ceebeegee: (Default)
Oh, this week from hell just gets better and better and better. Talia has been in the hospital for several days and they thought it would be best if she came home tonight--the clinic is closed for over 12 hours on Saturday and Sunday nights and they didn't want her to be alone that long. So I'm walking to the clinic, big L.L. Bean bag on one arm, my cat carrier on the other and as soon as I turn onto Park Avenue I noticed there is a kid nearby walking in the same direction. No older than 12, and he seems to be walking about my pace, I noticed that he never got ahead of me. So, annoyed, I slow down and noticed that he slowed down as well. I speed up, noticed he sped up as well. There was really nothing I could do other than stop I suppose, you can't exactly turn around and tell a total stranger stop walking near me.

Then a few blocks later I feel something. This nasty little fucking shit stain had the temerity to grab my butt. I turned around and absolutely <b>roared</b> at him and he looked terrified. I chased him for most of the block absolutely screaming at him YOU ARE A COWARD I WILL FIND YOU IF YOU TRY THAT AGAIN I WILL KICK YOUR ASS LITTLE BOY IF YOU EVER TOUCH ME AGAIN I WILL KICK YOUR ASS LITTLE BOY
 
Just--ewww. What the fuck is <i>wrong</i> with you! 12 years old and you're grabbing strange women? Stalking them for five blocks? What the fuck is wrong with you, you nasty little shit?
 
What a fucking birthday week, man. Scammed on Saturday for $100, my cat nearly dies and goes into the hospital costing me thousands of dollars and then some little nasty piece of shit acts like a nasty <i>entitled</i> piece of shit.

Updated to add: Just filed a police report. I doubt they'll catch the shitstain but if when he does it again, it will have established a pattern.

Ugh

Dec. 6th, 2013 11:56 am
ceebeegee: (Red Heather)
So a couple of days ago Ryan posted a link to my FB timeline, a video by a female scientist blogger who addressed the many stupid, trivial comments she gets compared to those received by her male counterparts. Ryan knows I'm a feminist, he posts/sends stuff like this to me frequently. The very first comment that shows up is from someone both Ryan and I know well, a guy we used to work with back in Virginia. Stephen used to (not sure if he still does) direct a lot of musicals in the dinner theater circuit. I have a somewhat contentious relationship with him--for one thing, he has acted very questionably toward some of his male actors (i.e., harassment) and yes, I have publicly called him out for that shit. He also loooooves to stoke the drama and be right in the middle of it--he will frequently cast himself in his own shows*, and he likes to set up little cliques within the cast with himself as the leader, and will designate someone within the cast as the outcast (and will trash that person behind their back and encourage other cast members to do so--unbelievable, really). I have this theory he was bullied in middle school and this is how he acts that out :(

But I actually have some respect for him--he *is* quite intelligent, and I've had some good conversations with him about musicals--he knows some very obscure ones (once he realized I too knew some pretty arcane shows, he started looking at me differently--we had a great talk about The Robber Bridegroom) and he knows (in theory anyway, as a director I feel he's basically a hack) what works/doesn't and why. I remember talking to him about a production of Hello, Dolly in which he and Ryan had appeared--the director of this production went a little overboard and went back to the source material, The Matchmaker, and added stuff to the libretto, trying to make it more thoughtful or something. SRH thought it was a bad idea (and indeed the show wasn't that great)--he said that HD was "a machine," you didn't need to rethink it or do anything amazing with it--the book and score were so tight, you just needed to cast it effectively, wind it up and let it go. I think this is kind of a hack mentality but it is an interesting--and thoughtful--take on why that production didn't work.

Ryan also told me this GREAT story about something he did to his roommate a few years ago. As I said SRH likes to set up little cliques within the shows he directs--he is very sensitive to being left out in any way (did I mention he's at least 20 years older than Ryan and me?). He had this roommate who was MUCH younger than SRH and...went out one night, I think, went out with his friends who were his age. I can't remember if the roommate was also in a show with SRH, but anyway...the roommate came home with his friend and when he flicked on the light in the living room, stumbled across SRH lying on the floor as though he'd had an accident, or a heart attack (he has heart problems) or something. As the roommate and the friend gasped and scrabbled for the phone to call 9-1-1, SRH jumps to his feet, wags a finger in their faces and says "NEXT time it could be for REAL!" and storms off.

I mean, is that an awesome story or what? Who DOES that?! Rarely do you get stories so perfectly illustrative of one's character!

Anyway so back to what Ryan posted, about how this woman scientist gets creeped on and nitpicked and dismissed, based almost entirely on her status as a woman. The VERY FIRST comment that appears is from SRH and he says this "I couldn't get that far...she needs to shut up."

I saw fucking red. I literally typed out and deleted like 5 comments. I had to remind myself to stay calm because I did NOT want to get into a huge back and forth comment war. But JESUS. Seriously? A post about how women are shit on and how their voices are silenced and THAT'S what you got out of it? YOU shut the fuck up, you fucking drama queen. What a completely tone-deaf, moronic, insensitive thing to say. Ugh, just WHY? I was livid.

Of course when I finally did respond (I said basically the above, plus "way to illustrate her point") HE had to respond about how ineffective her video was--that she went on too long, was too strident, too uninteresting, something like that. So I took a deep breath, told myself "just one more comment and that's it" and told him he needed to Google the term "tone argument," how it is used to derail discussions about not just women's issues but gay (and other minority--I used gay because SRH is gay) issues as well. How opponents of those concerns will attack the tone rather than the substance of what was said. "She's too strident." "They're too effeminate, they need to tone it down." "I would be an ally, but they turned me off." After I posted this I refused to look back--I knew he would respond, and he did but I wouldn't read it because I knew he would never back down. They never do. Someone does something stupid, they get called out, and they don't want to admit they were wrong so they double down. And I didn't want to spend the night steaming over this, so I just walked away.

