When I was young, it seemed that life was so wonderful,
a miracle, oh it was beautiful, magical.
And all the birds in the trees, they’d be singing so happily,
joyfully, oh, playfully watching me.
But then they sent me away to teach me how to be sensible,
logical, oh, responsible, practical.
And then they showed me a world where I could be so dependable,
clinical, oh, intellectual, cynical.
There are times when all the world’s asleep,
The questions run too deep for such a simple man.
Won’t you please, please tell me what we’ve learned
I know it sounds absurd, but please tell me who I am.
I say, now watch what you say or they’ll be calling you a radical,
a liberal, oh, fanatical, criminal.
Won’t you sign up your name, we’d like to feel you’re acceptable,
respectable, oh, presentable, a vegetable!
But at night, when all the world’s asleep,
The questions run so deep for such a simple man.
Won’t you please, please tell me what we’ve learned
I know it sounds absurd, but please tell me who I am. – Roger Hodgson
A long epigram, I know, but an important one. From the time I was quite young I had the feeling that I was being groomed for exploitation, prepared to be used for my abilities by people who didn’t give a damn about me as a person, and when this song came out (the summer before I turned 13) it really spoke to me. Over and over again it had been crammed into my head that as the bearer of an “exceptional” intellect it was my duty and responsibility to allow that intellect to be used for the “good of society”…but according to the dictates of what “authorities” declared to be the right way, despite the fact that my mind was supposedly better than theirs! In other words, they wished to exploit my brain, and those of other intelligent people, as computers, without judgment or feeling of our own. I was never to question the status quo, but only to allow myself to be applied like a power tool to whatever “problems” the “authorities” wished to attack. Furthermore, I was never expected to ask what was in all this for me; that was “selfish”. Presumably I was supposed to be satisfied with existing as a nameless, faceless cog, uncompensated by wealth, respect, recognition or even self-actualization.
Yet despite this, second-wave feminists and neofeminists preach that it’s somehow “better” to be valued for one’s intellect than for one’s sexual characteristics; as anyone who’s ever experienced both can attest, that’s a load of rubbish. There is absolutely no difference in being “valued” for any one characteristic over another if those doing the “valuation” don’t care about the individuality of the one so “valued”. A charwoman who is treated like a human being, compensated generously and recognized for her contribution is a lot better off than a professor who is overworked, underpaid, put-upon and mistreated, and anyone in his right mind should be able to recognize this. The fact that neofeminists do not is a clear demonstration of their anti-sex neuroses and anti-male bias; they imagine that heterosexual activity constitutes mistreatment in and of itself, no matter what the attitude of the man involved, and are therefore unable to rationally compare the advantages and drawbacks of sex jobs with non-sex-related jobs. On the other hand, many of them also have an equally deep and neurotic bias toward political titles and positions, and consider such titles rewards in and of themselves; they are therefore unable to rationally compare the advantages and drawbacks of “intellectual” jobs with non-“intellectual” jobs.
In my column of one year ago today I discussed what I called the “lie at the heart of neofeminism”, namely its claim to support the rights of individual women while actually subjugating such rights in order to advance the political power of neofeminists (who claim to represent “all women” as a gestalt). Since abortion allows women to reject their biological function as females neofeminists wholeheartedly embrace the right to it, but since prostitution allows men access to sex on fair and equitable terms they viciously oppose it, despite the obvious fact that a woman’s right to do as she likes with her own body and life supports the right to prostitution even more clearly than it supports the right to abortion, since the former involves only her own body and time while the latter arguably involves the rights of two others. Either human beings own and control our own bodies, or we don’t; either individuals have the right to our own sexual choices, or we don’t. You simply can’t have it both ways. If the individual is to have personal autonomy his or her individuality, especially as represented by his or her decisions and personal preferences, must be absolutely inviolate until they abrogate the rights of another. Neither society as a whole nor any subset of society (political party, religious sect, “authorities” or whatever) has the right to restrict or control the lives of individuals no matter how stupid, “sinful”, ugly, “selfish”, disgusting, “unhealthy”, self-abusive, “sexist” or otherwise undesirable those individuals’ actions may seem to anyone else.
What it all boils down to is this: I’m a package deal. You want something from me? Fine, as long as it’s something I’m willing to give, and you’re willing to give me what I want in exchange, and you understand that it will be given on my terms and in the manner I judge best. If that all works for you I’m your girl; if it doesn’t, you need to look elsewhere. My gifts and abilities are mine to be used as pleases me; they are not for others to command or control, and only I determine which of them I’m willing to trade on, and when and how they will be employed. I do not accept other people’s judgment as to which of them are “good” and “bad”, which “proper” and which “improper”, and I will no more obey demands for the use of my intellectual abilities than I will obey demands that I refrain from using my sexual ones. Call me radical or criminal if you like, but understand that I am not and never will be anyone’s vegetable.
