yelp, a brilliant thought occurred to me. I said to myself, “Jill,” I said, “what you need is an autoharp!”

Now, I probably don’t need to tell you that all the autoharp shops here in Cottonmouth County closed sometime around 1886. No problem! I just turn on my computer, press a few buttons, and in a few hours my new autoharp arrives at my gate via Autoharp Airlift Express Dot Com!

The internet. Replete with jackasses, but occasionally useful.

Internet usefulness is not constrained to its facilitation of the union of spinster aunts and stringed folk instruments they have no idea how to play. Today, for example, I happened upon a well-written blog. It’s even a feminist blog. I happened upon it because its author, displaying a degree of discernment unusual in today’s feckless young blogger, paraphrased me using proper attribution, and the link showed up in my inbox.

I know, I know. It seems incredible. But I’m not exaggerating. Fannie’s Room is not junk.

Fannie’s post on one of those asshole dudes who believes that his important dudeliness qualifies him to lecture the feminists on the nature of feminism is very pleasant indeed. Fannie’s taste in asshole dudes is excellent; he’s quite a peach. Here’s what the guy has to say:

Western feminism is too bogged down in its own limitless self-regard, arguing ad nauseam about the evils of sexually stereotyping adverts, or why female bankers don’t get quite such enormous bonuses as their male equivalents, to care about anyone else. Least of all the millions of subjected women living in conditions they cannot begin to understand, although Jaycee Lee Dugard could probably give them a few pointers.

He can begin to understand millions of subjected women, though. Because he’s a dude! This also entitles him to the view that Western feminists are doing it wrong! We’re so obssessed with sexist TV shows that we’ve never heard of honor killings, or if we have, we have nevertheless failed utterly in persuading assholes like himself of the validity of feminist ideology; it’s the job of Western feminists to “save Muslim women,” yadda yadda, you’ve heard it all before.

Anyway, Fannie offers an engaging analysis of his argument. Here’s an excerpt:

From those who have the privilege of being considered default human beings who are privy to the One and Only Objective Worldview, feminists often receive quite the schizophrenic message. On the one hand, feminists aren’t worth listening to because all they do is whine and ruin everybody’s fun. But on the other hand, they should use their incredible powers of indoctrination to work on More Important Issues.

But worse than this mixed message, is the fact that non-feminist advisors to feminism are often so very wrong about what feminism is and is not. Perhaps placing a primacy on their own “objective” worldview, they assume that their ignorance about what feminists do, care about, and strive towards is an accurate reflection of reality.

It’s usually not.

Precisely! Few things blow my lobe worse than dudes who simultaneously denigrate feminism as useless crap and accuse its ideologues of wielding demonic power over the masses. I get these feminists-suck-at-feminism guys all the time. They got no argument, because they don’t know what feminism is; they just hate women.

Also, I credit Fannie with hipping me to what everyone else has probably already forgotten about, it’s so last week. I allude to the pro Prop-8 California Assemblyman whose mic was on as he described to an interlocutor his revolting heterosexploits with one of his mistresses. Of his graphic bragging, Fannie remarks, “[E]w. That definitely just made me a little more gay.”

Seriously, did you see this shit? Hilarious! Fannie opines that active mics on politicians should be mandatory 24/7. Hilarious!

Almost as hilarious as me keeping society with an autoharp. I can sense your anxiety, but not to worry! As soon as it arrives I’ll post a video demonstrating the perfection of our union.

Mutant prickly pear paddle de la semaine: Conehead

Conehead
La tête Coneoise

We are from France.

Midnight horror movie baffles spinster aunt

That’s right, it’s the recent David Carradine in drag, cradling the future enfant terrible and leaving little to the imagination, junk-wise, in the film’s most tender scene.

That’s right, it’s the recent David Carradine in drag, cradling the future enfant terrible and leaving little to the imagination, junk-wise, in the film’s most tender scene.

For two days and two nights it has been raining — raining! — in Rattlesnake, TX. The Spinster HQ yella Lab puppy, Francine, is young enough that she has never seen rain before, on accounta the relentless drought which has been droughting since before she was born early this summer. Rain, however, has quickly ascended her Top Ten Fave Raves list. She lost no time in locating the one spot outside where the gutter leaks. She stations herself thereunder, digging frantic holes in the wet gravel. When the novelty of digging wears off — and who among us has not, when digging, thought to herself, “This digging project isn’t quite living up to the hype”? — she tears inside and throws muddy skidmarks all over the clinical white accouterments of the laboratory. Nobody has figured out how she contrives to get them on the ceiling.

But this isn’tt a cute puppy post.

Fran, Hydrophile #2

OK, yes it is! I don’t wanna blame today; the rain is pretty exquisite.

No, wait, I’ll pull myself together. For the children. Here goes.

The pleasure of pointing the Auntly Digit of Doom at “Now, Voyager” yesterday has put me in a kind of a film-critic mood. You’ll never guess in a million years what I watched last night. Go ahead. Guess.

Hint: it stars David Carradine as a transvestite named Pearl, and the guy who played Bluto in “Popeye” as Pearl’s redneck sociopath thug significant other Slue. Together they raise a kidnapped baby, chained in a grain silo, upon whom Slue visits unspeakable tortures in order to turn him into a feral “secret weapon” whom he looses on townsfolk who bum him out.

Did you guess obscure 1989 gonzo-cult-horror-comedy “Sonny Boy”? Ding ding ding!

“Sonny Boy” aired in the wee hours of the night under the auspices of TCM’s “Underground” series. As far as I can make out, “Underground” is a synonym for cheezy softcore exploitation films suitable only for males suffering from arrested development and the occasional spinster aunt plagued by hot flash-induced insomnia. I deduce this having noted that everyone else would either be out infesting clubs and bars like normal people, or snoozin’ (those cows aren’t gonna milk themselves tomorrow morning.).

Interested parties may find a plot synopsis of sorts here, and a clip here.

Whereas males with arrested development will undoubtedly find (and actually have found) “Sonny Boy” to be a unique work of demented genius, perhaps even a sensitive-yet-disturbing commentary on child abuse, or an argument for regular dental checkups, the hot-flashing spinster aunt can only guffaw wordlessly at its surreal dystopic camp.

– angry mob à la Frankenstein led by a hot babe with black nubs for teeth
– Slue shooting at’em with a cannon
– Sonny Boy clinging to a giant crucifix like a stuffed animal after he has murdered a priest for no apparent reason
– Carradine slipping the hungry feral kid some kind of roasted roadkill through a hole in the silo
– Conrad Janis, the soused MD who lost his license for transplanting monkey parts onto humans, sewing a new tongue onto Sonny Boy (Slue has cut out his original tongue, of course), etc.

Except to point out the obvious (that the dominance/submission motif is pretty persistent), this flick is so bizarre, so nightmarishly hilarious, that it’s beyond my superpowers to radfeministically critique it. I can only scrawl that, despite “Sonny Boy’s” unrelenting brutality, surprisingly there’s not a single rape scene. Such a freakish synergy erupts between the various cinematic elements that I can actually recommend this appalling sicko-romp to fellow 2 AM hot-flash sufferers if they’ve a sense of humor, or if they’re tired of infomercials selling fishface exercisers. Spinster aunts have fishfacets, but there are limits.

Hugs, Twisty: The color of womanhood, plus I suck all the fun out of a Bette Davis classic

Staffers at Spinster HQ (namely, me and my secretary Phil) are always delighted when an incoming email is brief. We’re even more delighted when it does not contain some variation on the “your head is up your ass” theme. We’re even more delighted still when its author more or less desperately confides that s/he is in deep agony — and, indeed, will probably have to be hospitalized — unless my views on “Now, Voyager” are revealed at once.

Pinko Punko hits the trifecta with the following communiqué.

[Dear Jill,]

I feel like maybe [this site] had already come down the barf slide, but the floral utility knife was nice.

Also, I would love to add “Now, Voyager” to the list of classic films I’d like to see in the IBTP film guide.

I hope you aren’t being inundated with plastic army dudes.

PP

Dear PP,

Let us first address the website to which you link, LadiesToolsOnline. At this pinkinated shopping site, Ladies can purchase pink hammers, pink slip-joint pliers, and pink utility belts, as well as non-pink products that nevertheless preserve a lady’s surrendered-womanhood, such as the “Family Glue Gun and Stapler Set” or the “3-Piece Cutting Tool Kit-RED FLORAL” (which actually has 4 pieces, but you know, math is hard).

You may not know this, Pinko, but women — or, as LadiesToolsOnline calls us, “Diva’s” — are often physically and psychologically incapable of prolonged separation from the color pink. This is the main reason we get ourselves entangled with men and have babies. It’s so we can surround ourselves with mountains of pink laundry.

For centuries, power tools and utility knives have not been pink. This is the main reason women of yore traditionally spent all their time shopping and getting their nails done, instead of doing shit around the house with implements the non-pink color of which threatens their emotional health. Fortunately for today’s woman-on-the-go, whose sacred duty is to be empowerful and feminine at the same time, purse-sized 26-piece mini-tool sets now come in pink, for $6.99.

The LadiesToolsOnline FAQ explains why their website exists: like doing math, it’s hard “to pick the right hammer.” It is often better, they suggest, to do-it-yourself than to “cash in the spa vacation fund” to hire somebody who knows what they’re doing. But here’s a handy trick if you get in over your head: call the fire department and rescue is on the way! “Every firehouse seems to have a plumber, carpenter, painter, etc. ready to help on their days off.” Who knew?

That there is a whole section devoted to “security” on a hardware site might have baffled you. Allow me to splain. This is a site purveying pink tools of indeterminate manufacture to women who cannot choose a hammer on their own. It is common knowledge that women live in a perpetual state of fear, and that crap like hammers may be more easily sold to them when their fear is excited and exploited. Thus does LadiesToolsOnline suggest helpfully that women whose home security has been compromised should “call the police and hope they catch the bad guys.” Furthermore, the site devotes a whole paragraph to the heretofore nebulous concept that, for “piece-of-mind,” you should lock your house.

Sound advice for imbecilic ladies and people who may be visiting from some other planet where they don’t have doors! I just can’t understand, Pinko, why you find this site barf-worthy, when it’s just trying to preserve women’s spa vacation funds and keep us safely locked in our homes.

But “Now, Voyager“! Dude, you know I love Bette Davis like an old pair of jeans, but this flick is just a big fat advertisement for patriarchal pukeology. Not only is it profoundly anti-Spinster (the horror), it actually pathologizes non-compliance with the Feminine Beauty Mandate.* Charlotte, the Bette Davis character, is sent to the loony bin because she is having a psychotic break as a result of her frumpiness and lack of personality-sparkle. Other misogynist markers:

– Motherhood demonized: Charlotte’s villainous mother eats her own young; the kid Tina’s mother’s similar occupation is to prevent the happiness of her family at all costs.

– The ugly-duckling-into-swan/unattractiveness-as-mental-illness theme appears in a second iteration; the kid Tina, who wears glasses to signify that she is a horrific spinster-in-training, is a mini-Bette similarly in need of psychiatry. Incidentally, although it is of little patriarchy-blaming relevance, that mega-annoying kid character makes me want to tear my own face off.

– Psychiatry (as practiced by wise white dudes who wield absolute power over the hysterical nutjobs) is portrayed as the One True Path to womanly fulfillment. Davis’ character is so fucked up that it takes Paul Henreid and Claude Rains — not one but two handsome, dudely, sympathetic leading men — to fix her. Aack!

– Charlotte can’t get a boyfriend until she loses weight, gets a makeover, slips into some haute couture, and sails into Rio, one of the most phallic ports on Earth.

– Her married lover Jerry is an asshole disguised as a romantic. He supposedly loves Charlotte but won’t divorce his wife; he abandons his kid, whom he also claims to love, in an asylum; and at the end he ditches’em both, leaving Charlotte stuck raising his goddam kid. But Charlotte’s practically giddy with selfless gratefulosity. And we’re supposed to like this chump Jerry?

– Famous line at the end makes no sense: “Oh Jerry, don’t let’s ask for the moon; we have the stars!” What, their love is so cosmic that she doesn’t need happiness to be happy? Pah!

– Although Charlotte appears to be somewhat transformed and empowerful at the end, she remains emotionally tethered to Jerry, and we know that she will never have a life of her own, and that all she has found is the ability to wear designer clothes. To borrow a deeply satisfying quip from Shakesville: Fail!

The film’s only redeeming features are dapper little Claude Rains, who is just adorable in every film he ever did, and of course Davis herself, who easily mesmerizes even when stuck slurping out ghastly sentimental material like “Now, Voyager.”

Meanwhile, the plastic army man incursion appears to have abated entirely; a security sweep of Sectors 3 and 9 revealed no plastic paratrooping activity. Looks like the little fuckers have declared a ceasefire.

Hugs,
Twisty

(P.S. Twisty’s still on Opstreperon, but “Hugs, Jill” just doesn’t have the right ring.)

–––––––––––––––
*The Feminine Beauty Mandate states that all members of the sex class, i.e. all women, should endeavor to preserve themselves perpetually in a condition that the casual male ogler can easily describe as “fuckable.”

You thought I was just kidding

Mutant prickly pear paddles of the Texas Hill Country

Announcing my new heartwarming nature crap series, “Mutant Prickly Pear Paddles of the Texas Hill Country.” I expect to turn the project into a coffee table book sometime in the future, perhaps when people can afford to buy coffee tables again.

While I tootle off to Austin to buy some polyvinyl alcohol (the armadillos are thirsty!), what say you ponder this? Because nothing delights a spinster aunt more, of a bright, shiny Tuesday morn, than to stir up a cauldron of vehemence Cotonbouchaise.

Behold a condensed excerpt from the afore-linked-to recent blog post, authored by blamer Pisaquari:

One of the BIG reasons I no longer believe in, or support the idea of, sexual orientation has to do with our relationships to others’ body parts. In most cases, to have a sexual orientation, is to have fetishized genitalia (or preference, one prefers [part]). [...] [U]sing genitalia as a visual marker for arousal or appeal is a fetishizing act and does not differ you in any way from another amateur pornographer.

The “another amateur pornographer” to whom Pisaquari alludes is that dude Pelicanh, whose misogynist oeuvre I scorned a while back.

Sexual orientation = fetish. The idea is somewhat problematic, no? Yet oddly compelling.

Austin inhabitant eschews Twitter; employs extremely inefficient low-tech communication device

Still life with blue plastic army man, deflated balloons, ribbon, and instruction sheet

You know how sometimes something sort of funny happens? Something sort of funny happened to me this morning.

The canids and I were out traipsing over hill and dale, like we do every morning. The sun was shining, the birds were singing, the fish were flapping, the snakes were snaking, etc. I’d found a funky fungus and taken a few photographs for my new, eagerly anticipated series “Mutant Prickly Pear Paddles of the Texas Hill Country.” All in all a delightful pastoral tableau.

But, uh-oh! Out of coffee. Time to wrap up this heartwarming nature crap and get my under-caffeinated ass back to the bunkhouse. Naturally, at this juncture, Bert took off after a deer and was miles away within seconds. Thus were Fran and I obliged to track him over rough terrain with the handy GPS device we had implanted in his brain stem for just such occasions.

We were stumbling through a section of El Rancho Deluxe known as the Oaky Knoll — which knoll, if accuracy had been considered at all when determining the nomenclature, really ought to have been called the Spider Webby and Ankle-Destroying Fatal-Rocky Knoll — when Fran espied a foreign object which oozed forth garish hues and improbability. She ate it immediately.

I pried the thing out of Fran’s throat in the nick of time. It was a blue plastic army man tangled up in ribbon, grass, popped balloons, and a muddy slip of paper upon which some slogan appeared to have been printed. My dog nearly choked to death on a plastic infantryman with a machine gun. The war, I thought, comes home.

But what of this slip of paper?

“! ! ! YOU FOUND ME ! ! !” it announced, helpfully. “Help me continue my adventure.”

There was a Flickr URL, too, but it had been partially digested by Fran. Eventually, however, I was able to determine the identity of the party responsible for showering the Psmith country seat with non-biodegradable trash and nearly killing my dog. This person.

A couple of months ago, balloon releaser/photographer Atxrobledo bid adieu Fran’s nemesis, the blue plastic army man, from trendy downtown Austin. I wondered why. Surely, if s/he was suffering from a surfeit of plastic army men, there are more efficient methods of disposing of them than sending them into the Austin horizon dangling from balloons. I mean, dude. Don’t Mess With Texas.

So I scanned Atxrobledo’s Flickr page, hoping for some insight into this maniac’s brain. And so I found it.

S/he apparently makes no effort to control a compulsion to “release” plastic figurines into the wild by attaching them to balloons and letting the wind take them wherever it may.

The dream goal is to get a map of where balloons have been released and see how far the chain of connections can go.

Jeepers. It’s a message-in-a-bottle-cum-chain-letter type deal. Quaint. But ultimately, I can’t get behind it. Why? Two reasons.

One, this Atxrobledo is just a little too bossy for someone who communicates via balloon with perfect strangers upon whom s/he relies for the fulfillment of her/his dream goal.

[W]henever you can, if you’re awesome, get your own set of a bunch of balloons and figures and let them go from your apartment or wherever. Be sure to take pictures beforehand and geotag where you’re releasing them from (basically try and just replicate what i did with when you released them and from where…) [...] Make sure and make my day by responding.

Look, I’m awesome as hell, but I’m too sure I’ve got time to tie blue plastic army men to balloons, photograph’em, and let’em go “from my apartment or wherever.” Such an enterprise would seriously interfere with my reclining schedule.

And two: whereas the chance of an Earthling with Internet access finding one of these things and chuckling quietly to herself even as she mindlessly obeys cryptic instructions on the slip of paper is exceedingly remote, the chances of birds getting tangled up in’em, or some furry woodland creature ingesting’em and so forth, are quite a bit higher. Who knows how many raccoons or kangaroos are even now suffering debilitating balloon impactions as a result of this project? Do you know that, as we speak, floating in the Pacific Ocean there is a thing known as The Great Pacific Garbage Patch, and that it is twice the size of Texas? According to the Sierra Club, fur seals in New Zealand “poop shards of yellow and blue” plastic. Is that what we want for the Texas Hill Country? Seals pooping shards?

I think not. I say, stop the madness now!

This wanton littering of the countryside with blue plastic army men via balloon must cease, I tell you! Not for me, not for you, but for the spinster aunts of tomorrow. I hate to imagine that theirs is a future bereft of raccoons and aardvarks merely because some thoughtless urbanite killed’em all off with blue plastic army man balloons in pursuit of some fatuous whim. You want random strangers to do your bidding? Try Facebook.