Luckily others saw this--Rachel stepped in with her cool, measured response and shut him down, plus Ryan was like "what? I thought your [SRH's] post was a joke--yes, you did illustrate her point." Tesse said something supportive as well.

DICK.

I think ultimately he will have learned from this--as I see it most people who get called out for shit will put up a fight, but deep down they're thinking about it. Especially someone like SRH--for one thing he looooves Ryan, and he knows Ryan and I are very close. Also he has a grudging respect for me as I've said--I *think* he'll have learned better once he stops feeling defensive.

*It's not just that he casts himself--although I generally have a policy against this (because I find it too difficult to direct and act in the same show really well--just takes too much out of me), it's more how he does it. He'll have auditions for all the roles, waste everyone's time and then announce he's playing the lead role (or whatever role he wanted)--as though that role were just too, too hard to cast and he's taking one for the team. *Eyeroll* Sure, Stephen.
ceebeegee: (Red Heather)
I am literally laughing so hard I had to redo my makeup.

Lullabies for "Misandrists."*

*A nonsense term coined by bitter men who want to cast themselves as victims of the imaginary matriarchy for various reason, often having to do with their inability to have sex with women on demand.

Some choice selections:

Little boy blue, come blow your horn,
The sheep's in the meadow, the cow's in the corn
Where is the boy who looks after the sheep?
We killed him and hid his body under the haystack.

Already far too many men blow their own horns.




the itsy bitsy spider climbed up the waterspout
down came the rain and washed the spider out
out came the sun and dried up all the rain
along with the dead and shriveled carcass of the idiot spider who in his foolishness thought he could best the rain goddess and had only his own pathetic and meaningless death to show for it




And my favorite:

There once was a girl
and she had a little curl
right in the middle of her forehead
and it shot lasers at dudes on the street who told her to smile



And anyone who responds with some variation on "what if the genders were reversed" is immediately remanded to Satire 101. There is no such thing as misandry; it is a made-up term for a non-existent phenomenon.

Um...

Sep. 21st, 2012 12:18 pm
ceebeegee: (Crescent Moon)
Okay, I post in a group called  [livejournal.com profile] craftgrrl--kind of the LJ version of Ravelry, people upload pictures/descriptions of their current or most recent project and everyone shares the love.  But this?  This is just weird.

Admit it:  he's the cutest little serial killer you've ever seen, isn't he? =)

Jack the Ripper eviscerated his victims--he literally tore them to pieces.  Click on that link and scroll down to see how poor Mary Kelly ended up.  (Whether or not it was just one murderer or several is immaterial for the purposes of this discussion.)  And of course, OF COURSE, as fucking always, he targeted women.  He literally slaughtered some of the most helpless, powerless members of Victorian society--women prostitutes--and multilated them in as insulting, misogynistic a manner as you can imagine.  Two of them, Annie Chapman and Catherine Eddowes, had their respective uteruses cut out of them, for God's sake.  Why is this something to be domesticized and made cute, complete with smiley faces?  This really happened--these women really died, and it wasn't that long ago.  We certainly do not live in a post-misogynistic society so how you can blithely laugh this off, I don't know.  I understand the fascination with JtR but this--this is just disturbing.

This reminds me a little bit of how the Powers That Be in the '50s tried to normalize the Bomb through domesticization--they had a term for the smaller bombs, they called them "kitten bombs."  *shudder*
ceebeegee: (Mad Men)
Episode was GREAT this past Sunday. I knew the case they were referring to, although I didn't know much about it other than he killed a bunch of nurses. Just another inadequate man who takes it out on women but let's not talk about the fact that serial and mass murders overwhelmingly target women--can't start a conversation, we might actually want to change the status quo! But what a way to tie in all that misogyny--especially creepy how it actually gets commercialized here (when Ginsberg sells the "Stalking Cinderella" ad campaign). Grandma is another victim-blamer--yes, Pauline, those nurses ASKED to be raped and murdered! Disgusting but her attitude is sadly all too prevalent. Some women refuse to confront the fact that they are just as vulnerable--in order to feel safer, they twist it so that the victim *must* have had some kind of agency. They said the same sort of things about poor Elizabeth Short (the Black Dahlia)--she "was seeking death" or she was a prostitute. All nonsense. Also disturbing and sad (and again, still prevalent) was the leering at the crime scene photos. Allow the murdered some dignity, for God's sake. I feel the same way about rubberneckers on the highway--someone's death is not your entertainment.

Peggy ruminating on her "masculine" tendencies was interesting in light of the (later debunked) speculation that Speck had an extra Y chromosome, and supposedly this was associated with extra-aggressive males. Is rape and murder of women part of what it means to be male? When Joan threw out Greg, she specifically referenced his lack of manhood *and* hearkened back to the rape in the office.

GREAT episode. Kind of wish they had addressed the Kitty Genovese rape and murder last season--that had as much of an impact (especially locally) as did the nurses' murders (although the Genovese murder was in March of '64 and S4 started later than that). But the Genovese case was HUGE and better known than the nurses' murders. Can't wait to see how Weiner & Company play out the continuing devolution of NYC and the US (in terms of crime) in the late '60s. It's gonna be a long time before things get better. (I would LOVE for this show to address the blackout and the looting in Bushwick but the show isn't supposed to go that far into the future.)