(P.S. – Hodgson, Supertramp and the record company appear to be embroiled in some childish dispute; there are videos of Hodgson performing the song alone, Supertramp performing it without him and others covering it, but every time someone posts the original version it is soon taken down. The linked video was the best version I could find, but the sound quality is terrible; if anyone can find a better one please post it in a comment.)
“The average woman would rather have beauty than brains, because the average man can see better than he can think.”
As always Maggie thanks for the great article. Its a shame so many women in this society are ridiculed and looked down upon by a ignorant and condescending society…..just for simply using what they were blessed with as either a talent or a means to support themselves.
We have had extremely talented athletes, Olympians, musicians,etc. over the century(Mike Jordan, Usain Bolt, Michael Phelps, Elton John,etc.) using their gifts and HARD WORK to get involved in careers that make them satisfied….so what is the difference if we have beautiful women that want to use only their beauty and body to succeed in life.
Not everyone is as lucky enough to have inherited intelligence…and even if they do have the means to improve that intelligence sometimes they just want to use their Body and Beauty instead. There should be no harm in feeling this way, but for some reason it is a crime in the society we live in.
I can kind of(somewhat) understand the criticisms if it was a man that was using his “beauty” as a long term career to get ahead in life. But there should be no issue with women doing so, and there should be no reason why they should be told they cant do so because its “unnatural” or “unusual”.
I don’t think neofeminists are looking for true equality and liberty.
I think they just really want to control women because, in the end – they want to control men too. They want to control everyone. They envision a great, global “union” of womanhood – complete with neofeminist Lysistrata “union bosses” who tell every woman what to do.
But look … the physical power of men has to be harnessed by the government right? That’s been the story since human history began. And, of course, no government can be truly in control of the people unless it also controls the sexual power of women. So the physical power of males is harnessed for the good of the government – and the sexual power of females is “modulated” and controlled for the same ends.
The neofeminists really aren’t “feminists” – they’re just another incarnation of tyranny.
But … within the organization of this “tyranny” … you can’t have things like good looks and beauty having an influence on the hierarchy of the organization – especially when most of the women who want to be in control of this “union” are … shall we say? Less than appealing to anyone. I don’t know why they worry about this – since if they train their little “Lysistratas” correctly, their looks and beauty will be washed away by years of bitterness and anger. Bitterness and anger tend to do this.
I understand how you felt growing up and thinking you were being “groomed” for exploitation. I think maybe all of us were. I wasn’t a very smart kid myself, but my DNA comes from Gaulish and Scott Highland stock – which means I was big and dumb like they were – and easily manipulated.
So where you were able to exert your own independence – I never was.
I think it’s a testament to women overall that they behave more independently than men do. Men are easy to manipulate by tyrannical forces.
Now that you’ve alluded to Lysistrata, I never again want to see you claiming to be dumb and uneducated. 😉
I know just enough to be dangerous.
Don’t get me wrong – I’m totally in love with myself – but, at 49, I now have the wisdom of knowing my past failings and limitations.
When I say “dumb” … I’m simply referring to the fact that I can be easily manipulated by anyone pushing one of my three “superman” buttons … “truth, justice, and the American way”. In WWI there were some “recruiting posters” that said something like “Stop the Hun!” with a drawing of an evil German soldier leering at a poor young woman as if he were about to brutalize her. I’m the guy that would have run down to the recruiting office to immediately sign up – just based on that propaganda – which I don’t even think was completely true.
I shudder to think what I would have done for the “Fatherland” had I been a young man in Hitler’s Germany.
Thank GOD I wasn’t.
That’s my definition of dumb. The good thing is – I know this is a weakness I have and I have to fight it. It’s one of the reasons I read your blog because you seem to have defeated this demon before you even became an adult.
As a friend of the family once said, “Maggie was born adult.”
Maggie that was a very sweet statment to make to Krulac. A lot of we men can understand Krulac’s feeelings. Thanks
You’re welcome, but I only said it ’cause it’s true. 🙂
One of the all-time great album covers, and a good record to boot. “Album covers”–now there’s a dying art.
Great song.
What an eloquent statement, Maggie.
Society used to operate under the assumption that those with much wealth have noblesse oblige. But if it was a talent that made you so extraordinary, like Beethoven’s then his noblesse oblige would be to teach some students for free, which he did.
In short it’s not a conspiracy but a value system. All over the world the value systems of a society require compliance ( as in the social contract of Rousseau). Non-conformance is easier in some than in others, and I again applaud your courage and forthrightness.
