Log in

No account? Create an account

I've been discouraged, tired, trying so hard to work on two different projects and keep up with friends on listservs, amid my need and pleasure in going to the Christmas OLLI parties, luncheons and the like, I'd given over trying to find a story that's important but might be overlooked. But I did find this the other day and tonight have the time to contextualize and explain further: this is about how badly autistic -- or mentally disabled in some way people are treated by the British health care system. Are you surprised? you should not be.

This particular story is about how nearly impossible it is to get the present institutions to take a disabled person whose behavior has become too difficult for their family or friends to handle into health-care for the period they need professionals to calm them down, or attend to some pressing need that would overwhelm an ordinary person trying to live his or her life (going to work, say, or attending to her or other people's needs) -- unless you let that institution take the person permanently.


Especially important are the young years of disabled people -- to give them the right support and good education between the years age 2 to 18; they need to be put into schools and spend time with people who behave in common ways and learn to live among them and gain skills to support themselves with dignity in lives that can interest them.

The real question is why this obdurate refusal to then let the person go home when they no longer need this help? I assume it's convenience and the work needs of the people in the institutions. What they care about is their salary and they want a stable population. why do they treat people so badly -- drug them into oblivion and don't give them adequate training or help to get out? They are not funded to do this. Employers don't want such people; they want to hire someone at the lowest wage possible to do a repeating job that will make money (profit for them). They want that person to be no bother to them beyond doing the job with a smile on their face and leave -- they don't want to recognize any other human obligation and want to be master of the interview. Society as a whole refuses to truly help these people or their families enable the person so live a better semi-independent ilfe.

The real give away is the advice to the people who leave the person in such a place _not to visit_ because it will upset the disabled person. That's because they want to leave the place and with good reason. Let that be the warning signal: when you are told not to visit that person you know they are in for a bad time, they are going to be forced to live an utterly controlled life which suits their masters.

From what I gather there is a similar gap in the French health care system. There I have read and met enough people to know that the problem at heart is people in society don't want to support the disabled, don't want to face up to how they have disabilities too and but for some luck could be in the same place. They want to see the disabled person as wholly non-functioning; It's easier; it separates them from the disabled, is less a threat to them.

Note that the writer of the article makes no attempt to explain why the institutions behave this way? I suspect it's because if you do, you are attacked. You don't understand you will be told. Ultimately the charge is you are sentimental. I am not sentimental and know how hard it is to cope with a strongly disabled person or someone with extreme needs.

Then look at the cruelty and indifference with which the person is treated. The treatment guarantees in effect the person will never leave the institution. Why is no money or not enough spent to enable them to leave, or train them on how to cope? If society wanted to do that they would. They don't. So left in the place, the people paid there behave the way they do to to serve their own needs. Thsi way they have a stable population which guarantees their income and is easy to deal with.

If you have had periods of disabled emotional inability or have a friend or relative have extreme behaviors, you know how they will be destroyed as an individual if you put them in such a place and I expect have done this only because there is no other option given you. I'd rather be dead than in such a place. I know my daughter given the right kindness, patience, understanding, and then gradual schooling over many years now lives a contented life with me and I helped similarly by my now deceased husband live a similar one. Are we not valuable as human beings? and we give back. She is appreciated by the hard long work she does at her library. Today I went to one of the parties I've talked of and was thanked by so many; I help give their lives meaning and enjoyment -- is this -- reading good books -- not worth something?

I know of so many cases where the person was saved because the relatives or friends were able to spend the money and gain the services to help the person when they were young. I know of equal cases where the person was thrown away and is now a "burden" on society and abused and used for those working in these institutions so they can get their salary. I feel strongly about this because I have many autistic traits and would have ended up destroyed were it not for my husband. He has left me enough money to survive comfortably until I die.

I finished my non-paying jobs for this term. Gratingly to me for a second time I got no money at the end. The money that the people put together in one place was used to buy me a gift certificate for $100 for whatever I wanted to buy at Politics and Prose. I was told I was not given money because the people wanted me not to "fritter" away the present. If I need toothpaste and it is good for me not to have to take out cash that often, who's business is that. I think the people are embarrassed to give me money. They think they are helping the store -- but the present is to me. Update: I did today manage to buy three junk books of sci fi fantasy, one book on how to do a barbecue with super-fancy machinery and gourmet recipes, all for under $100 with swift delivery and wrapping. So I guess they did me a favor these people. Now I feel I should thank them for sparing me -- I had gone to a cement-and-mortar bookstore and found they didn't have the "right" ones my daughter wanted, had trouble parking without being towed (and just for 1 hour) and saw what these dreadful books are. Yes I was spared.