Aftermath

Mar. 8th, 2012 11:42 am
ceebeegee: (Red Heather)
So the Vagina Monologues is over--we actually went up (and down) nearly 2 weeks ago. Unfortunately the last several days of it were overshadowed by a truly creepy experience. One of the women in the cast was a writer for the Jersey Journal, so she set up an interview with me and one of their other writers. The article came out the day before we opened, Friday the 26th. I went on to the website to check it out and saw--to my horror--a really creepy comment. Some guy had posted, saying it was disgusting, that I was unfit to direct The Vagina Monologues because this person had googled me, found my website and strongly disapproved of this clip (the second one down, "The Promise"). The guy said "I didn't know that being in a low-budget porn qualified you to direct The Vagina Monologues" and "Mayor Zimmer really dropped the ball on this one" and urging a BOYCOTT of the production. Also, he "was going to bring my daughter to this, as I approve of the pro-vaginal message" of TVM, but not now.

My blood ran cold. I was seriously, seriously freaked out for many reasons--uh, what the hell are you doing googling me? My website wasn't listed in the article. Second, I'm an ACTRESS, I played a PROSTITUTE. That happens. No, it wasn't real. That wasn't actually I--that was a character. Does this really need to be explained?! Third, what could possibly be more contrary to the message and spirit of TVM than to try to bully a woman out of the show because she played a character you don't like? The whole thing left me sickened--I was literally shaking.

Trish, one the the older actresses in the cast, had posted below this freak, ignoring what his comment and just saying what a great experience she'd had and how supportive and strong a director I was. I was shaking, and I tried to "report" the comment but our browsers at work are wonky so I was never sure if I was getting through. I checked the article a little later and both comments had been removed--in fact the entire article had been slightly rewritten. Interestingly in the first article I was quoted as saying "as a self-identifying feminist..." which I think is what triggered the guy. There is a certain kind of guy out there that is very, very threatened by even the word feminist. And by God he's gonna make the bitch pay for it. I frankly doubt he even has a daughter, much less one on whom he wanted to impress the "pro-vaginal" message of TVM. No one talks like that.

I saw Trish at rehearsal that night and talked about it with her, thanking her. Rehearsal went late that night--the process had been so compartmentalized (most of the pieces in TVM are single monologues, not group pieces) that the cast hadn't had any time to bond, so I'd had everyone bring in some wine or munchies or something, which loosened up everyone. But I did get out late! I got home well after midnight and was puttering around on the computer--I decided to check the article again. At about 2 am, the freak posted the exact same comment--the one that had been removed--again. I reported it again, and when I check Saturday morning, it had been removed.

Saturday afternoon. He posted it again. I reported it. Again. It's removed again.

Late Saturday night. He posted the same comment--the exact same comment that's now been removed three times--TWICE. And now he's escalating--he also posted a direct link to my website.

At this point, extremely upset that the Jersey Journal site hasn't banned this person, I email Summer (the cast member who'd originally set up the interview) and Dave, asking for help. Dave was horrified and said he was going to email the site directly as well. Summer said she'd seen the "disgusting" comments and had also reported them and was going to contact them directly. She also gave me a contact name/email, so I send off yet another email to this guy, John, asking them to please ban this obsessive poster who is slandering me.

I get back this email Sunday afternoon that starts off

"I think he's concerned about this video on your website--the one here [links to "The Promise"]...."

WHAT THE FUCK. Asshole, have you ever heard of the term "concern troll"? WHAT THE HELL does it matter what his "concerns" are? No one forced him to google me AND then go to my website! That has nothing to do with the article. Who set up this freak as the arbitrator of who is fit to direct TVM? I sent back this painfully restrained response saying "I'm an actor. I've played prostitutes. This happens in the industry. But that has nothing to do with: a) this production of TVM, or b) the fact that this loser posted the exact same slanderous comment FIVE TIMES and is now escalating by posting my website directly."

Jesus. I cannot believe I actually had to explain this to "John." I'm also frankly disappointed with Summer--I forwarded John's response to her and she kind of defended it, saying they didn't want to interfere with his right to free speech (bullshit, then why bother deleting his comments in the first place) and how my website was "public" (so? The point is it wasn't mentioned in the article, and the guy is trying to get me fired). It's not about free speech. It's about whether or not you want your forum to be abused by a fucking psycho. Five times? The exact same virulent, angry, slanderous comment that was deleted before--five times?

So I will never do another interview with the Jersey Journal. Not if it means they won't do shit to stop neckbeards from typing out shitty pathetic slanderous posts over and over and over. I've been checking that article ever since that weekend--every day I check it just to make sure. Thanks for looking out for me, "John"! A real boon to the community, you are.

The sad thing is I actually had a great time directing the show, and we did VERY well. More about that later. But God forbid a bunch of women put on a pro-woman show--nope, some fucking basement dwelling loser gotta shit all over that. Can't have that.
ceebeegee: (Helen of Troy)
At least one rapist cop goin' to jail.

But Supreme Court Justice Gregory Carro told Moreno on Monday he considered his testimony at trial "incredible."

"By your own admission, while you were supposed to be performing your duty, you were in bed with an intoxicated and naked young female," he said.

"You wanted to get into that apartment so badly you committed a crime in order to do so."


And more:

Moreno still faces heroin possession charges for drugs that were allegedly found in his police locker following his arrest. Moreno is expected back in court Sept. 12 when a trial date for those charges could be set.

Class act, huh? Rape AND drug possession? New York's finest! Oh wait--not anymore, because the NYPD fired his sorry rapist ass and that of his shit partner (who faces sentencing later today).

And another article.

It's not enough. But it's something. I hope this guy gets everything he deserves in prison.

Edited to add:

Another update. What's fascinating is that the judge's words make it completely clear he strongly disagrees with the verdict--he's essentially calling the cop a rapist and a perjurer without coming right out and using the word.
ceebeegee: (Red Heather)
Kind of cool thing is happening out of a terrible thing. As I posted a few days ago, a man raped a woman two weekends ago in Inwood Hill Park. Jason Kendall has twice-weekly astronomy viewings in the park, and the PTB were less than enthusiastic about after-dark activity in the park, and Jason was putting together a Take Back the Park event.

This actually led to a contretemps between me and someone on the FB list for Jason's Astronomy Viewings, some guy named John who just HAD to weigh in on how "irresponsible" the victim was for being alone in the park after 10:00. I responded politely at first, saying that kind of language was victim-blaming, and none of us know why that woman was there at that time (she could've been abandoned by her boyfriend, she could've lost her life-saving medication at the park, etc. etc.). He got defensive and responded with this long-ish, sarcastic diatribe, ending with "Oh please. Be serious." I saw red. My response went along the lines of "No, YOU be serious. And save your lecturing about a terrible possibility which will almost certainly never happen to YOU but which every woman fears and worries about. I assure you, every woman here knows what she needs to do to avoid rape, we don't need YOU to tell us. Again, YOU don't know why that woman was there. The time to talk about 'responsibility' and prevention is beforehand, to your kids, not right after a horrible rape. And better yet, talk to other men ABOUT rape. What are YOU doing to make the neighborhood safer?" He replied "I refuse to argue with you" and I got even more sarcastic--I wrote "*pat, pat* You just keep on, keeping on. Although I find it impossible to believe this is the first time you've received this reaction when lecturing a bunch of women about responsibility in the aftermath of a rape."

WTF is it about some men who feel the need to lecture us about our responsibility for not getting raped? What the HELL could you possibly have to offer a discussion about rape? Are you a likely victim of rape? No. Are you a likely perpetrator of rape? No. So shut the hell up. WE KNOW WHAT WE NEED TO DO. Namely, not be born a woman. Because talking about irresponsibility just enrages me. The line keeps moving. In New York City, the line is apparently being outside by yourself in the park after dark. In Saudi Arabia the line is an unveiled face. In Egypt apparently none of these things matter--women suffer very high rates of harassment and rape, even thought they're mostly veiled. So the common factor is just BEING A WOMAN. So don't talk to me about "irresponsibility," don't lecture me, don't mansplain. If you want to express concern, that's different--that's sweet, that's not condescending, that's just being a friend, or a human being. But the lecturing--unless you're tackling the problem at its source (MEN WHO RAPE) you're just talking to hear yourself. When you use the word irresponsible, you are saying women are responsible for getting themselves raped. They're not. The rapists are responsible. Talk to THEM. And don't buy into that crap about how rapists are all beady-eyed strangers, Others--they're sons and brothers and people you know. The cop rapist, Kenneth Moreno, has a wife and children. His partner Franklin Mata, the guy who abetted him, has a mother. Look at the Our Guys case in Glen Ridge NJ, when a bunch of beloved athletes, the town's fair-haired darlings, raped a developmentally disabled girl who hero-worshipped them and then witness-tampered. And the father of one of these thugs defended his son's actions by saying any "red-blooded American boy" would've done the same. Rape is a product of human society, not some kind of aberration. Otherwise it wouldn't be so common.

And please don't mention men who get raped, either by other men or by women. The first is another phenomenon entirely--it has little in common with date rape or stranger rape, that is about male shaming and other issues. And women-on-men rape is so rare, it's off the charts, and again has nothing to do with the issues behind men-on-women rape. It happens from time to time, and its victims have my sympathy, but it doesn't belong in these discussions.

Okay, got sidetracked there. Back to Take Back the Park--Jason wants volunteers to escort people to and from the astronomy viewings. He needs two at every viewing--it's a bit of a time commitment, 7:30 or so to the end of the viewing, around 11:30, but I'd like to help out, so I said I would look over the dates and tell him which ones I could do. So now today I find a reporter has emailed me, wants to interview me about this. Jason gave him my contact information. So the guy is calling me tomorrow at work, and I'm going to be interviewed!
ceebeegee: (Red Heather)
Rape Cop Kenneth Moreno has a violent history with ex-girlfriend over custody issues--so violent, in fact, that at one point the NYPD confiscated his weapons.