It’s wonderful that Beethoven had some generosity. Reading about people who have/had some generosity reminds me of the character Ebenezer Scrooge (hope I spelled that right). Truly wonderful how he opened his heart and starting giving! He’s 1 of my favorite fiction characters of all time and another reason for that is because he shows that horrible people can change for the better at any time. “Noblesse oblige” is a wonderful thing. Thanks for mentioning it.
No problem, Laura. I can see the both of us are softies.
The WONDERFUL (eyeroll) world system tells us: giving stuff away is weak and stupid. The people you give to never appreciate it. Everything is a transaction. Everyone should be a mental miser at all times, keeping track of every interaction, what they get for it, etc., and never let up on that. It’s all about ME, not anyone else! ###*** everyone else since whole groups of people are ALWAYS ###*** (like politicians). The goals in life should be to earn and hoard as many $ as you can and buy all the material things you can. ###*** the poor. Most of them are that way because they want to be and the solution is to never help them. Not helping will FORCE them to find jobs instantly, etc. I’m very glad to hear that Beethoven didn’t fully take part in this stuff.
Laura, don’t take this the wrong way. I’ve seen a lot of your posts here and I’m trying to figure out your philosophy of life – because it seems fairly interesting.
I’d like your opinion on something though – and that is the thought that … isn’t everything a transaction and, is anything really free?
For instance, in it’s purest form – I can give $100 to a homeless person and it looks, on it’s face, as if I’m not getting anything in return for it.
But why did I give the guy the $100?
Doesn’t giving him the money make me FEEL good? Doesn’t it make me feel like I’m doing something positive for the human condition in giving that away? And – doesn’t it make me feel a bit morally superior to others who aren’t willing give things away like that?
This was an interesting concept that I learned from a devout Hindu I met in Bahrain once – he was probably a “trafficked” guy brought in to work at the hotel I was staying in. But he spoke good English and I had a long talk with him one evening.
Anyway – he pointed out to me that Christian faith, indeed most faiths – preach that one who practices goodwill and deeds is rewarded with heaven. And, in these religions … people who do good deeds and live life according to their scriptures EXPECT to be rewarded with something positive in the afterlife. So, by giving 10% of your income to the church – it’s okay because people expect the return on investment to happen in the afterlife.
Sooo … according to this Hindu, even good deeds and gifts given for free are normally always given with some expectation of a reward or … some kind of return, even if intangible.
But … HIS GOAL in life, as a Hindu – was to do all these things and love his God without the slightest expectation of a reward – in any form. And he said … “Of course this is a very difficult thing to achieve”.
To which … LOL … I agreed.
Dear Krulac,
This is a classic argument about the mixed motives of altruism. I give a lot and it doesn’t make me feel morally superior. It makes me feel spiritual for a short period of time. It simply feels better to be generous than to be remote and aloof.
Altruism only exists because it has survival value; and it is widespread enough that fake beggars can make okay money in certain places – certainly better than minimum wage – plus no boss, flexible schedule etc .
gumdeo wrote: “Altruism only exists because it has survival value”
I was altruistic when I did not believe in any concept of deity or spirituality and I thought my altruism would never be rewarded in any way. I did not expect, and usually did not receive, any thanks at all for my altruism. My altruism did not make me feel good about myself, since I had no clear moral code by which altruism is defined as a virtue (I was raised without religion). I know now that my altruism was God working within me without my knowledge, but I had no awareness of that at the time.
Hunger doesn’t make me feel good, but it is there to keep us alive. Otherwise we might forget to eat, and the body would begin to break down and die; someone who lacks hunger is less likely to have viable descendants. Those born without the sensation of pain have to be constantly watched so they do not burn themselves without realizing it.
Altruism is similar; the happiness of the altruist is completely irrelevant. It exists because – like pain and hunger – it helps the species as a whole to survive and prosper. Those that cannot feel empathy for others (ie. psychopaths) are going to be that way whether they are believers or not.
gumdeo, altruism may help the species as a whole to survive and prosper, but it does not help the altruistic INDIVIDUAL to survive and prosper.
The whole point of altruism is to take you out of yourself, isn’t it?
Marla – yes it does, because the second-order benefits of having a functioning group exceed the first-order drawbacks of giving something you can afford to lose. If it were bad for the individual, it would have been selected out long long long ago.
Is it possible to have a clear moral code without religion? Also, isn’t it terribly possible to have religion but precious little in the way of morals?
I’m not arguing that those with religion can’t have morals, nor that those without religion will inevitably have morals, but I do think that there is not as much correlation as many would like to think.
