Tuesday, March 31, 2015

Mind's Eye Re: Sacrilegious Women

Being moved by beauty is quite different than objectifying a person for self interest, isn't it? But I think we understand so little about beauty, and the notion of courtly love drifted away with those of nobility and valor decades ago. Not to sure the schizophrenic doesn't objectify themselves and others a million times over to create their psychodramas. And all that has little to do be being honestly moved by love and beauty.

The sacrilegious women that I know are deeply in tune with their innate intelligence, and see religion for the (often ridiculous) bureaucracy that it is.

On Monday, March 30, 2015 at 9:22:34 PM UTC-4, archytas wrote:
Can't get enough of them myself.  Rosa's time is round again, our politics back to sordid choices of left and right that are no choice at all.  Our sacrilegious women are perhaps the Greens, though the Anglicans have thrown up a female Bishop.  My genes, of course, organise my view of women in some dire connection with libidinal reproduction and sexual preference.  It is somehow profane to talk of such, yet this "language" is everywhere.  Women are these "things" in front of me in newsrooms are they?  I use the word "things" in the sense of how the bevy of 'beauty' hits me.  Bored with no news, and I can't remember in what year there last was any, my mind runs a little salacious.  I don't notice the men, as they do nothing at all for my crude eye, other than get looked at by the "things" in occasional adoration.  And what are these "things", cooing no news?

I grant, to an extent, that I have become a sad old man, like one of Plato's characters in The Republik, watching naked gymnastics.  Yet it isn't me who writes in complaining I can't see the legs on these "things".  You see, I'd listen to Microsoft Sam ahead of the sickening bimboism of the newsroom, he "he" had any actual news.  Newsrooms are just one example of of the glaring use of crude sexuality, mannered into manners as though some decent way of being.  This "way of being" is just another way to make real people, real women invisible.  One trip to the town centre, and I know these newsroom things must be another species.  They wouldn't add up to one Rosa, maybe not the shoe left in the mud.

Real people have been invisible or are rendered so in our history.  There are no people in our newsrooms, nothing sacrilegious enough to be real.  The pornography is obvious.  Yet this is easily made invisible by making it profane to speak of.  What a dirty old man I must be to notice any of this.  Did I mention that whatever is in these newsrooms bores me to death and disgusts me?    It is a sexist, ageist, lookist, ableist generally pretty world, the profane as the sacred.  In a classic incident in the UK, Susanna Reid, once a cute bimbo at least, now some over-tanned and past it before 40 'orange person', was bought from the BBC to resurrect ratings on ITV. and pay her somewhere near £500,000.  Letters flooded in when they exhibited her behind a desk and "we" couldn't see her legs.

Top Gear is now in the toilet owning to Clarkson having some spat with a producer.  I think it's long past time to get real in sacrilegious protest.  Quite how these aliens make us invisible to each other I don't know yet.    They are overpaid and the 'sex' they offer is probably some kind of pheromone like that used by slaver ants.  One smell of Rosa's shoe is antidote - but now you'll all be thinking the wrong thing!

On Tuesday, March 31, 2015 at 12:07:07 AM UTC+1, Molly wrote:
Some of my best friends are sacrilegious women.

On Monday, March 30, 2015 at 8:32:43 AM UTC-4, archytas wrote:
In 1919 Rosa Luxemburg, the revolutionary, was murdered in Berlin.

Her killers bludgeoned her with rifle blows and tossed her into the waters of a canal.

Along the way, she lost a shoe.

Some hand picked it up, that shoe dropped in the mud.

Rosa longed for a world where justice would not be sacrificed in the name of freedom, nor freedom sacrificed in the name of justice.

Every day, some hand picks up that banner.

Dropped in the mud, like the shoe.

Uruguayan writer Eduardo Galeano.

I don't want to write in praise of women.  There should be no need.  The particular trials (and terrors and losses and triumphs) of women in a world that generally prefers to ignore whatever they did or dreamed of doing mean little to me, much as I love sacrilegious women.  I am now sick of the equality movement in as far as it is based on gender.  We need more equality, but the gender debate is now more often about special pleading, from new men trying to get inside knickers to posh white tarts breaking the glass ceiling and turning out to be just as corrupt as the posh white crooks already up there. 

What i'd like to see us work out is how we can put together a society that doesn't disable people.  "Success" disables other people.  Does it matter if your crap boss is male or female, or that the CEO of Apple is gay?  Not if you've just seen your kid killed in an Apple supply chain mud slide, it don't.  I want to see more sacrilegious women kicking over the traces of newsroom bimbos (the female on is the one looking dreamily at the male one, as I understand the ethography), not the sisterhood of posh.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Post a Comment