Way to go, jury! Sure picked a winner this time. Thanks for helping keep the streets safe from this maniac.
ceebeegee: (Red Heather)
Okay, let me start off by saying I do love Griffin. He is a dear friend, a wonderful person and I love him. But he can be quite tone deaf sometimes, and right now I'm pretty annoyed with him. He came to see the show Saturday night and joined us afterward when we went to an Irish place nearby for food and drink. The subject of The Verdict came up. Griffin started off by saying "I haven't been following this case that much"--okay, right there you need to just stop talking then. You don't know much about the case, so you probably don't have that much to contribute to this extremely sensitive subject. So since he doesn't know that much about the case, he just repeated his brother's opinions. (Griffin's brother is a lawyer, and when I first posted on FB about The Verdict, initially responded with a long mansplanation about Why He Agreed. I posted back "you are seriously misjudging your audience and the timing." To give him credit, Austin immediately agreed, took it down, and apologized, both on my wall and via private email.) Griffin kept saying "it's terrible, but..." and "you need to respect the law" and "our law says..." GAHHHH!!! What does that even mean, "you need to respect the law"--how does that possibly contribute to the conversation?! I'm not standing in front of the guy's house with a pitchfork, I'm airing my opinions! Saying "you need to respect the law" is just another way of saying "you're overreacting, calm down, settle down" which is what women hear ALL THE EFFING TIME. MOST OF THE CITY, *including lawyers* think the jury got it way wrong! It's not just us emotional wimminz with our irrational, overreacting wombs who think this way--I have been monitoring every media message board I can find and nearly EVERYONE thinks this is bullshit. There have been several articles about the so-called CSI-effect, how juries seem to think you HAVE to have DNA now to convict. How do you think they got a conviction with Abner Louima?! Broomsticks don't have orgasms, you know!

One especially enraging thing about the "it's terrible but--" was that I specifically said to him "do NOT rationalize this. I don't want to hear 'but.'" Partly this is because I think the verdict is indefensible but also partly because this is not some sort of theoretical discussion in a law school classroom--this is LIFE. This verdict is real life for every woman in the city. It is personally offensive to me, here and now, to hear you or your brother trying to rationalize this. Maybe at some point in the future, but not now, when I'm still so angry about it. I said this to him several times--he wasn't even listening, he just kept giving me his opinions. Griffin, if you don't know anything about the case--maybe you should just listen. What is so hard about that? Why do you think you have something to teach me about this? I've served on a Manhattan felony-crime jury, I know what they're told, I know the parameters. Griffin has this blindness where he thinks he needs to teach people--last fall he got into some kind of FB argument after seeing The Social Network and posting "Is it so hard for people to understand that just because you show misogyny on screen, it doesn't mean you endorse it in real life?" Quite understandably, a female friend of his, who'd also seen TSN, was irritated, and responded. At the time I could only respond to Griffin's tone since I hadn't seen that movie yet, but I told him "when you start off 'Is it so hard for people to understand...' right off the bat you're dismissing everyone who doesn't agree with you about a subject [a movie's subtext] which is impossible to quantify. Don't be surprised if people take offense to that." Having since seen TSN, I want to say to him--Griffin, you are a young man in his twenties. I think I am safe in saying that there is almost nothing you have to teach me or any other female about misogyny. Stop trying to teach other people about this sort of thing and just start listening.
ceebeegee: (Default)
JoeBronx

Thank goodness for a sane jury! This case was a repeat of the Duke lacrosse case: A couple of lying hose monsters falsely accusing men of rape for a pay day. This broad belongs behind bars, period. Granted, cops used horrible judgment, and should look for another line of work, but they were not rapists. Hats off to the jury.


More:

Sue

THANK GOD!!!!!!!! I hope they sue the city and this dirt dag woman.I hope they show her lying face and put her in jail


JoeBronx

Some “victim.” Like Tawanda Brawley and the Duke Lacrosse accuser I suppose?


Ant928

I admit their guilty of being idiots but glad justice was served for the rape.

“Oh gee, I’m so hammered I can’t remember where I was but I know that HE raped me!! What? No DNA? Ummm…but….well….really it happened I swear. I said I was hammered but I wasn’t *that* hammered. Honest!! Poor me poor me!”

Next time stick to soda lady…


Bruce Goldensteinberg

AMEN!! Finally, these heroes in blue have been vindicated. If I were them, I would sue this “victim”. She is just like Crystal Gale Magnum from the Duke Lacrosse Scandal. She wrecked the lives of these cops. She should be investigated for perjury and sent up the river for trying to smear our NYPD


This guy went to several wesbites: he's at Gothamist as well.


Free-floating misogyny. On full view at every message board across the Internet.

I'm so sorry I was born a woman and apparently offend people just by existing. My bad.
ceebeegee: (Red Heather)
I'm...devastated. Man, I just cannot believe this. I can't believe it. I can't believe it.

Fuck the jury system. People are pigs. These fucking pieces of filth ADMITTED it. The victim taped the guy admitting he'd done it. So much evidence against them.

Jesus. It's open season on women now--read this comments section on a Salon article for a taste of how much free-floatng fucking HATRED there is for women. Way to go jury, you've just convinced every woman who is raped NOT to come forward. Why bother? When there's as much evidence as with this case--when the guy ADMITS IT--Jesus, I hate people.

HATE. Thank God that asshole in 2007 didn't actually stick around--clearly he would've been acquitted. Oh wait, he was a black thug, not one of our shining wonderful policeman who are here to serve and protect. BULLSHIT. Fucking bullshit. Fucking rot in hell, you rapist animals.

I hope I meet them on the street so I can spit in their rapist faces.
ceebeegee: (Columbia)

I got an A on my 2nd paper!  I was absolutely thrilled--because for a number of reasons, I wasn't sure how good that paper was.  I wasn't really feeling the material as much and kept changing my mind on which topic I would write (he gave us a choice of three).  Also, I got an A- (not a full A) on the first paper which made me unhappy, and frankly I connected with Eloise and Abelard much more, and wasn't sure if I agreed with his reasons for the minus.  Someone suggested I should contest it but I detest grade grubbing and would only do that if I truly felt wronged.  I just have to figure out how to get the A without compromising what I really want to say.

Anyway, this second paper was quite taxing, I pretty much SWEATED it out.  The papers all have to be between 4-6 pages and it is easy for me to skate right up to the edge of 6 pages, I can wax quite eloquent!  I was kind of feeling my way through this one--the topic on which I finally settled was to explore the scientific elements of Bernardus Sylvestris's Cosmographia, and then compare them to Roger Bacon's scientific writings.  The former is an allegory about the creation of the universe divided into two parts--"Macrocosmos" and "Microcosmos" (which deals with the creation of man and explicitly positions man as the mirror-image of the universe).  As a piece of literature it's a little...overwrought, with long incomprehensible passages about Sylva and Noys and Hyle and the swirling darkness and I don't know whatall.  (It's a little easier to "get" when you compare it to the Great Clearances of the early Middle Ages, with man taming the darkness of the forests by leveling them.  Order out of chaos was a big thing at this time.)  But when you start reading Cosmographia as proto-science, it's pretty interesting, lots of descriptions about the four elements and their properties, and noticing patterns in the universe.  In the introduction, I wrote:  In a way, Cosmographia could be seen as the macro-Hamlet, its message “What a piece of work is the universe.” 

I plowed through the discussion of its scientific elements, then Man (The First Scientist?  As I wrote Man is then both outside observer and integral participant, scientist and high priest. Science is in fact the seat and justification of man’s authority…  ), then moved on to Roger Bacon, whose Opus Majus was much more explicitly scientific in purpose, format and tone.  Blah blah blah about scientific elements, comparisons, etc. etc.  Then I'm at the ending (having SWEATED this out, this paper really did make me work) and I write: In fact one might even see in Opus Majus—or in Bacon himself—the realization of Cosmographia’s “ruler and high priest of creation”: Surveyor, Perceiver and Thinker, the one cosmos governing the other, exercising the “gift of reason” and in doing so, fulfilling the promise of Science.  I'm all pleased with that, it wraps it up.  I am barely under 6 pages at this point.  I reread the paper, trying to see it with a fresh pair of eyes, and I pick up on the Hamlet reference again and it hits me:  I add to the end of the paper, right after the last sentence, what a piece of work is man.  This is now literally at the utmost limit of 6 pages.  Then it occurs to me--I think the line is what a piece of work is a man, I was remembering the song in Hair (which of course references both Hamlet and Romeo and Juliet both explicitly and thematically, and there's a song that goes What a piece of work is man/How noble in reason/In form and movement, how express and admirable).  I google it to make sure of the correct, Shakespearean phrasing, then I go back and add one letter and a space to the quotation.  BAM!  That takes me over onto 7 pages.  Arrrgh!  At this point I've already resorted to widening the margins to give me more room, so I'm reduced to--get this--reducing the font size between paragraphs juuuuust enough to get that down to 6 pages again.  Is that pathetic or what?  I told Anya, and she said "oh man, normally it's the other way around, you're trying to pad it to make it longer."  I said "I know!  I know all those tricks too!"

So anyway, wasn't quite sure how good it was.  Today, on my way to class, I took a bad fall on the scooter, really slammed my left side and was actually kind of stunned when I picked myself up.  I got to class and was in a bit of a daze and the professor was talking about de Meun's
Roman de la Rose, and how boundary-challenging it was, and he was saying "there's a word, for that--oh, what is the word for something that's trying to push the boundaries?"  I burted out "transgressive?"  He said "YES!  That's it, thank you."  Hermione is back :)  He was talking about the scientific writings and saying that one of the students had complained about them, saying s/he didn't really like them, and he said that every year someone questions them, and he doesn't have to include them, he could include instead political writings or theology, and why does he include them?  He then said that this batch of papers was the best on the science writings that he'd ever had in all the time he's taught the class.  He said "not everyone but most of them were extremely good."  But I thought "you don't know, maybe yours was one of the few not-so-good."  He hands them out at the end of class, I scuttle back to the subway platform and thought "well, let's have the bad news."  BAM!  A!  A full A.  The difference between an A- and an A is so small, but so significant!

Back to class again--we were talking about the Roman, and he asked for thoughts--I said I thought it was kind of devolutionary, that the professor had said earlier in the term that one of the geniuses of this culture was that they were able to transform all this aggressive, militaristic, rapacious energy and channel it into the interactions of courtly love, which rewarded gentlessness and restraint--and here is de Meun upending all of that and mocking it.  He nodded vigorously.  Going further (I didn't say this in class, this is occurring to me now), perhaps it is because the clerical culture that received the Roman so well were far enough removed from the chaos of the Dark Ages that they took the relative peace for granted and thought the whole courtly love thing was just soooooo played out.  I dunno though, the 13th century wasn't THAT peaceful.  Not quite the complete balls-up trainwreck that was the 14th century, but still, they had a few Crusades going on yet).  Anyway I also mentioned that I saw a comparison to the works of Neil LaBute (Roman de la Rose is pretty explicitly misogynistic under the guise of satire, so much so that de Meun basically inspired the birth of what we would now call feminism, although they referred to it as la querelle de la Rose--BTW, please note that the paper to which I just linked from by a Sweet Briar student!)  I said that LaBute has a complicated reputation, that he is seen as pretty misogynistic and I wasn't sure if I agreed, because portraying misogyny is not the same thing as endorsing it, but he too (like de Meun) is criticized as taking the satire, the "hook," too far.  You could hear the minds of 3/4 of the class, who've never heard of LaBute, checking out but the professor really liked this.

Oh, and in other news--the woman for whom I work on Mondays and Thursdays had me go to Barnes and Noble yesterday to get some Christmas gifts, and she told me to get one for myself, so I got a book I've been eyeing longingly for awhile, The Little Ice Age, by Brian Fagan.  YUM.  Glaciers swallowing Swiss towns whole and torrential rainpours leading to had harvests and famine--sign me up.
ceebeegee: (Crescent Moon)
 Oh, on the way back I watched the Sex and the City sequel.  I don't get at all the clutching of pearls over how terrible this movie supposedly was.  It's a comedy, guys.  Yes, it's over the top.  Yes, there are lame puns.  Did any of the reviewers ever even watch the show?  At its heart the movie is about being a woman--working, mothering, partnering--and more importantly, female friendship.  I mean, some of these reviews are...unbelievable.  Really, openly misogynistic--the Salon review actually muses that it would be "kinder" for SJP et al. to be "shot in the head or skinned alive by Arkansas rednecks," complete with a graphic of SJP being stabbed.  The posters responding to the reviews just slamming, savaging the appearances of these women.  They're not just "ugly," they're an offense to human eyesight everywhere.  They're all too old, too hideous.  One poster actually quoted her 15 year old son saying "false advertising--not in the city and not sexy."  (Oh, well, if some 15 year old BOY doesn't think four women 40 years and old and over isn't sexy, hand me the razor blades now!)  They're "degenerate," "bitches" (they're called this a lot), "desperate," "frantic." Another poster "forsees" a murder-suicide pact between SJP & Matthew Broderick.  Really pretty creepy.  Disturbing.  I see some of this over-the-top hatred for the Twilight series as well--(I'm not talking legit criticism--I am the last person to defend Twilight's actual literary merit--they're not well-written, but they are FUN.  I'm talking about non-stop ranting).  If you don't like it, DON'T WATCH IT.  See how easy that is?  Do you think spend my time watching and trashing Transformers or whatever fanboy franchise there is out there?  I could care less what someone else watches, if it's just mindless fun--which both Twilight and SATC are.  Oh, but wait, there's another element in here--as one poster on Salon put it:

And for many of the commenters here, piss off, you sexist, misogynistic pricks who can't stand that after 60 plus years of television there's FINALLY a show in which you are NOT the center of attention.

And that is really the crux of the overreaction to Twilight and SATC, IMO.



Agony...

Aug. 12th, 2010 11:17 am
ceebeegee: (Mad Men)

I did something weird to my neck and back a few nights ago--I think I slept on it wrong--and it's gotten worse ever since, to the point that drying my hair this morning was difficult to impossible.  Very stiff and painful--last night it was literally tingling.  As pathetic as this sounds, it's difficult even to eat an apple right now (as indeed I am trying to do).  All I can say is, this had better clear up before Saturday and softball!

I was at Columbia yesterday trying to talk to an administrator and an assistant overheard me and was asking me about myself.  I was telling him besides my student life, I'm an actor "who happens to be going for her master's in history" and he commented on how disparate the two activities were.  I said actually one can inform the other and was telling him about dramaturgy and he was unfamiliar with the term so I had to explain it.  I made the mistake of citing Mad Men as a show that would require a dramaturg.  HUGE mistake.  He went off on a literal tirade--five minutes long--about how much he disliked the show, how every time he'd watched it there were all these egregious fashion errors, and anachronistic haircuts and I don't know what all.  Matthew Weiner is notoriously fanatical about his research so this seems unlikely but whatever--I don't care if someone doesn't like a show I like, just don't force me to listen for five bleepin' minutes while you take over the conversation and go off to a complete stranger.  Don't hold forth.  I don't care that much and I have things to do.  People who ignore unspoken conversational signals--like looking away awkwardly while someone speaks for five minutes, not letting in a word edgewise--really, really irritate me, because I'm finally forced to say awkwardly "uh, okay--I actually need to leave now..."  It wasn't quite mansplaining, but there has to be a word for men who force their opinions on women, because this isn't the first time this has happened.

On further Mad matters, I read this rather hysterical post on TWoP:

I needed a boost after losing all the respect I ever had for Joan with the revelation that her "independence" was bought at such a price. People revile her husband for those few minutes on the floor (and he was wrong, of course) but now I'm angry at her much more. We've had a variety of crimes on this show, but Joan's the only one who's deliberately taken lives, not once but twice. YMMV, but all the conga scenes in the world won't make me warm up to her again. I think her tears at the end were for all the chances she'd thrown away and might never get another shot at.

So--"those few minutes" of rape is bad ("of course"), but abortion is worse?  Are you nuts?  Way to mouthe the appropriate line about rape while tearing into women who might actually need to deal with the results thereof.  Maybe Joan's tears were because even though her worthless fiance threw her down and raped her in her own office, she was still essentially boxed into marrying him, because of the extreme social pressure on women to conform during that period.  I love this show but there are some very misogynistic fans out there--the Betty-hatred is really depressing.  I practically breathed fire reading one post addressing the Don-Betty breakup, saying "they were equally at fault."  All I can say is, if you equate Don's many, many sins in that marriage--pathological cheating, including when she was pregnant, abandonment, invasion of privacy (the psychologist in Season 1), emotional cruelty (his telling her she looked desperate when she wore the bikini, his insulting her, his gaslighting her) and let's not forget--putting your wife and children's entire existence at risk because you're not who you say you are--with Betty's coldness (and hey, remember how not-cold she was in Season 1?  Before she realized how horrible her husband was treating her?), you're seeing what you want to see.  But on the other hand, it's Betty's fault--she's female.
ceebeegee: (Red Heather)
Well, the good news is they caught the vile piece of filth who beat that poor woman at Social. He's a Moroccan construction worker who lives in Pennsylvania who's working here on a job. They also caught him on camera later that night shoplifting a beer. He's being charged with 1st- and 2nd degree assault, attempted rape, and attempted murder, because her injuries are so severe.