Sailor Barsoom, of course yes, it is possible to have a clear moral code without religion. My point was that the vague moral code I had as a non-religious teenager did not include altruism. I didn’t actually BELIEVE that my altruism was morally right, let alone morally mandatory. If I had been analytical enough to ask myself why I was altruistic, my answer would have been, “Um… I don’t know.” But I still did it anyway. God was working through me and I didn’t know it until I eventually figured it out.
I’m a peculiar bird; I do believe in doing what I perceive to be right, including altruism, even if nobody knows I’m doing it but me and the universe; and to avoiding wrong, even if it hurts. But at the same time, I believe that forcing anyone into “altruistic” behavior destroys the moral good on both sides: on the forcer’s side because forcing others to do things they neither desire nor require is evil, and on the forcee’s side because any actions which are compelled by others are at best amoral.
Gumdeo,
I’ve been homeless 4 times and jobless many. Panhandlers do not make more than minimum wage. You should try living on the streets for a month to see what it’s like.
In addition, many homeless people surviving on begging can’t work because they are schizophrenic or some other affliction that keeps them from working. I wish people would stop cynically assuming that the homeless are homeless out of choice and that they make tons of money. That assumption is a complete joke.
I don’t think Gumdeo is referring to a typical panhandler in the United States, but to professional beggars in some third-world countries. In the right place, a skillful beggar can literally make a career of begging and do better than his poorer neighbors.
Maggie, I think Gumdeo was referring to panhandlers in the United States or the West in general, not the third world, because he said they could make “better than minimum wage”. Third world countries don’t even HAVE a minimum wage.
Guinevereschampion, I did not mean to imply that genuine homeless people were well off; that is an absurdity and I apologize if I gave that impression.
However, in London, England there certainly are particular locations in the financial district and on the metro where a person can make money if they time it right (Friday and Saturday are the best days).
Well, that’s beyond my knowledge. Thanks for the clarification.
Dear guinevereschampion, I’m very sorry you’ve had these hard times. I’ve learned from being your friend that you’re NOT the type to take advantage, not work hard, etc. Yes, many homeless are that way through no fault of their own. THANK YOU for stating this. It’s very needed. They’re seen as literal trash. 1 of the worst things is people saying they don’t deserve sex. It’s no better than acting like the other men who are poor in $ are literally invisible (never mentioned and when they are it’s derogatory). Women can have sex only friends without being in a full relationship with them. Why in the world does the fact that some men are poor in $ have to do with women who are able-bodied and CAN pay their own bills? If you’re not in a full relationship with poor men then why does it matter to begin with if they can help you out financially? Why do all men have to be seen as a potential provider? 1 of the best things about feminism (not the man and sex hating kind) was/is saying women deserve to work also if they can and not be dependent financially on men. Thanks for listening.
This is 1 of the posts I plan to answer before I leave here. I’m saving up for a new computer and can only use the 1 at work for a limited amount of time so it’s taking longer than I planned to catch up on stuff like this. I’ll get to all these things eventually!
Above was to Krulac.
Hi Laura,
Yes, I think Americans are very cynical, the ultimate reason being the strong belief taught by Protestants and Catholics that human beings are born wicked. But it was Calvin who really pounded this home.
.When I was 18 I saw that cynicism makes people gray. That is,closer to being dead.
Some people aren’t and never will be grateful for generosity. That’s because they think generosity is some kind of trick. But they don’t bother me. It’s my moral duty to help people, especially people who ask me face to face for help.
guinevereschampion, most mainstream Protestant denominations don’t teach that human beings are “born wicked”. (I’m not sure what the Catholic Church says about this.) They teach that human beings are born separated from God, not the same thing as being born wicked. I’m not an expert on Calvin but I know he’s extreme enough so that his views cannot be taken as indicative of Protestantism in general.
Christianity offers people a great idealism, not cynicism. It simply states we can’t hope to achieve those ideals without help from God. Not at all the same thing as being cynical.
This was the basis of Christian doctrine for a long time. The churches have made a lot of progress, but if people aren’t born with original sin, what’s the point of Jesus? There isn’t any.
The Bible says in many places that people tend to evil as soon as they are born.
The Jewish concept of original sin was hubris, or overweening pride. St. Augustine taught that original sin was conceived through lust. Calvinists were so brainwashed they believed that only a small number of the elect would go to heaven. The rest of us don’t have a chance.
Dear guinevereschampion, what some call “predestination” is 1 of the most evil heresies in Christianity. It’s very arrogant and wrong. If it’s true (which it’s NOT) then what in the world was the point of Jesus’ mission? It’s incredible to me that ANY man would have the NERVE to put this out (###*** Calvin) and literally play God. It reminds me of those in the ENDLESS debate over the death penalty who say NO murderer can accept Jesus as Savior and that ALL murderers are going to hell even if they truly repent. Incredible! I always bring up to those people Moses, King David and St. Paul. They either willfully ignore the information or start screaming at me with personal attacks. I get good laughs out of these reactions. I also love to bring up non-Biblical murderers like Karla Tucker which they have the same reaction to. The whole ###*** predestination thing is proof of how careful we have to be in regards to what we read and follow. There’s many Scriptures disproving presdestination. Those who hate Christianity to begin with and have never given it a fair chance RUN with these heresies to justify their own closed minds and hearts. Just because certain preachers are famous and SEEN as experts by many doesn’t mean they are and also doesn’t mean they can’t be wrong on some stuff. Martin Luther is 1 of my personal heroes but there was a few things about him I truly hate and find disgusting. He was plain wrong on a few things. All I’ve stated above is 1 reason I’m a Protestant: because the Bible is our standard and the test for all preachers. The study I’ve done on it convinces me it’s a standard I can trust, etc. As far as original sin goes, I’m convinced of it WITHOUT a Bible. I’m convinced of it based on my life experiences, reading about it, seeing it in others, etc. I don’t think I’m “above it all” with this either. It’s obvious to anyone who reads my posts on here that I’ve got major problems in the sexual area in regards to my religious beliefs. I’ll never deny that. There’s 1 area of sex that I’ve found the most resolution I ever will in regards to my beliefs. The others…I wonder if I ever will, but it’s not for lack of trying on my part. I know I have what’s called a “sin nature” and it’s not only been proven to me in the sexual area but in others also. If there’s no sin nature then why haven’t people overall gotten to be perfect or near that? They’ve had a LOT of years to get to that goal. I love these topics and could go on and on if I had the time…but will be quiet now as have gone on long enough. Thanks for listening.
Hi Laura,
yes, there are some more or less Christian sects which believe in universal salvation (Universalism) and Unitarianism which, if you believe in any kind of deity, wouldn’t be cruel enough to send you to hell, certainly not an eternal one.
My personal belief about the afterlife is derived from Egyptian concepts.
In the Judgment Hall you are confronted with all the unnecessary suffering you had inflicted on others. Only here, your ego defenses are gone, and so you feel their pain as your own. If you had an especially murderous life, you may well think you’re in hell.
It works conversely as well. All the joy you brought into people’s lives returns to you.
Thirdly, birds of a feather flock together. Wicked people would find themselves terribly bored in Heaven and would sink to their own level. Pagans. like myself, would flock to the Summerlands, or Paradise. Our Paradise has lots of lusty women and men and there is a constant party.
guinevere’schampion, the great thing about Christianity is that you aren’t automatically condemned to being treated in the afterlife just as you treated other people in this life. You can be redeemed; your sins can be washed away, if you have true faith and your repentance is sincere.
Marla, that’s attractive, but is it just?
Sailor Barsoom, Christianity is free from the human desire for negative, punishing “justice”. None of us deserves God’s forgiveness, yet God forgives us anyway. Jesus Christ paid the price for our sins and propitiated God’s wrath when he submitted to his sacrifice on the Cross, the ultimate act of selfless giving. He is the Bridge between God and man, and through Him we can end the long and painful separation from God and be reborn in union with God. This is how much God loves us; He is overjoyed when one of His children returns to Him, no matter what sin that child has committed.
It doesn’t so much bother me that people can be forgiven no matter what, as it does that salvation comes down to having the right set of religious beliefs. To put it in the context of an earlier conversation:
It isn’t so much that Darth Vader could go to Heaven which bothers me but that he goes to Heaven by deciding that he believes a certain set of religious statements. He needn’t even save Luke.
But the most saintly guy on Tatooine burns in Hell forever if he doesn’t accept these statements. Salvation has nothing to do with good or evil.
If mixing Star Wars and Christianity bothers you, substitute Stalin for Vader and Mother Teresa for the saintly Tatooineian (or whatever an inhabitant of Tatooine is called).
Jesus Himself spoke of doing good deeds, not just invoking faith.
guinevere’s champion, I didn’t say people aren’t born with original sin. I said people aren’t born EVIL. There is a difference. A person born evil is incapable of ever doing any good, and incapable of WANTING to do good. People *tend* to evil, but that’s not the same thing as being *completely* evil. People are also capable of doing good, if they surrender to God working through them.
Good point, Marla. I don’t believe in Original Sin but I do believe Hitler and Stalin and many other sociopaths were born evil, because they lack a brain structure closely linked to empathy. And yes, they can do good.
For example take the local gangster. People know he’s rich, so in order to blend in he gives generously to a Christmas toy program or maybe even something more beneficial. He isn’t doing it out of altruism, nevertheless people are helped.
I don’t need to surrender to God to want to do good. I want to do good anyway; that’s what being humane is about.
Blessings,
Gawaine
guinevereschampion, I have experienced God working through me without my knowledge, especially during the years when I was a nonbeliever, but also since I became a believer. I believe God works through you when you do good, though you may not realize it.
As for your example of a gangster who gives to charity in order to blend in with others but he has no real altruism, God knows our true motives, and He is not fooled. The Bible tells us to be charitable without seeking recognition, meaning to give anonymously.
Marla, I am so alienated from the entire Abrahamic tradition that I hate that God and want nothing to do with him or his scriptures.
“This is the gift”
Life is a trap with iron jaws,
Merciless to the nth degree;
Oh, I’ve been fed well enough,
But women always flee from me.
What is Life without Romance
but the smell of burning bodies;
Glamour, illusion, and poor sparse soil
That kills you as you farm it.
I wear a scarecrow’s clothing
It’s all that I have left,
I can’t remove the rancor I feel
For the author of this madness.
Trapped? Cramped? Bit to the bone?
Paralyzed by Arctic cold?
Lonely? Despairing? Had too much?
This is the gift that God gave.
Dear guinevereschampion, the Bible ALSO says the WORST person can be saved. There’s only 2 unforgiveable sins listed in the Bible: taking the “mark of the beast” during the time that the Anti-Christ will rule the world and not accepting Jesus as Savior. God also made salvation the easiest it COULD be. All it says you have to do is pray to accept Jesus as Savior, believe in your heart that God raised Him (Jesus) from the dead and that’s it. This is detailed in the Book of Romans. What a gift! Amazing! God COULD HAVE said: I hate everyone. Everyone is SCUM. I’m putting everyone in hell. I could care less that they truly repented and changed. ###*** everyone. I’ll also blow up the earth for good while I’m at it. Instead ALL got the opposite. The unforgiveable sin thing in regards to murderers really gets me and I’ve had so many confrontations on that 1 online. The Bible does say if a murderer doesn’t truly repent they do go to hell. But, if they do TRULY REPENT and accept Jesus as Savior they can be saved. If God hated everyone then He wouldn’t have done any of this.
You’re right about God loving murderers. Jesus hung out with all kinds of disreputable people. I don’t mean to argue this, but I recall Jesus saying that the only unforgivable sin is blasphemy. As you know, both Testaments contradict themselves
Have you ever read Cotton Mather’s “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God?”
It’s a cruel sermon about the worthlessness of humanity The Puritans really believed this guy and countless others like them.
Laura, I’m not interested in Salvation. I’m interested in evolving.
My favorite Scrooge is the one played by George C. Scott. His Scrooge strikes me as intelligent, which explains how he got rich. Further, one gets the impression from the performance (or I do, anyway) that after a week or so of random acts of uncoordinated generosity, Scott’s Scrooge will start applying that intelligence to doing something a little more long-term. Hiring people to staff a new enterprise, or establishing a free school. Something that will do more good than short term hand-outs.
Funny, but he’s my least favorite, because his change seemed insincere and artificial. It was as though the first two ghosts accomplished nothing, and the whole conversion happened suddenly with the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come. My favorite portrayal was that of Patrick Stewart, because A) they did a good job of believably portraying why he became as he was, and B) his conversion was gradual and very natural, and almost complete before the third ghost got ahold of him.
I can very much relate to that song 🙂
I should’ve left a better comment… I can relate to the logical song because I was institutionalized most of my childhood life because I was different. To this day I am very different and learned to love myself as is after getting over social abuse. I use the term lightly “Robots”. Robots are how I see society. They think as a collective rather than for themselves always searching for the latest gossip and things on the media that they have no control over.
Peace
Welcome, Kaution; please feel free to comment as often as you like and say as much or as little as you like. 🙂
“With great power comes great responsibility.”
– Uncle Ben
You are using your intelligence for the good of society by writing this blog, Maggie. I’m not sure what the problem is. Yes, you don’t want to be a piece of equipment used by others, but you still manage to do what you were expected to do: use your intellect for the good of others.
That’s true, but it’s good as I see good, that is my own judgment of good. And it’s on my terms, written as I like and on the subject I like. Remember the dude last December who told me I wasn’t allowed to be an individual, and that if I wanted to contribute I had to “think and talk and work” in the “approved” way? Not bloody likely.
As long as you do good, does it matter that you’re not dancing to another’s tune? Indeed, you may reach somebody who only hasn’t been reached because that other tune grates on his ears.
It doesn’t matter to reasonable people like you and me, but it bugs the Holy Hades out of people who think they have the monopoly on Truth.
Maggie dear, I hate to be a pest, but there’s quite a few more typos in today’s post than I’ve become used to seeing in your work. Extra spaces or dropped letters, mostly (me, I tend towards phonetic errors (they’re/their/there and the like), since I type fast and think in spoken words, not written ones). Did we skip a spellcheck?
bias toward political titles and positions, and therefore consider such titles rewards in and of themselves,
To attention whores, they are. 😛
I never rely on spellcheckers; they fail to recognize too many words. I just proofread it again, though, and didn’t see any extra spaces or dropped letters (just one agreement error). Did you read it from the notification email? Because I fixed several errors when it first posted this morning, but the notification preserves the original form at the moment of publication.
Just from reading here, I can tell Maggie’s smart. Also- Being an escort? It’s running a business. Idiots don’t often succeed in starting and running businesses. (They inherit them and run them into the ground, later.)
When I first started as a stripper I honestly tried to hide my intelligence because I thought it might adversely affect my income, but after umpteen men said stuff like “intelligent women are so sexy!” I figured it was as impossible to hide as my eyes, so I stopped trying.
Yes, Being in teaching for 16 years,…….I just adore smart, sexy women.I grew up a Christian/Fundy and with a 5 year ministry degree.These women were Smart,….. the women i was around were very Nanney like. i.e. “mean and shaming.”
That you even thought that assumption necessary is one of the things that really bugs me. At least three of my female friends have, independently, claimed that when they go out, looking for men, they have to pretend to be nurses or kindergarten-teachers because if they let slip that they (horrors!) have a university degree the guys take off faster than if they where lepers! (And they claim that the same goes for some of their friends.)
I find it upsetting enough that I have a hard time articulating my feelings but it is a mixture of indignation, feeling sorry that these women felt it necessary to dumb themselves down and utter contempt for the knuckle-dragging troglodytes that caused it!
Are the majority of men really so insecure that they think they cannot handle an educated woman? Are we, who appreciate intelligence as well as beauty, really so rare that women feel the need to start off a relationship on pretence, just to get company? Really?
(That would explain the sorry state of the world, I guess…)
Well, I was’t trying to gt company, just money. But as it turned out, the assumption wasn’t even necessary in that case! My experience as an escort was that though there are some men who want stupid women, they’re in the minority; the idea that men as a rule don’t like smart girls is IMHO a feminist myth.
Interesting. I agree that there is a difference between meeting men as a business and trying to find a partner but it is interesting nonetheless.
Still, all three of them described it as self-experienced and two of them I would describe as quite independent and self-determining (i.e. more archeofeminist than neofeminist) and not the kind who accept things without scrutiny. But, sure, the plural of ‘anecdote’ is not ‘data’ so maybe they where just unlucky. I hope so.
Also, if you are really intelligent, finding just friends can be difficult. Not to sound like a braggart but I have no male friends (but three female ones) around whom I don’t have to restrain my thinking if I want them to stay in the conversation.
As for intelligent women, I love ’em
However according to recent findings, couples at the bottom of the social structure have sex more often than couples at the top. In terms of intelligence, uneducated people have more sex than highly educated people do. Women of higher status reject me automatically. So I’ve done something different this time and found a woman of average intelligence in prison. Things are promising – she talks like a wildcat.
Dear guinevereschampion, ###*** those women that reject you right off. I have a strong feeling they’re the type that if you don’t already have a certain amount of $ then you’re seen as trash. They’re such snobs that if men don’t have a certain amount of $ already then they don’t want them as sex only friends either. Every man they meet is judged by the $ they already have or what they make per hour, etc. The value of men is just seen in what they have materially. ###*** “status” anyway. It’s another way of putting people into safe, little category boxes that snobs love and also the 1’s who say “I’m against telling others how to live” but show the opposite by their words/actions.
Yeah, I know. Occasionally, a client would spot a book I;d left lying around (Something to do while waiting for him). There would sometimes be the “You’re reading that?” surprised question.
Of course, you know, high-school dropout, stripper/porn/hooker, you know, I’m supposed to be stupid. But I confuse them. My accent says I might be smart.
Working on coloring comics tonight, which isn’t my favorite part, so yeah, I’m on here a lot.
I suspect the whole “Whores are too stupid, crazy, drug addicted, or under the control of a pimp” story is just another one of those we’re taught to tell ourselves to keep society going. We’re taught to be hard working, thrifty, sober, and faithful and obedient to the bosses, and virtue will be rewarded. (I’ve found that lack of virtue was rewarded.)
When younger, I found myself facing the choice of working as a waitress not making enough to survive, or stripping and doing fine. I made a logical choice. if we allow young women to make those choices, well, who will answer the phones, teach, scan the groceries, take care of the sick and old, and all for a pittance? The men might get jealous (I suppose professional sports is kind of a male equivalent).
The whole structure of a subservient working class might be upset, and what would our capitalist masters do then? (Hey. I’m the only socialist on here, I occasionally have to say stuff like that.)
LOL! Actually, Comixchik, Deep Geek is a socialist as well; he just doesn’t comment very often. 🙂
Do you do web comics, or ink-and-paper ones? I’ve always assumed you were a fan of them; I didn’t know you drew them!
I do web comics, or at least, I’m trying to. I draw and ink them by hand, and scan them into the computer and color them. I do it as a hobby, Back when I had my business going, I decided what the hell, and did a comic about a whore and put it up on my website. People loved it. So I did more. It made my website different, (well, that and the XXX videos). I had guys book just because I was the escort with the comics. I got e-mails saying that even if the guy (some women, too) would never get to visit me, they loved the comics.
After I gave that up a few years back (arthritis and lover who disapproved.) I stopped drawing for a while. Now I’m back at it. I’m doing a comic about a sex-worker, mostly my stories (I’m sadly not a writer.) or a few from others I’ve known. Unlike the last one, this won’t be a porn comic. (Well, not intentionally. Not sure how to communicate some things without drawing them.) It’s more really about the life of a slightly fictionalized character who just happens to do sex work, and is ok about it all, and has a real life and friends and is just like a normal person, almost. I’m drawing the comics, and some day will have to sort out how to do a website.
If you’ve got them online somewhere, I’d love to link to them.
I don’t have yet, still working on that. Website creation is a mystery to me, but thanks. When I do get them up, I will send you a link.
I’d love to read them when they become available. Are your old comics still around?
Comixchik,
Is your website still active?
No, I took the site down when I ended my sex work career. (At least, I think I have. There are plenty of days I wish I was back doing that.) Some of the stuff on the site upset my partner.
Rats.
No… No… I am more of a centrest. a balance between capt/social.
Sadly, Comixcihik, businesses would just invent robots to do the maintenance work. I predict that in the next 100 years the working class will nearly disappear, all to be replaced by robots.
Bravo!
I wonder if the guys at freakonomics ever analyzed prostitution? They did a really interesting story on hitchhiking, and how ‘dangerous’ it’s purported to be in popular social braintrust, yet in fact when the data was analyzed, hitchhikers have a greater chance of being struck by lightning than having anything bad happen to them. A similar dynamic is working here: social assumptions override the facts.
But why? I guess if we had the answer, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
As Comixchik pointed out, people want to believe whoring is dangerous because we’re “bad” and therefore must be “punished”. It’s childish thinking of the first order.
Re Freakonomics: you bet.
http://www.freakonomics.com/tag/prostitution/
Reading the article, I found this:
>Results of our study: Men seeking casual or no-strings-attached relationships paid an average of $121 for a first date,
WTF?? That’s way cheap. That kind of thing is ruining the business. This is why I really hate to see amateurs getting involved. They don’t know how to operate professionally, they create messes, attract the cops, and get themselves hurt, then leave the business with weepy sob stories.
Sometimes, although I’m very pro-sex and against old fashioned religious based morals, I think we;d be a bit better with some Victorian-type morality. Keep the amateurs out of it, leave being the fallen women to people like me.
I’m with you on that. Sloppy amateurs cause no end of headaches for the rest of us and have raised the bar on what men expect (kissing, etc) far more than porn ever did. 🙁
Isn’t anyone starting out in ANY job an “amateur”? Seriously? You can read up on a job, etc., but until you’re actually ON the job that’s the only information you have to go on. Actually DOING a job teaches you the most. There’s 2 groups of men that we non-whores help that deserve sex as much as the men not in these 2 groups: men poor in $ and the men that don’t want to see whores. I’m proud to have been “cheap” (eyeroll) in the way I did things (and still can if I decide to). None of the dates I went on were ever close $ wise to $121.
The difference is that the girls she’s talking about remain amateurs in every way but pay; they have no desire to learn professional standards and ethics.
Maggie this is an interesting site, just got introduced to it today and I have had the most interesting and enlightening read. Actually I have read a few of your articles on sex work. I am a researcher on african sexuality and I am studying prostitution and human trafficking in Nigeria. I do believe that prostitution should be de-linked from human trafficking and agree with you and comixchik that amateurs do tend to aggravate the negative perception about prostitution. In Nigeria, there is a cultural silencing about sex and this plays into the politics of sex
I wish I could say it was different in the United States, but it isn’t; for all its pretense at being “modern”, the U.S. is extremely backward about almost everything involving sex.
oops meant to say prostitution should be delinked from human trafficking because the latter tends to connote lack of agency and coercion which is not always the case in adult prostitution