I also got an expensive action figure, a compliment because it's a statue of Ruth Bader Ginsburg -- but Izzy and I could use the money. Last term I got an expensive orchid.

The doll is of someone who has spent much of her life trying to help others, to expand humanity and empathy as a principle. I am pleased and proud the case connected me with such a doll. I love the doll's expression of semi-grief in her eyes. Her hands are out as she wishes to put principles and laws in place for the sake of all others.
For today, my72nd birthday, I thought I'd counter the ugly vile order this POTUS issued which led to US troops without warning firing tear-gas (no longer used in combat in wars) at women and children attempting to find asylum (which is legal) on the other side of the US border: to do it this way is to encourage the perpetrators to enjoy their cruelty as they watch the suffering they inflict on these people

The important article here is by Michael Greenberg: he spent some time working alongside the farm workers of the San Joquin Valley in California and found that almost all the people who do the terrifly hard low paid work of gathering the crops from the fields are illegal immigrants. He describes their desperate lives; how the fields are so over-chemicalized they cause cancer to those who farm them; how these people send their children to better menial and ill paid job eventually (as clerks and cleaning and guard people in hotels), and how the gov't treats them, how employers try to make deals with politicians to keep up the supply of such unfortunate people. Do read it:


Nanci Griffiths: It's a hard life wherever you go .... and if you poison your children with hatred ....

For the story go to Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez: Before US: Border Patrol Started Tear Gassing Central American Asylum seekers:


I remember when President Carter phoned the Shah to congratulate him upon his firing live ammunition at his people, including women with babies in strollers in the streets, I thought of how daily I walked the streets of NYC with Laura in a stroller ...


There was an interview worth listening to and transcript for those to read who cannot reach the YouTube or podcast Amy Goodman uses for her DemocracyNow.org: an interview by her and Nermeen Shaikh of Noam Chomsky:

Luis Inacio Lula da Silva

Begin here: the horror Bolsanaro is and the destruction of the Brazilian economy he will bring: the crucial political prisoner of our time right now is Lulu: popularly would be elected, now in solitary confinement for a trivial peccadillo:


Go on to: wretched women and children mostly from Honduras, whose condition the US is responsible for:


Then: the looming nuclear war ratcheted up again:


And conclude (one of the truths newspapers ignore is Trump believes in climate change; that is why he is trying to protect a golf course in Ireland by building a wall:


The US gov't now openly says it's okay for the Saudis to commit unspeakable atrocities on reporters of integrity because the arms manufacturers whose money helped put the present Republican regime and he who I will no longer name in power. We also do not let up in supporting the Saudis destruction of Yemen and its people. There are far far more piteous pictures of famine afflicted children but as I write to human being (not those supporting this) I know it's too distressing to use as copy.

Yemen last week


Fintan O'Toole is one of the best political-cultural journalists writing in mainstream periodicals today. He is not the courageous investigative reporter that Patrick Cockburn is, but he has his mind and understanding and knowledge too.

My view is this essay is genuinely explanatory about the particulars of the destructive vortex about to destroy so much -- how it grows and that few predatory capitalists can grow rich and a few Tories stay in power. Generalizing out myself, I'd say humanity never learns because of the way power is given out, the way groups and their leaders form. Decent people don't rise to the top unless they are "A" personalities or ruthless/ambitious (the qualities are rare together) and then all others in the local arrangement for power and money fall into place, follow suit. Once you see this how many odd events in history are explained.

O'Toole wrote a fine book on Richard Brinsley Sheridan:

From the New York Review of Books:

How Brexit broke up Britain:

A sticker reading “No Border, No Brexit” on a road sign near the “Hands Across The Divide” sculpture, Derry, Northern Ireland, July 22, 2018

One of week's most important topics and the most explanatory essay about it,

Women prisoners risking lives fighting fires -- utterly unjust sentences include separation from children

The most important story this week: for $1 an hour and time taken off their prison sentences they do very hard dangerous work


Do read it.  Think about why the two men respond the way they do. Then watch Ava Duvernay's 13th: a movie about the continued "intersection of racism, inequality and mass incarceration" of black men in the United States. You can stream it on Netflix. It deeply explores the economic history of slavery and post-Civil War racist legislation and practices that replaced it as "systems of racial control" and forced labor from the years after the abolition of slavery to the present

I was told they were not forced to do this; but they are, for many of them, even most are unfairly put into prison and for disproportionate long periods. The 13th amendment has a clause which specifically exempts imprisonment as punishment as a means of enslaving people.