The bad (well, more insult-to-injury) news is that, if you can believe it, he's actually trying to claim self-defense. He also grinned at the cameras during the perp walk, because hey! What a great story to tell all of your construction buddies back home, how that bitch turned you down but you sure showed her!

Let's go over this:

*He asked her to dance, she turned him down
*He followed her into the ladies' room
*He attacked her in the stall
*and fractured her skull and broke her eye socket, leaving her unconscious on the bathroom floor with her pants pulled down.

The good news is, 98% of the comments are overwhelmingly supportive of the victim, and harshly critical of the piece of filth who attacked her.

The bad news is, there is the occasional dickless loser who says things like "well, why did she have to turn him down so harshly? If she hadn't been such a bitch..."

But I did love the one commenter who said "you guys are f-ing garbage. you never get laid for obvious reasons; you are scum. Death to scum." That is definitely hitting them where it hurts--obviously they don't believe that woman are worthy of respect, you're never going to raise their consciousness, but if you say "WOMEN HAVE AGENCY. THEY WON'T SLEEP WITH YOU IF YOU'RE A DICKLESS LOSER" that might actually sink in.

Some guys are predators. Nothing will sink in--there's a Nietschean abyss where a normal person's soul would be. For whatever reason--circumstances, upbringing, culture, religion (but ALWAYS by choice, no criminal ever pulls that "I couldn't help myself" crap around me, you always choose to commit a crime)--they are soulless, they exist to prey, to hurt, to defecate on, to kill women. Read about exactly what Ted Bundy did to Lisa Levy and Margaret Bowman at the Chi O house in Florida--he's the perfect example (I won't go into details, it's pretty horrific). He literally chewed them up and spit them out. The evidence tied him to them through the bite marks. Read about Winston Moseley, the "man" who murdered Kitty Genovese and then raped her as she lay dying, who woke up that night and literally said "I want to kill a woman." (He'd already killed two other women.) It's always women. These guys always turn to women--women are weaker, less able to fight of, and for some reason, we're always to blame for--something. Not dancing with the guy, we're stand-ins for the mother, we're...I don't know. But somehow we're always to blame for some loser's problems.

I hope this guy never gets out of jail. And I hope this poor woman is able to heal.
ceebeegee: (Red Heather)
Monserrate heckled mercilessly during his debate with opponent for Queens seat in upcoming special election.

My favorite part is the protesters who slashed red lipstick on their cheeks every time he promised to "cut" anything.

Monserrate was convicted last fall of slashing his girlfriend's face with glass a little over a year ago (he is seen on video dragging her through the lobby of their apartment building). Subsequently the State Senate expelled him out but he fought it--he actually sued the State Senate. A judge smacked him down, affirming the right of legislative bodies to discipline their own members. He was also right in the middle of those shenanigans last summer with the deadlock in the State Senate, and he's also voted against gay marriage in New York State, notwithstanding his campaign promise to Empire Pride to vote for it. Not only is he running again, if you can believe it he's cast himself as the victim in the whole girlfriend slashing-and-dragging, Senate expulsion thing. He made a speech, saying he "had been made a scapegoat" and "accused his critics of exploiting an 'ethical bully pulpit' and called the process to expel him 'the height of arrogance.'" Just...wow. Truly shameless. This is really just another example of the shithead-male entitlement thing as the beating at the Social--this is obviously a guy who thinks he has the right to discipline his "woman" and is outraged than anyone could suggest otherwise.
ceebeegee: (crescent moon)
...vomiting (the scene is Super-Size Me when he yaks on the second day right out the van window, all the while cataloguing his symptoms ("I got the McGurgles in my stomach now...") KILLS me). In real life vomiting really grosses me out, I sympathy-gag. But at a distance, there's something hilarious about it.

...stampeding (there's something hilarious about a situation so awful that everyone comes together as one entity, focused on ESCAPE--I'm thinking about the scene in the novel The Great Santini when Karen accidentally lobs the medicine ball onto her dad's foot and instantly all four Meecham kids, who normally fight a lot, are out the door).

...really egregious breaches of behavior.

This has all three. I cannot stop giggling.

[Although I have to object to the title of the original site that Gothamist cites. I'm really tired of douche being used as an insult. It's implicitly misogynistic. It's like when you want to insult a man by calling him a vagina--the insult is in the comparison to the female side, like hysteria (from the Greek root word for womb, hustera). Douches are disgusting because ohhh, they touched someone's girly bits, gross! They're like tampons! Anything that touches girly bits will make your wee wee shrivel up and fall off. Just call these things obnoxious, or assholery. Everyone's got an asshole.]

And this site is also hilarious: Nic Cage as Everyone. I especially like Nic Cage as Pennywise:

Profile

ceebeegee: (Default)
ceebeegee

February 2017

S M T W T F S
    1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728    

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 24th, 2017 12:44 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios