hey b, this is supposed to be a “light and fresh” thread…
I want blonde jokes, I want mind-numbing entertainment, I want “feel-good news”…
Let me show you:

*** Letter from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, State of Michigan:
Mr. Landowner
Some land that borders water
Pierson, MI 49339
Dear Mr. Landowner,
SUBJECT: DEQ File No. 97-59-0023-1 T11N, R10W, Sec. 20, Montcalm County
It has come to the attention of the Department of Environmental Quality that there has been recent unauthorized activity on the above-referenced parcel of property. You have been certified as the legal landowner and/or contractor who did the following unauthorized activity: Construction and maintenance of two wood debris dams across the outlet stream of Spring Pond. A permit must be issued prior to the start of this type of activity. A review of the Department’s files shows that no permits have been issued. Therefore, the Department has determined that this activity is in violation of: Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, being sections 324.30101 to 324.30113 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, annotated. The Department has been informed that one or both of the dams partially failed during a recent rain event, causing debris and flooding at down stream locations. We find that dams of this nature are inherently hazardous and cannot be permitted. The Department, therefore, orders you to cease and desist all unauthorized activities at this location, and to restore the stream to a free-flow condition by removing all wood and brush forming the dams from the stream channel. All restoration work shall be completed no later than January 31, 1998. Please notify this office when the restoration has been completed so that a follow-up site inspection may be scheduled by our staff. Failure to comply with this request or any further unauthorized activity on the site may result in this case being referred for elevated enforcement action. We anticipate and would appreciate your full cooperation in this matter. Please feel free to contact me at this office if you have any questions. Sincerely, Government Person District Representative Land and Water Management Division
*** Letter in response to Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
Dear Mr. Government Person:
Re: DEQ File No. 97-59-0023; T11N, R10W, Sec 20; Montcalm County
Your certified letter dated 12/17/97 has been handed to me to respond to. You sent out a great deal of carbon copies to a lot of people, but you neglected to include their addresses. You will, therefore, have to send them a copy of my response. First of all, Mr. Landowner is not the legal landowner and/or contractor at Some land that borders water, Michigan. I am the legal owner, and a couple of beavers are in the (State-unauthorized) process of constructing and maintaining two wood “debris” dams across the outlet stream by Spring Pond. While I did not pay for, authorize, nor supervise their dam project, I think they would be highly offended that you call their skillful use of natural building materials “debris.” I would like to challenge your department to attempt to emulate their dam project any time and/or any place you choose. I believe I can safely state there is no way you could ever match their dam skills, their dam resourcefulness, their dam ingenuity, their dam persistence, their dam determination, and/or their dam work ethic. As to your request, I do not think the beavers are aware that they first must fill out a dam permit prior to the start of this type of dam activity. My first dam question to you is: (1) are you trying to discriminate against my Spring Pond Beavers, or (2) do you require all beavers throughout this State to conform to said dam request? If you are not discriminating against these particular beavers, through the Freedom of Information Act, I request completed copies of all those other applicable beaver dam permits that have been issued. Perhaps we will see if there really is a dam violation of Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, being sections 324.30101 to 324.30113 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, annotated. I have several concerns. My first concern is — aren’t the beavers entitled to legal representation? The Spring Pond Beavers are financially destitute and are unable to pay for said representation — so the State will have to provide them with a dam lawyer. The Department’s dam concern that either one or both of the dams failed during a recent rain event causing flooding is proof that this is a natural occurrence which the department is required to protect. In other words, we should leave the Spring Pond beavers alone rather than harassing them and calling their dam names. If you want the stream “restored” to a dam free-flow condition please contact the beavers — but if you are going to arrest them (they obviously did not pay any attention to your dam letter, being unable to read English), be sure they are read the Miranda rights first. As for me, I am not going to cause more flooding or dam debris jams by interfering with these dam builders. If you want to hurt these dam beavers, be aware I am sending a copy of your dam letter and this response to PETA. If our dam Department seriously finds all dams of this nature inherently hazardous and truly will not permit their existence in this State — I seriously hope you are not selectively enforcing this dam policy — or once again both I and the Spring Pond beavers will scream prejudice! In my humble opinion, the Spring Pond beavers have a right to build their unauthorized dams as long as the sky is blue, the grass is green and water flows down stream. They have more dam right than I do to live and enjoy Spring Pond. If the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection lives to its name, it should protect the natural resources (beavers) and the environment (beavers’ dams). So, as far as the beavers and I are concerned, this dam case can be referred for more elevated enforcement action right now. Why wait until 1/31/98? The Spring Pond beavers may be under the dam ice then and there will be no way for you or your dam staff to contact/harass them then. In conclusion, I would like to bring to your attention a real environmental quality (health) problem in the area. It is the bears. Bears are actually defecating in our woods. I definitely believe you should be persecuting the defecating bears and leave the beavers alone. If you are going to investigate the beaver dam, watch your step! (The bears are not careful where they dump!) Being unable to comply with your dam request, and being unable to contact you on your dam answering machine, I am sending this response to your dam office via another government organization — the dam USPS. Maybe, someday, it will get there. Sincerely, Landowner in Michigan

Posted by: Jérôme | Jan 21 2005 13:37 utc | 4

Thank you Jérôme, dam good job.

Posted by: Fran | Jan 21 2005 13:54 utc | 6

How about both!?

The Cracked Pot
A water bearer in India had two large pots, each hung on the ends of a pole, which he carried across his neck.
One of the pots had a crack in it, while the other pot was perfect and always delivered a full portion of water.
At the end of the long walk from the stream to the house,
the cracked pot arrived only half full.
For a full two years this went on daily, with the bearer delivering only one and a half pots full of water to his house.
Of course, the perfect pot was proud of its accomplishments,
perfect for which it was made. But the poor cracked pot was ashamed of its own imperfection, and miserable that it was able to accomplish only half of what it had been made to do.
After 2 yrs of what it perceived to be a bitter failure, it spoke to the water bearer one day by the stream. “I am ashamed of myself, and I want to apologize to you. I have been able to deliver only half my load because this crack in my side causes water to leak out all the way back to your house.
Because of my flaws, you have to do all of this work,
and you don’t get full value from your efforts.”
The bearer said to the pot,”Did you notice that there were flowers only on your side of the path, but not on the other pot’s side? That’s because I have always known about your flaw, and I planted flower seeds on your side of the path,
and every day while we walk back, you’ve watered them.
For two years I have been able to pick these beautiful flowers to decorate the table. Without you being just the way you are, there would not be this beauty to grace the house.”
Moral: Each of us has our own unique flaws. We’re all cracked pots. But it’s the cracks and flaws we each have that make our lives together so very interesting and rewarding. You’ve just got to take each person for what they are, and look for the good in them.
Blessed are the flexible, for they shall not be bent out of shape. Remember to appreciate all the different people in your life!
>>Blessings to all my crackpot friends.

Posted by: Fran | Jan 21 2005 14:05 utc | 8

Fran, I feel I owe you an answer to an older open-thread question. I think it was you who asked if the swedish model has in any way lessened the general greed. As you were so forthcoming with all my questions about swiss referendums, I have been thinking about this for some time now.
This is what I have come up with: I am not sure, but it might be. I have at least one thing pointing towards it: Greed is the biggest sin a public person can commit (except violent crimes). Some examples:
* Making questionable tax-deductions sinked one party leader (Gudrun Schyman) the other year. She had to resign. When it a couple of years ago was discovered that she was an alcoholic she rode that one out with ease and promised to seek help.
* A prospected party leader and prime minister (Mona Sahlin) fell from power in 1995 when it was discovered that she had been using her government creditcard for private purchases. Not luxury items but chocolate (Toblerone I remeber it was) and diapers. She probably could have managed it but she didn´t take it serious at first giving time for her opponents to gain momentum for a campaign.
* Swedens most important public business leader (Percy Barnevik) fell in total disgrace after receiving a 100 million euro pension in 2002. It was simply to much, and he didn´t seem to understand it. Eventually he payed back half of it to the company but the damage was already done.
So, in conclusion, money is to swedes what sex is to americans: everybody is worrying that someone else has more. It might not be a sign of less greed as much as less acceptance for greed.
However, I think the greed is raising and it is starting at the top.
Contrary to Joakim Palme (who wrote the article on the swedish model in the aforementioned thread) I think that the swedish model will change rapidly soon because of the underlaying trust being eroded by the cutbacks of the ninties. The system has become much less universal and much more specific. The young has neither job security nor safety net and is getting tired of paying for the benefits of the older generations without getting anything for it. Participation in politics has fallen drasticly and keeps falling, if it continues like this there will be no members left in the political parties around 2015. The five parties that dominated all of the period 1920-1990 has been complemented by two more, and a third new party took 15 % in the last EU-parlament election. Meanwhile the socialdemocrats rule on like nothing ever happens, keeping on entrenching in unions and governmental bureucracies. Keeping the power while forgetting what it was good for. Something will happen.
Myself I hope and work for (in my own small ways) a different left vision. Getting a more decentralised and user-controlled public sector and more of swiss-style referendums are on my agenda. However I fear there might come along a swedish kind of Berlusconi instead.

Posted by: A swedish kind of death | Jan 21 2005 14:31 utc | 10

I have previously considered calling for more light-hearted threads around here. After Jerome’s and Kate’s last two posts I am going to found a campaign calling for an absolute ban on them.
Exits stage left muttering, “1 demijohn, boil the hell out, ….”

Posted by: Colman | Jan 21 2005 14:47 utc | 12

Job related FCC Chairman Powell to Resign-Sources
Ann Coulter applies as replacement.

Posted by: b | Jan 21 2005 15:13 utc | 14

Colman:
“women issues” are the same as any oppressed group: (a) The right not to be reduced to a member of said group and thus having limited (by law or otherwise) opportunities that are enjoyed by other individuals and (b) the right not to be oppressed by the treatment of the caracteristics shared by the member of this group.
(a) is for example not being allowed to have certain jobs, not being allowed in certain places, getting one´s opinion reduced to “you just say that because you are a [insert member of oppressed group]”.
(b) is for example health issues. In Sweden at least, doctors are generally (has been studied over and over) more prone to take a mans pain serious. Also wages fits in here and career oportunities that are formally equal, but in reality are based on membership in the old boys club.
There are of course no “men issues” as there are no “white issues” or “heterosexual issues”.
I don´t think the phrase “women issues” is good, as I think an oppression-free society is everybodys issue.

Posted by: A swedish kind of death | Jan 21 2005 18:18 utc | 16

@Colman well for one very basic issue: men only have to be worried about being sexually assaulted if they’re imprisoned or institutionalised. women have to bear the possibility in mind most of their lives, colouring every decision, every social situation. you might just possibly be able to call this a “health issue” — but I think that would be wallpapering; it’s a caste issue imho, gender being the ultimate and original caste distinction.
can’t say I find the original thread-starter terribly amusing, actually. it seems rather creakily old-fashioned, like some 50’s dumb blonde joke dressed up in 90’s clothing…
a few anthropological questions suggest themselves immediately: why is it always funny to compare the sleazy ways of corporate advertising to “slutty” behaviour by women? would this joke be as funny if the genders were reversed? if not, why not? did anyone actually enjoy being groped by Ahnold? if Ahnold went around grabbing men’s balls, would we assume that the grabbee would like it? and so on, and so on. good original source material for an undergrad class in basic feminism 1A.
imho there’s a difference between “light” and “making light of” as in “belittling.” ever noticed how there isn’t a category for Dumb Men Jokes? they just don’t exist, except in the gender-neutral Darwin Award category. that’s one way you can tell that a group is considered lower-caste or disliked in any society: when there’s a recognised, defined genre of jokes about ’em. N*gger jokes, Polack jokes, Jew jokes, Irish jokes, Silesian jokes, all have had their day in various societies when the group in question could be safely put down. but “woman jokes” never go out of style and I think that tells us something…

Posted by: DeAnander | Jan 21 2005 19:33 utc | 18

@Aksod: oppressed group. Ok. Right. Hum. No, hold on. Oppressed? I think oppressed means something else. Maybe you mean slightly disadvantaged. Oppres sed is when the secret police come round.
@DeAnander: really, men only get raped when institutionalised? Are you sure? I strongly suspect that the incidence of sexual violence against men is much higher than normally thought. But even if we grant your point, what makes it a women’s issue? It becomes an issue for Society surely, in the same way that cyclists being more at risk from traffic should be an issue for society. And how amusing was the thread starter meant to be? I sort of assumed some level of irony in the whole thing from the context. Even the light threads around here seem pretty dark.
@annie: depends. What are their preferences, and how big is the light bulb?
[Disclaimer: 22:26 here, Friday evening, bottle of wine and some nice (Irish) peated whiskey later. My views may differ when 100% sober!]

Posted by: Colman | Jan 21 2005 22:28 utc | 20

What’s your job description?
You’re a man and you see a handsome gal at a party. You go up to her and say, “I’m fantastic in bed,” That’s Direct Marketing.
You’re at a party with a bunch of friends and see a handsome gal. One of your friends goes up to her and pointing at you says, “He’s fantastic in bed.” That’s Advertising.
You see a handsome gal at a party. You go up to her and get her telephone number. The next day you call and say, “Hi, I’m fantastic in bed.” That’s Telemarketing.
You see a gal at a party, you smooth your shirt. You walk up to her and pour her a drink. You say,”May I,” and reach up to detach her earring from her hair, brushing your chest lightly against her arm, and then say, “By the way, I’m fantastic in bed,” That’s Public Relations.
You’re at a party and see a handsome gal. She walks up to you and says, I hear you’re fantastic in bed,” That’s Brand Recognition.
You’re at a party and see a handsome gal. She fancies you, but you talk her into going home with your friend. That’s a Sales Rep.
Your friend can’t satisfy her so he calls you. That’s Tech Support.
You’re on your way to a party when you realize that there could be handsome gals in all these houses you’re passing. So you climb onto the roof of one situated towards the center and shout at the top of your lungs, “I’m fantastic in bed!” ….. That’s Junk Mail.
You are at a party, this well-built woman walks up to you and gropes your balls and grabs your ass …That’s Arnolda Schwarzenegger!
You liked it, but 20 years later your attorney decides you were offended. That’s America.
(it sounds to me like the difference is, men still dream of women fancying them, while women know what a bad f*** a good-looking face might give you. Most pugly men (I just looked in the mirror, I’m pugly enough) never get the chance to be used and abused coz women, er, I dunno. They’re so wunnerful an’ all, and always spend any money their hub (or partner) brings ‘ome on, er, nice progressive things, not junk like, er, a dinky little runabout car for going shopping. Now a man would want a scooter, which takes us back to DeAnander’s well-made point about relative risk. Is this a bio thing? If women stopped having sex with crap guys (and if guys stopped having sex with crap women) would we all explode and become cosmic moonbeams leaping Jupiter’s tresses?
Ah well, we are all (I think) mostly-white and considerably western, so, according to Eistinian relativity, we ain’t got shit to moan about. If you’re constipated, I take that back.

Posted by: R | Jan 21 2005 22:45 utc | 22

@ DeAnander (2:33) Being blond (until I turned gray) I always felt that the popularity of blond jokes was that it gave women (not blond) a chance to join in the bashing with the guys. Kind of a bonding experience. IMHO, you can substitute brunette, red, green, or purple and the joke still would/wouldn’t be funny…

Posted by: beq | Jan 21 2005 23:31 utc | 24

I am not going to argue definitions in the english language with an irishman. Not my native tongue. And I guess the slight disadvantage covers everything from the slight probaility that a head of state of mayor corporation is female to the largest deathrisk of european females ages 20-45 is being killed by a man in the same household.
In my town (of circa 200 000 people, better state the size least I misdefine “town”), a young male student was raped. It was interesting to view the reactions of males fitting the same profile. Fear, anger and calls for more security and ideas of starting watchgroups and start patrolling were commonplace until the police caught the guy who did it. Then emotions cooled down, guess the fear of having to act like males shared the slight disadvantage of being born female was cooling of.

Posted by: A swedish kind of death | Jan 22 2005 2:24 utc | 26

Oppressed is when the secret police come round so ummm, slaves in ancient Egypt weren’t oppressed? didn’t need any secret police, it wasn’t secret at all: some people just owned others, that was all. not oppression? what to call it then? until very recently — very recently in historical terms — women in US and UK could not own property in own name, could not vote, could be committed to lunatic asylum on the unsupported word of husband, etc., could be forcibly returned to husband/owner if they ran away, could be legally beaten, raped, detained and imprisoned by husband/owner. no secret police involved.
no secret police enforce the income gap between women and men in US working world — none are needed, it “just happens” and goes on happening. no secret police keep battered women from leaving their abusers — threatening to kill the kids works just fine, many abusers find. no secret police needed to keep teenage hookers in line, the pimps have their own techniques (remarkably similar to those used by State apparatus of terror, since the business of breaking the human spirit is pretty much the same no matter what material you start with).
the State is not the only instrument of oppression nor is industrial capitalism the first and only truly oppressive structure in human history… indeed as many Muslim men said in outrage about the Yanks’ abuses at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere, “They treated our brothers like women.”

Posted by: DeAnander | Jan 22 2005 2:47 utc | 28

Actually it was the “Cooking Babes” on KFI radio in LA who told the joke, but I purloined it immediately for use in groups with a heavy religious contingent. 😉
Colman… the reason why rape is a woman’s issue is that 95% or better… perhaps 97% of rape is perpetrated by men upon women.
Women do not have to be physiologically aroused to be raped, in fact it’s almost a given that in most rape they are not aroused. I’m lining up with DeAnander about this. Now I don’t claim to be an expert, but I am a woman who was raped at 19, and I also spent 7 years as a domestic violence counselor and supervisor of a residential program for women and their children. In my duties at the shelter, part of it was teaching about the history of violence on the Happy Planet in general, and the history of violence against women. Rape is the shock troopers in the symbolic and real battle for “dominance” for much of “civilization” on the planet. This is why you see rape in prisons, etc. Rape is not about sex. Rape is about power, control, and dominance. It is also often about anger. Rape is never about sex, despite the oh-so trendy post-post modern Camille Pagilia version of how things are between males and females in civilization from perhaps 5000 years ago to the present.
Finally, when I was teaching the course for community volunteers to the shelter, one of the ways I knew I’d done a good job was when some woman complained to my boss that I was saying things that were anti-men. I am not anti-men. I’ve been a “happy” heterosexual (ROFLMAO) all my life. I’ve had two long-term relationships/marriages… the first one 16 years, the current one 13. (Just trying to preclude expected responses)

Posted by: Kate_Storm | Jan 22 2005 3:24 utc | 30

kate
dark as my heart is – yes – it was a lighthearted jest

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jan 22 2005 3:29 utc | 32

Kate & RGiap
Now I get it. How silly of me 🙂

Posted by: A swedish kind of death | Jan 22 2005 3:32 utc | 34

rememberinggiap,
I’m not sure this is something you already know, and it’s really just my simple want to connect that makes me want to tell you. You might already know this…
I’m one of those agonized dark hearts too. 😉
The rest of the MOA lovelies… move along. 😉 Nothing to see here.

Posted by: Kate_Storm | Jan 22 2005 3:38 utc | 36

rememberinggiap:
I have read some Pinter, and feel the same affinity with him. I have not read Le Carré, but I’m not into his form of the novel, spy stuff. “Lovelies” is a word I’ve used for many, many years with my children, other people’s children, and my sisters and husband. It’s my word in my world. I should read a Le Carré story I think. Do you have a good first choice to recommend?

Posted by: Kate_Storm | Jan 22 2005 4:51 utc | 38

@Kate I think the problem is even gnarlier than that (regarding rape etc) — there’s so profound a crosswiring between sex and aggression/dominance in most of the mammals that it’s hard to make a nice clean division and say “rape is not sex” — it sure isn’t sex for the person being raped, but it may be sex for the person doing the raping (ugh).
even casual language reveals the strong correlation between sex and dominance — we don’t say “F U” as a polite invitation to play, and the prevalence of unconsidered, stock phrases like “just bend over”, “roll over and take it,” “we are so f—ed,” “Bush is Rove’s bitch,” etc. makes it quite clear that along with whatever more civilised notions we may have about sex and love, the old mammalian significance of humping as a dominance/hierarchy display/enforcement mechanism is very much with us…
is pornography sexy just because naked young bodies are attractive, or is it the implicit shame/exposure/vulnerability of the naked body being displayed to the gaze of strangers that is erotic — because of that very vulnerability, and its contrast with the implicit power and relative invulnerability of the purchaser/consumer? is Schadenfreude the essential appeal of commercial porno? I wouldn’t be surprised.
one psych student I knew way back when did a project in which he invited fellow male students to pose (fully clad) in the same positions, with the same facial expressions, as porn and pinup models — using actual porn/pinup materials as blueprints — then asked them to write about what they felt after the kinaesthetic experience of modelling the Other’s stance and appearance. their comments as I recall were rather interesting. they found the bodily positions required of pinup models to be “uncomfortable,” “stupid,” “embarrassing,” etc. — and that was with their clothes on 🙂

Posted by: DeAnander | Jan 22 2005 7:27 utc | 40

wow, jj, a fascinating example of censorship occurring without any State intervention at all. sounds like Mike Moore quality cinema verite footage, and all probably thrown on the cutting-room floor by one egotistical art student. information suppressed, privileges protected, and no secret police required at all.

Posted by: DeAnander | Jan 22 2005 7:50 utc | 42

Oh, and thank you for the Le Carre recommendations. 😉

Posted by: Kate_Storm | Jan 22 2005 17:48 utc | 44

De, I’m always open to great authors and great fiction and non-fiction. Word of mouth means a lot.
And I didn’t think you were being corrective. I wasn’t offended by your amplification at all. 😉

Posted by: Kate_Storm | Jan 22 2005 21:49 utc | 46

jj: The guy who made it, wrecking that amazing footage otherwise unobtainable in Patriarchy, turned it on it’s head.
Magnificent story, jj. I had to go back and read it again… twice. 😉

Posted by: Kate_Storm | Jan 23 2005 11:38 utc | 48

@dan I think you may have the wrong end of the stick so to speak — most of the tortures committed by the invaders were/are implemented by the ground troops, and we know how rigorously the US Armed Forces works to purge the queers from its ranks — even depriving itself of skilled translators in the process. I think one reason these tortures are being used is because the men inflicting them and the men suffering them share a shame and horror about homosexual thoughts, acts, or images. thus the most humiliating thing the invaders can think of to do to another man is to “make him queer,” i.e. commit sexual abuse on his body or force him to mimic homosexual acts.
as to whether they are sadists in some DSM sense of the word, hard to say — much of what is inculcated into military recruits in training is to my ear a grotesque sadism. sexual words and images (and insults) are routinely used to vilify femaleness or gayness and enforce a rigid, paranoid masculinity and an association of female/queer with loser/target/enemy. in some cases troops have been “taught marksmanship” by using pinups as targets. there was a minor flap in Bush War I when it was revealed that air force pilots were being encouraged to view porno before flying their bombing runs as it “sharpened them up.” some of the training chants used by Marines during physical exercises are startlingly cruel and brutal. and so on.
people tend to behave as they are expected to behave in the circs they find themselves in (cf Stanford Prisoner Experiment). military training and the isolation and unaccountability of garrison life create an expectation of, and a perfect playground for, sadism. perhaps some of the offenders are hardcore sadists who have hurt others for fun their whole adult lives; others I suspect are merely malleable individuals who “go with the flow” as the subjects did in the SPI; and a precious few cannot accept the abuse and blow the whistle or defend the victims, usually to their cost as the ringleaders and the sheep close ranks.

Posted by: DeAnander | Jan 23 2005 18:26 utc | 50

Le Carré is great. The Tailor of Panama was the one I enjoyed most.
Rape: power, dominance, but also a way of impregnating the enemy (their women) and taking them over, so to speak. Atavistic.
Not terribly relevant when in the darkened parking lot under the terrace of Pizza Hut.

Posted by: Blackie | Jan 23 2005 21:12 utc | 52

@De- & Kate, Glad to have shared the story – sad for it to have been totally lost. Sorry post got a bit convoluted, as I was very tired. It was Babbit in a WhoreHouse. Too bad we couldn’t have written a check on the spot – all Fantasy wanted by then was to recoup their out of pocket costs for processing the 20 reels! It’s not for nothing the Patriarchs make damn sure they control the money in all relationships.
Speaking of Le Carre, let’s not forget that the cultural function of James Bond movies was to eroticize the Cold War. But I highly recommend a re-viewing of Goldfinger, if you haven’t seen it in the intervening years. It was before the Women’s Movement, so women were less threatening & therefore still allowed to have bodies. Wait til you see the females in it – they actually occupied physical space – curves everywhere….Real Flesh. Probably weighed 20-30 lbs. more than sex-objects of today. Post-women’s mvmt., the Patriarchcal response seems to be … Goddamn Bitches, if they have to exist, there can at least be as little of them as possible.

Posted by: jj | Jan 23 2005 23:09 utc | 54

actually, the body type that is the ideal for females today is a male body with fake tits attached…really…no hips, no butt…until Jennifer Lopez made it okay to have a butt…but when she wanted to go mainstream, she got a trainer to get rid of her “ethnic ass.”
but women who are born without a uterus, or with an indeterminate penis sort of thing have current ideal body type…and they’re sterile.
what also amazes me are the women who get ribs removed…and they do this…to create a waist when they have so little body fat.
I was never raped, but I had a boss who came up behind me and put his hands down my shirt and grab my breasts. I guess he thought I would just love him for this.
When I in my twenties, I had an older family “friend” grab my, uh, frontierierre…and I never said anything because I was so embarrassed.
Long ago, but not long ago enough, I had a co-worker tell me that if women stayed home, there would be no unemployment…
That same co-worker told me that women shouldn’t supervise men because it’s not “natural.”
My stepmother was too embarrassed to have me breast feed my child in her presence.
What a change to go to the Netherlands and see all the topless bathers…wish I could have dropped my stepmom off for the day… LOL…and may she rest in peace fully clothed.

Posted by: fauxreal | Jan 24 2005 0:49 utc | 56

dan of steele
i think the most beautiful text is that of ‘the perfect spy’ – because of its biographical base – relationship with the father & the replacements of that father – le carre father was a very famous conman & his whole riff on lying instead of loving – of telling stories takes the idea of scherezade to another level – a central relationship in that text is that between pym & his old friend from zurich whom he betrays but loves deeply
as tim buckley speaks of the pain of the male flesh for the first time in music so too le carre speak of this basic lack of love & of loving – the relations are only homoerotic in the sense that the men regress to the easy fantasy & affinities of young men – uncomplicated by notions of living. simply put – to tell the story is to tell the lie
in the smiley trilogy – the relation between smiley & karla is of devastating humanity & complexity
but others are right here – the newer works are so unrelentinglly sad – ‘tailor’ – is not as well written but its basic premise is heartbreaking but it is not misanthropic which is strange for an englishman of his generation – it would have been easy to turn into a waugh or a saki or into a hundred other nonentities – mr cornwall/le carre is such a tough character but who exhibits great tenderness without sentimentality
this thread has made me think of their very real melancholy that is in it way seductive in our slaughterhouse but at the same time very human, all too human

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jan 24 2005 2:22 utc | 58

@dan I think the flirtation with gay themes in Le Carre’s books [his non-spy novel The Naive and Sentimental Lover explores this theme more boldly, though still with the squeamishness required by his British publisher and reading audience of the time] has more to do with who he is and the set of people he knew and worked with in intel, than with any generalisation about the spook world as a whole.
There is a telling passage, in The Russia House iirc, in which the Americans dismiss from a UK/US team a very able intelligence professional because their “background check” reveals his homosexuality. The Americans have been rabid on this subject since the McCarthy years, and when you think about J Edgar that is pretty sadly funny and predictable… Le Carre’s authorial reaction to this is savage sarcasm, and deep empathy for the disgraced and humiliated man.
Of course, there are those who believe that the more rabid the homophobia, the greater the likelihood of suppressed homosexual feelings. However the obsession of [American] straight men with imagery and language of male/male rape (“he really took it in the shorts,” “I wouldn’t turn my back on him,” etc) is such that I don’t think we can safely attribute the pseudo-homosexual sadism of the interrogation techniques to any “gayness” — even suppressed — in the enforcers or even the bosses. The real obsession I suspect is with dominance and ranking.
Stephen Donaldson’s work suggests that the division between “straight” and “gay” among men may be far less relevant and important than we think. He found (and others have confirmed) that male prisoners who rape or otherwise sexually dominate other male prisoners, sometimes even having long-term marriage-like relationships with other men, usually do not perceive themselves as in any way “gay”. Because the nature of the relationship is one of bossing, control, ownership, and dominance — and they are on the winning end of the deal — they feel quite securely “straight” and on release from prison make a smooth transition back to bullying and bossing women. In other words, their notion of “straightness” seems to be invested heavily in being “winner” or “top” rather than in the gender of their victim, their “sexual property” etc. Donaldson reports that the men who are considered “gay” in prison life are those who fill the role of sexual servants or “wives” to other men, regardless of their natural proclivities outside prison. Their role as “losers” in the power struggles inside prison defines them as “gay”.
So in at least one patriarchal way of thinking about straightness and gayness, straightness simply means being a dominant male regardless of the type of person one dominates. This is what we might call a thuggish way of thinking about sex and intimacy, and therefore it wouldn’t surprise me if professional thugs (those who design torture programs for example) think the same way — so that even if they derive a thrill, perhaps even an acknowledged thrill, from the humiliations they inflict on other men, they can still think of themselves quite comfortably as “straight.”
Such men are not however the over-educated aesthetes (the “Cambridge Queers” — or at least bisexuals) evoked by Le Carre — the Burgess and McLean archetype. Quite a different kettle of fish. Le Carre was writing, often, about the vagaries of love, loyalty, trust and betrayal — a far more delicate subject than brute domination and subjection.

Posted by: DeAnander | Jan 24 2005 7:29 utc | 60

Kate wrote, about three days ago now:

Colman… the reason why rape is a woman’s issue is that 95% or better… perhaps 97% of rape is perpetrated by men upon women.

So what makes it a “woman’s issue”. Do you mean that as a male I need not concern myself with it? Because that’s what you appear to be saying. Do the 3% of male victims not matter?
You also say:

Yes, De. I was being overly simplistic. And you’ve said it all so very well. I have a button that is easily pushed when I hear or read the same old retort about rape from people who, at least on the surface, appear to have little understanding of the wide wide dynamics … I feel the same way when confronted with similar narrow vision about child and woman battering.

I’m not even sure who you’re referring to here? I’m trying to find the bit where someone on this thread suggested that rape was about sex.
I notice, incidentially that men never get battered in this scheme. I’m sure that’s not what you mean, but it’s what you wrote. More failed pedantry I assume.
These aren’t women’s issues, they’re human issues. Or would you prefer that Kevin Storm was working in a refuge for battered husbands somewhere fielding complaints that he was anti-woman?

Posted by: Colman | Jan 24 2005 12:11 utc | 62

Kate writes:

As women gain social/cultural/what have you-power… and/or become more “equal”, the cultural “ideal” that gets broadcast from every media has become thinner and thinner. […] Barbie dolls incarnate.

Any believable theories why? Is it simply the normal display of wealth (“look, I can afford to be skinny!”) or is there something else going on? I’m hoping jj’s theory of simply reducing their volume isn’t correct: that would more or less cement my secession from that human race thingy. On second thoughts, I suppose if someone were to cast it in terms of compensating for men’s reduction in organisational power by emphasing and increasing the difference in physical power I suppose I could start to believe it.

Posted by: Colman | Jan 24 2005 12:24 utc | 64

Colman- I resisted posting on this thread for the longest, because, like most people, I am a mass of contradictions.
While I recognize the absurdity of a culturally derived “ideal,” I’m not immune to it, and certainly don’t ignore it, though I certainly don’t achieve it.
Sex gets in the way of seriousness, and seriousness gets in the way of sex.
While my ideology was grounded in feminism, I’ve lived a fairly traditional life…though not according to some ppl I know… (and sociologists have noted this reality of resorting to traditional gender roles among the middle and upper classes more often than among the poor…economics determines how you live, whatever your ideology…or the conflicts in your ideology…time with your children vs. time in the marketplace)…I’m a math phobic and hate that I fit the cultural stereotype, while I greatly admire scientists like Lynn Margolis…
…I don’t assume females are more nurturing, but the truth is, no matter who is doing it, such actions are not rewarded in American society, and if you take time out of your life for this, you are, in reality, punished economically, in all that contains, whether you’re male or female. Those who have traditionally had a “monopoly” on this attribute no doubt claim it for validation when it’s denied by standard measures in our capitalist society.
“Women’s issues” are human rights issues…but since so many males around the world assume gender is destiny in a totally deterministic, linear view of a life, too many human rights issues are framed as “women’s issues.”

Posted by: fauxreal | Jan 24 2005 13:39 utc | 66

So, fauxreal, I take it that you spend your day tending to the pot vegetables, gathering with the other village women to turn the grain into something edilble, raising the children and doing the hundreds of other time-consuming difficult tasks that have to be done just to survive in a low-tech household, right? Of course not. So what do you mean by “traditional” gender role? One of things that drives me absolutely apeshit mad is the short-term historical view of our bloody society. We all seem to expect to live in the massively aberrant world of middle class suburban movies circa 1955. The world has never, ever, ever been like that. Most people have always had two breadwinners in the family. Most still do. Economics dictates everything in the end.
Sorry. This isn’t meant to be attack on you by the way, it’s an attack on the bizarre frames we all live in. I get flak for working from home while my wife goes out to work and makes more money than me. I can’t imagine the amount of hassle I’m going to get if/when we have kids and I, driven largely by the economic logic of the whole thing, end up doing a lot of the stuff women are meant to do.

Posted by: Colman | Jan 24 2005 14:18 utc | 68

Colman- my reference was to traditional in the terms that are currently designated by the right in this country…which was the frame of reference in Kate and jj’s remarks too…and which was the subject of discussion, as far as I understood it.
And, as a matter of fact, when my children were younger, yes, there were communal groups of females that did help each other out, with child care, with food, though, no, we weren’t subsistence economies.
Again, I didn’t jump into this discussion because I didn’t want to fall into all the minefields of definition.
So I’ll jump out again, because it’s bullshit for you to jump on me, especially since you have no idea of the kind of things I’ve had to deal with in my life that pertain to so many of these issues.
But, yes, colman, if you end up doing the unpaid shitwork of childcare, you will find out that you are as de-valued as any female, and more so, because you’re male.
Just hope that your children don’t have any problems, because then you’ll also be labeled as somehow responsible for things that, yes, you are responsible for at the level of genetics, but have nothing to do with your parenting.

Posted by: fauxreal | Jan 24 2005 14:31 utc | 70

forgive me for jumping onto the dogpile (and i’ll admit that i’m reading in reverse order – only up to Clueless…@4.49am), but I understand early feminism as an attempt to place a value on women’s work at home and having it recognized in the social benefits sphere (i.e., accrue SS benefits, etc.). This book, The Price of Motherhood by Ann Crittenden is a recommended read.
my 2 centimes for where ever they fit in this discussion.

Posted by: esme | Jan 24 2005 15:00 utc | 72

Ah, but it is most likely the “traditional” dogpile, eh? And the traditional wrangling on this subject, and has been done like this for thirty years to my recollection. 😉

Posted by: Kate_Storm | Jan 24 2005 16:52 utc | 74

Fauxreal, I can see how that might make you a little cranky on the subject. I’ve added that book to my list of things to read.

Posted by: Colman | Jan 24 2005 17:50 utc | 76

Illuminating discussion, all…
And Jérôme, I thoroughly enjoyed the Non-Standard Measurements – I haven’t grinned a whole lot since 2 Nov. :^)
Back to the lighter flavor… ?
“Personal” seen on Pentagon bulletin board:

“ENEMY WANTED: Mature North American Superpower seeks hostile partner for arms racing, Third World conflicts and general antagonism. Must be sufficiently menacing to convince Congress of military financial requirements… Send note with pictures of fleet, air squadrons, or shadowy terrorist legions to CHAIRMAN JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF/PENTAGON.”

And just for fun:
Electron Band Structure In Germanium, My Ass

Posted by: OkieByAccident | Jan 24 2005 23:50 utc | 78

Backing up fauxreal: First, Second, and Third Wave

Posted by: Kate_Storm | Jan 25 2005 4:08 utc | 80

transeunt food supplements vitamins contraception patch supplements geodetician
coardent lose weight phase-2 aycyclovir starch neutralizer lipotrophy coardent
branchipus fat blocker fat starch pain reliever blocker geminiform branchipus
postseason weight loss starch celexa carbohydrate blocker unapprenticed postseason
afterwrath daily-use laxative natural laxative oral contraception cape aloe clubbability
experimented diabetic control supplement blood sugar formula tramadol diabetic control propositionize
unarmorial combination antioxidants antioxidant anti-depressants antioxidant treeship
name

Posted by: Anonymous | Nov 3 2005 0:25 utc | 82