The movie masterpiece, Selma, was by her too.

Directing David Oyelowo as King

The finest discussoion on WW1 and war in general  occurred today on podcasts and tonight on video of Amy Goodman interviewing Adam Hochschild:


The full context is the whole hour on November 11th

On a special angle of misery to come:
For a number of years I assigned Danielle Ofri's book Singular Intimacies to classes called Adv comp in the natural sciences and tech, and the research paper was on the experience of medicine psychologically and socially in the US today -- this is on the acute rise in anxiety and depression in US society in the recent couple of years..


One of the wonderful elements in Ofri's book Singular Intimacies is how after she has written down the gobbledygok kind of official explanation for what it is, then the medical terminology one, she switches registers and describe in human terms what we see and what the person says and seems to feel. It is a vindication of the subjective approach, l'ecriture-femme in context. My students always got that .  She is a kind of rival to Atul Gawande with his austere distanced approach, the compassionate masculine approach.  One term I did both together -- one summer.

I had lost heart when I posted on my latest writing project -- historical fiction and romance in story and film. I have resumed a modicum of hope after the election, and for now will keep up the tranference of political knowledge -- good essays, interviews, whatever materials are available to us all on the Net which might be overlooked by other readers.

Over the past year and one-half I've watched a series of important movies, and urge my reader to watch them too: in reverse order from which I've seen them: Selma, Norma Rae, A Dry White Season, Judgement at Nuremberg (OLLI at AU); Why We Fight (Capra, Gov't war propaganda films, 6 of them, 1942), Battleship Potemkin, Journey's End, All the King's Men, Paths of Glory, The Guardians (OLLI at Mason), 55 Steps, Buster Keaton (by Bogdonavich), Gavigai, The Bookshop (Cinema Art Film Club), Journey's End ...On my own and with a friend, The Dressmaker, The Wife.

Nadia Murad at the UN

From what I see is an eternal ugliness and cruelty running the US, I turn away towards what is noble in the human spirit. Our choice of essay for today is from Truthdig, by its chief editor, Robert Scheer about a movie made about Nadia Murad, this year's recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. On Her Shoulders by Alexandria Bombach, about the story of this woman's life as rescued and then brought before the United Nations and now put before the world by the human rights lawyer Amal Clooney. Three women. An Urgent Call for Humanity ...

Central Park Row by Eric Drooker -- his other covers are haunting or autumnal and I wish some of them were available as wallpaper for my computer .....

I shall not stop posting political material from elsewhere on the Net when it is valuable and I worry that not enough people will see it but I am also going now to return also to what was the way I was using this blog some years ago. All my blogs are also places to think out projects and thoughts. I need to have a place I can put thoughts where I can come back to them readily but where I also work them out more coherently. But this one I was more open about it because I feel most free here as least people come and read it, and least people respond.


After great enjoyment reaching Wolf Hall as part of the Tudor matter and as historical fiction, and 2 summers ago, DuMaurier’s King’s General and Susan Sontag’s Volcano Loverhttps://reveriesunderthesignofausten.wordpress.com/2017/08/02/susan-sontags-the-volcano-lover-a-prophetic-book/ as historical romances, and still inching along to write a book on Winston Graham and Poldark I’m inclined to respond yes to a suggestion that I write reviews in the form of columns on a historical fiction set in the 18th century, preferably recent, but they can go back a bit into the mid- to later 20th century. Often the best and most serious of thes are political and that is what I will read and write about.  It will be for an 18th century society newsletter, Intelligencer. See my review of Martha Bowden's Descendants of Waverley. This,Jerome de Troot's Historical Novel, Consuming History and Diana Walker's Woman's Historical Novel (Helen Hughes's Historical Romance behind it) and some older books on historical fiction, e.g., Avrom Fleishman on the English Historical Novel and of course Lukacs form my theoretic basis.

I found myself up against immediate problems, which come down to the trajectory is at once too large, too amorphous and impossible for such as men to discover. What I can do is write columns on historical fiction of interest to me: that would be early modern to early 19th, probably of feminine sensibility, probably mostly by women but at least centered on women and women’s fictional forms.

Questions of genre interest me: how free should such fiction be to be useful? in what sense useful? read fictionalized biographies against biographies.

Also the state of literary criticism, theory.

Finally I have to like them, be able to want to read them, and not buy superfluously so :

Take them from my library:

Start with Jane Stevenson, The Winter Queen -- the first of a trilogy

Move to Philips’s Crossing the River & look at Unsworth's Sacred Hunger
Last Rose Tremain's Restoration and then Music and Silence ...

See how far that gets me.

Can take French and Italian texts in too.

It’s a question of exploration.

I have joined the Historical Novel Society and am going once again to subscribe to History Today as a paper copy. Eventually the character of this blog will widen and deepen -- I hope.  I am struck by the reality that quite a number of the best noble political films are rooted in previous history, usually not long ago, but there are exceptions, e;.g., Peter Watkins's 1964 docudrama, Culloden, which I showed to one of my classes.


Cest est incontestable, lui repliqua-t-on: mais dans ce pays-ci il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres -- Voltaire, Candide, Chapter 23). [It's incontestable, Martin replied, that in this country it is good to kill an admiral from time to time to encourage others.]

There's no doubt the most significant event reported everywhere this week was the killing of the journalist Jamal Kashoggi, which was allegedly ordered by the leader of the Saudi Arabian dictatorship-monarchy. Kashoggi was a man of integrity who criticized the Saudi Arabian regime. Accounts differ but as of last night it appears that he was lured to Turkey, snatched outside the Saudi Arabian embassy, dragged in, and then interrogated, and tortured to death by dismemberment, a horrifyingly barbaric act.

It should and is meant to be terrifying to all reporters and to all people who speak in public about important issues -- like bloggers. What is intensely worrying is the indifference of all others state gov'ts to this murder. The man who engineered has committed a horrendous crime and should be put in prison for life.  See John Nichols. Trump's indifference shows where he stands: he and others cite millions of dollars lost in arms sales if we "dare" criticize the Saudis; Jared Kushner a friend of this regime's head. Are we an arms dealer or a republic? This morning Trump is reported as having said in one of his rallies Gianforte who attacked a reporter is "his kind of guy."

Kashoggi as drawn in his last column for the Washington Post:

What the Arab world needs most: free expression

The fullest and most accurate account may be found on DemocracyNow.org: Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez interviewed first Jamal Eshayyal, a senior correspondenct for al-Jazeera. You can also read the transcript once you click the link. Then they talked with Sarah Aziza, a courageous reporter about (and sometimes from) Saudi Arabia.

I can no longer find this story but one stood out because of a different perspective: an army colonel told of how many men he has lost to his units over the years to the Saudis who will claim they are US allies but wreak lethal violence on any group of troops who get in the way of any of their immediate interests in this or that country in the middle east. He was very angry.

Here you can see the different coverage this event has been getting: it depends whether the gov't in charge is at all democratic.Here is Juan Cole. It is an act of state terror aimed at journalists and any press.

Robin Wright on Kashoggi's last words: what journalists like him see, what they -- and I'll add all of us need -- to have any liberty, decent lives across the globe

Miss Drake
It's been a grim week.

So before I offer two crucial news essays for this week; Trump's profoundly ugly but successful use of ridicule humiliation and dismissal of all women who experience (and this is common), violence, assault, rape, humiliation; and the theory of the Baron de Montesquieu, an Enlightenment thinker on the necessity of keeping the three branches of gov't apart, representative of the majority of the people,and disinterested -- I'll try to lift our spirits by saying we should remember however powerful these people are becoming over a majority of us, they still don't speak for us: as Shelley said, we are many and they are few. I recommend that you play and listen to her words as your read. They will help remind you we are not as yet altogether powerless

Judy Small is a judge (!) in Australia.

The most important crucial news essay of this week was one which told of specifics of the US gov'ts corruption such that it is crumbling away before our very eyes: "The Suffocation of democracy" by Christoper Browning in the New York Review of Books

It's the destruction of the judiciary as a decent arm of gov't. Trump is busy destroying all agencies, putting at the head of these people ignorant of their mission and hostile to it, 205 of the federal force has left; many positions unfilled now. The congress is utterly gerrymandered and, taking into account the disproportionate representation of small states, is not at all representative, and now the judiciary goes.

The second contingent on the first, or part of it:

On TV millions of people watched as a congress made up of people who represent a minority of the US population disregard credible evidence not only from a woman, a professor Dr Christine Blasey Ford, who had been in high school assaulted, raped,&  humiliated by Brett Kavanaugh, a man nominated for a life-time supreme court justice, but from a group of sources the FBI deliberately ignored,which showed he did this sort of thing in high school and again in college for fun. With a group of like-minded admiring men, Mark Judge among them.

We had earlier seen him perjure himself in minor ways; now he perjured himself Writ Large with rage and anger all over him that he should be called to account for this behavior. Despite huge popular protest, the Republicans put him into office because he will not be an unbiased judge but a fierce reactionary partisan, eager to put in place whatever agenda Trump asks for This includes wiping away Roe V Wade, perhaps the right to contraception based on denying that individuals in the US have no right to personal liberty or privacy because it's not mentioned in an 18th century document which condones slavery and set up an electoral college to stymy a popular elected president across the US lest he abolish slavery.

Along with this The FBI has deliberately ignored, not followed up on, dismissed a number of stories about Brett Kavanaug, now made a supreme court justice for life, truly hideous behavior (it's emerging) in college as well as high school. From my little knowledge (really) of what my father told me went on among men as factory owners, I wonder what Kavanaugh has been doing all these later years with these same Prep friends. We have put a radical reactionary partisan ready to do Trump's bidding and absolve him of any crime (as a president is above the law as he is too busy to be bothered ), and  repeated rapist, humiliator of women (and perhaps men too) on the supreme court: Jane Mayer and Ronan Farrow on the suppression of the FBI investigation:


And lastly, but never least, this not so much a news report as what happened: after Dr Ford's testimony, and Kavanaugh's rage, it seemed he might not be confirmed. Trump made a speech where he said listening to women tell of assaults and rapes is "dangerous" to men, and then he went out to rallies and ridiculed Ford, distorted what she said before the senate so it sounded like she remembered hardly anything, mocked, derided, and parodied her and -- to these people succesfully destroyed her by proxy humiliation. Nixon used to say in achieving a majority of people on your side you cannot go too low. It worked. Within two days, the male republicans and all but one female were prepared to erase Dr Ford.

Thus Trump has driven a stake into the heart of whatever purchase the #MeToo movement had -- not much as it depended on women who could get the public to listen shaming and either going or successfully threatening to go to court against men who are powerful but have a lot to lose who harass, rape humiliate punish them. Now Trump has shown that ridicule, mockery, humiliation, distortion works just as strongly as ever and we are back in the 18th-19th century situation. And he was backed by Collins who does what she does to gain attention -- she is a lying sniveling (how "concerned" she is before throwing the ACA under the bus) hypocrite: give-away when she called Kavanaugh a "moderate" and "good man." He still had to pretend to start an investigation but when other credible evidence started to appear (see the New York) the FBI suppressed and ignored all other witnesses. The third woman became " the third woman" (not a person, not an individual). The point is to inhibit women from speaking out. For himself he has paid millions in litigation to silence people who have accused him of fraud, asault, and other crimes.

It's now Open season on women. Open season on blacks began when Trump in his rallies threw African-Americans out and told his crowds to beat them and reporters up. He has succeeded in making open season on Muslims by his ban. He has committed his ICE to crimes against humanity by separating hispanic children from their relatives and putting them all in detentions centers for not following regulations or attempting legally to emigrate as refugees. Shortly after becoming president, he made it plain, cops can kill with impunity when he made a gesture and told them to rough people up; and now open season on women. To women Trump has said: Just dare and we'll so shame you you won't be able to show your face again. So, Go ahead guys ... have fun and control "women."

This is Susan Collins, look at her, see the lying hypocrite who for a second time drew enormous attention to herself by driveling on about how she is "so concerned": before for millions needing ACA, now for what?  over a liar (like herself) also thug. See how she dresses herself, how much time and care, how she loves the attention. She called Kavanaugh "a moderate." She betrayed all other women who are now at greater risk -- there is set afoot a new attempt to silence protest against violence. She grins with her petty power as she throws us all under the bus.

After reading Christopher Browning, the New Yorker article and thinking about what's to happen on the supreme court now that two radical right judges have been placed there by a minority party, I went over to Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de Montesqueiu who invented in his Spirit of the Laws a three-part gov't where he argued to prevent tyranny all three branches of gov't must be independent of one another and answer to their constituencies by whom they are elected and from whom they come. Here are three of his central axioms:

When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty; because apprehensions may arise [rightly], lest the same monarch or senate should enact tyrannical laws, to execute them in a tyrannical manner.»

Again, there is no liberty if the judiciary power be not separated from the legislative and executive. Were it joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary controul; for the judge would be then the legislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with violence and oppression [having military might behind him]

A judge must be non-partisan; must not be allowed to serve for more than a short de-limited time, because "the power of judging is terrible," and he should have nothing to do with the prison system. He tells how to recognize dangerous corruptions, how the Romans lost their liberty.

The book is also about the spirit behind the laws; it's not enough to follow their routines literally; but your spirit must be for liberty, for justice, for true representation so commerce (social life, education), can go on. Montesquieu also pleaded for the abolition of slavery, and the harsh punishment of suicides (desecration of their bodies, seizing of their property by the state) typical of the era.

Billionaires now set to destroy social security, free public education and medicare -- you can do that when you control the house, the senate, the supreme court and the presidency. They've already driven a stake into the heart of medicaid by demanding very old people work before they can get any health care.  They are too old to work, and the idea is to separate work as a requirement from the right as a human being to have medical care.

Miss Drake

An Instance of Male Bonding

This week's riveting story was that of Brett Kavanaugh's assault (with the help of Mark Judge) on Christine Blasey Ford when the three were teenagers in high school. There have been hundreds of analyses, commentaries, conversations, news-show and at last the showdown on Thursday before the Senate Judiciary committee. Ford was entirely credible, distressing for me to listen to because I had similar experiences as a girl in junior and high school; Kavanaugh showed himself to be unfit for the supreme court: he lied outrageous on Fox news, giving absolutist accounts, coming near tears, and at last in a raging, speaking words that suggested he felt he has a right to behave towards women as he has to Dr Ford (and apparently other women (at least three have come forth). he should not be allowed to decide cases about women's rights to personal liberty, control over her body, access of equal opportunity and earned rewards for her work.

Two essays in Slate rose above all others to make sense of the bully-rape culture Kavanaugh and his friends throve on as their way of bonding together as men: you achieve status and respect by humiliating and laughing at women while you are drunk and triumphing over them. Lily Loofborough called her essay:  Brett Kavanaugh and the Cruelty of Male Bonding; When being one of the guys comes at a woman's expense. Loofborough points out all the incidents lack penetrative sex, have male onlookers, and there is ever laughter about what they are doing. In each case the clumsy and bizarre behavior is done in a "manic pursuit of male approval."

I was immediately brought back to my teenagehood. I experienced a series of deeply traumatic experiences from age 12 to 15. I finally tried to kill myself and when I didn't manage that I retreated and retreat became my safety. It was the males who attacked but my experience was females didn't support me at all and I saw they didh't support others. Far from it, they spread rumors about one as a tramp, slut. When I had tried to find a friend and tell someone I thought was my friend, another girl came over and "as a gesture of friendship," told me mot to do that any more. That girl had promptly told others so they could all jeer together and triumph as "chaste" and "good girls." I never forgot that lesson. It was as important in understanding safety as keeping away from abrasive vile males of the Kavanaugh type and his buddies. SoI went anorexic and was left alone. It has taken me decades to eradicate some of this anorexia (like alcoholism, one never recovers fully.)

In the second also by Lily Loofborough, she discussed how frighteningly these (let us call them) Republican type and elite and lower class thug men have moved on from simply acting as if the woman is to blame, to admit to the shame, to where they are saying they have a right to assault a woman as part of growing up male. Also many ordinary men, men who do not act as bullies, predators, are not seeking revenge out of resentment still think men have a right to force sex on women in certain circumstances. This has emerged this week in reactions by men in public.

Now grown much older, blessedly unattractive (I think of Austen's funny words over that -- surely at 55 we may feel safe) and watching women bond, I think they bond over over support of normative values of ambitiion, what gives prestige and respect -- not like boys a matter of jeering. You have to buy into these norms and to stroke the others' ego. They run scared and will not support another girl lest they be singled out. Women seek safety. I have read more truthful graphic descriptions of these social scenes where someone (women mostly, but it could be a man)  is scapegoated (if it were a prison and he were gay among heterosexual men), or the woman is persuaded to accept assault as this is what is done.

I am just now following a course on Future Learn about violence against women and hope to report back what I learn. Imagine that: these men have fun by inflicting trauma on women because they can. Like some people enjoy kicking dogs or cats:  both intensely sensitive creatures who can't get back.

I can do twitter too: #Kavanaugh [Content]: A lying vile creep. Phantom-goblin conjured up by Trump except he's real & common & given power & (mark my words) will get back.
[Full stop ends it] She tweeted.

See my blog on blog style: The Recap Genre or Commentary w/o Pity.

Miss Drake

Latest Month

December 2018



RSS Atom
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow