What's in A Name?

 

Many well-known actors, authors as well as not all that famous people have changed their birth name into something they felt would make them more marketable. For instance, just to mention a few, that's what people like Audrey Hepburn, Marilyn Monroe as well as the Russian born Jew Kirk Douglas did. After chosing a movie career he shed his name of Issur Danielovitch because he felt that it was too foreign and much too Jewish to be of use in his career as a movie star.

Someone who wouldn't have agreed to changing one's name for something that "flimsy" is the American woman Assata Olugbala Shakur who was born Joanne Chesimard. I find it hard to bend my tongue to her new name as it's difficult to pronounce. Actually, that goes for many new African names that sort of have pushed the good old names of e.g. Ellen, Julie, Elizabeth, etc., etc. out of business. However, that's not in the least a legit objection to these new names which I suppose often were chosen because of their symbolic value, either of strength, hope or protest. 

 

She is a controversial figure, to FBI she is a murderer and terrorist whom they have tried to capture for 40 years, but to others she is a brave and strong woman fighting for the black community and the rights of black people. Something she wants to give expression to by choosing her new name and "Assata" translates nicely into something like "She who struggles" which is what she has been doing ever since she became a so-called "Black Panther". "Olugbala" means "savior", and "Shakur" stands for "thanks" or "thankful" which turns her name from a non-descriptive entity not chosen by herself into a statement. Actually, that's the point: Her new self chosen name depicts her as she feels she is, body and soul, and not as her parents chose to decribe her from an understanding of what a nice, American girl ought to be. There is no rebellion in "Joanne Chesimard", but there is a lot in "Assata Olugbala Shakur".

 

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/us-news/fbis-most-wanted-terrorist-tupacs-20164553 

https://abcnews.go.com/US/assata-shakur-convicted-killing-police-officer-wanted-fbi/story?id=63076257 

 

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Name-giving 

 

https://progressive.org/magazine/impact-of-assata-shakur-tarala/ 

 

Wikipedia

Prophets and Shady Politicians: "The Ones Who Speak With Many Tongues" ....

I, for one, don't fall for the many people who want us to believe that what they say is "the truth" because they are the prophets of God, something which translates into the "mouthpiece" of God. That's a very unsafe kind of authorization, also because these "prophets" may be what The Bible itself warns against as false. They pretend to be messengers from the Divine authority that is supposed to hold the ultimate power over this world, but in reality they may very well be victims of self-delusions or just criminals who work from an ulterior and not so benevolent urge to gain advantages with their gullible fellow human beings. 

Many people are duped by these "prophets" and follow them, maybe even into death or crimes. I don't find this altogether impossible to understand as I know that many people cling to authorities that may lead them in life, thus making them feel safe and "in the right": They themselves believe they are doing the work of the deity they have chosen to believe in. However, these believers should read what The Bible has to say about this, e.g.

Deuteronomy:

    20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.
    21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken?
    22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

Well, one thing is religion and religious "prophets", but let's not forget that also very, very earthbound and exceptionally narcissistic individuals may attain the status of "prophets" simply because their followers wish to see them that way. A short while ago some Trumper-Republicans were talking about how the former president, Donald Trump, was going to be "reinstated". Some - presumably quite many - still keep heralding the unbelievable belief that this confirmed narcissist is some kind of Messiah. After taking a look at this man's life and professed ideologies that's a ludicrous notion, something crazy and totally beyond reality. However, the adherents of these political prophets, after having talked themselves into believing the unbelievable, seem to really believe the words that come out of their own mouth: The political "prophets" they have chosen are supposed to "speak on behalf of God" which in my opinion gives the "art of Prophetizing" a bad name. However when someone don't have anything to bring them fame and status they grab at whatever they find to grab, and being the "messenger of God" may be the ultimate in that game even in politics.

 

https://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/18-22.htm

 

https://www.forewordreviews.com/articles/article/memo-to-modern-prophets-thou-shalt-follow-these-5-rules/

 

https://www.reed.edu/reed-magazine/articles/2018/music-prophecy.html 

 

http://gospelcity.ca/media/messages/the-antichrist-regime-part-1/ 

 

Boobytrap, November 26, 2022: "Prophets and Religious Testimonials"

 

Wikipedia

 

 

Giving the Gender Games Some Considerations ....

In the animal kingdom which mirrors its human equivalent maleness comes in many forms. Some of them are total opposites of what we have been taught is "natural". For instance a male animal might be an anglerfish which are puny creatures compared to their female partners. They are not at all capable of surviving on their own which means that immediately after being hatched they find a female and fuse with her. Without the female they die, but human males may find this fusing arrangement horrendous as the male anglerfish turns from being an individual into nothing but a sperm bank after losing most of their organs. They are alive, and still not, which tempts me to compare them to the in many ways artificially made women of harems, etc., etc.: They lost their natural looks, health and freedom of movement to become nothing close to sex dolls ....  

However, the male anglerfish may be seen by human men as the lucky one, compared to the male bee - the so-called "drone". These members of the cube have to share the one female who mate: The Queen bee. She may mate with 12-15 of her many suitors which is fewer than one percentage of the males who court her. That means that the main bulk of male bees don't stand a chance of mating, but I think they may live longer, as it is believed, but - as far as I can see - not proven that the "lucky" (???) ones die in the act, so to speak. However, this mating is the climax of a drone's existence, but not only does it make him lose his penis, i.e. the "endophallus", but also his life: The endophallus stays with the female bee and he drops down to the ground, to die shortly after. Both the male anglerfish and the drones as well as many/most of other animal species are potent illustrations of a biological truth that the human patriarchy has done everything in its power to hide from both men and women: Nature made the male expendable if he doesn't hold a rôle in the upbringing of the offspring. Yup, the male is for the female, not the other way around as e.g. the legend of Adam and Eve tries to lure us into believing ....

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/

 

 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/male-honey-bees-die-climaxing-sex/ 

 

 

Wikipedia

Female "Beauty" and the Loss of Freedom

One of the most important part of what is our birth right is a good health condition and bodily vigor. It goes for both sexes to perceive these physical characteristics as the basis of the commonly agreed upon something to be wished for. However, for ages both women and men have done a lot to signal their over all desirability as well as their status in society by unhealthy or even dangerous changes to their body and their looks. 

This sixpack is fake, it's an implant

A new way to obtain the desired "masculine" look of a body overflowing with muscles is to pump it full of dangerous oils. (Salad oils actually!!!!!) Some of these oil-pumped men look grotesque, but I doubt they see it that way themselves. 

One thought provoking trait of body builders (or oil abusers) is that the changes of their body always signal strength, and often a kind of strength that is considered "ugly" or "unfeminine" in women. Actually, it's safe to say that men will go to unhealthy lengths to look overtly strong whereas women will go to just as unhealthy lengths to look childish or at least non-threatening: Not strong. The perfect male traits must be well-known epitomes of "power", whereas female traits and femininity should be conveying signals of the lack of these so-called masculine traits. It's obvious to me that the traditional maleness stands for power and a certain freedom of movement whereas the traditional femaleness signals bodily weakness and the lack of the natural ability to move freely.

Up through history the female dresses have in fact been a sort of harnesses that reduces women's ability to move in a free manner. For a long time the ideal woman has been like a static, silent and unmoveable statue of powerlessness. Some societies even went further than conveying this message of female powerlessness in dresses. That goes for e.g. China and the "ladylike" feet of deformity. A big, natural foot that makes it possible for a woman to walk and run freely was seen as "unfeminine".

A sad sight of deforming "femininity" 

In other cultures women were turned into epitomes of feminine powerless by something that were called "beautiful", but which in reality was a murder weapon. Not to have it meant lack of status, but to have it might lead to one's death with a broken neck ....

Women are not weak by nature, but the very idea of female beauty is somehow connected to weakness, vulnerability and the loss of movement. Dresses that removes the ability of free movement, neck rings or wooden lip plates like in the Mursi society all stand for something that is considered "feminine" and desirable as such.

Mursi women are famous for their wooden lip plates that are seen as a symbol of female beauty and identity. A girl's lower lip is cut when she reaches 15 or 16 years of age, and it's held open by a sodden plug, but it's up to the girls how far they want the lip to be stretched. As far as I can see this is not only a means of obtaining a special "Mursi beauty", but also of shutting up the woman as it must be impossible or very difficult for her to talk. 

Beautiful? Only in a deforming manner, but it makes me think of all the ways of signalling femininity of our society. We should start thinking more of what certain kinds of clothes, tattoos, skin plugs, etc., etc. do to our bodies and our ability to move freely in society. 

Executioners And Their Assistants

George Junius Stinney Jr. (1929-1944), executed 14 years old for the murder of two young girls in South Carolina. He was the youngest American to be sentenced to death and executed in the 20th century. What ties up the case and gives it its grusome perspective is that nowadays he is considered innocent of the crime that cost him his young life. We may - and should - cry for the boy who was killed by a judicial system that should protect him as a citizen, but which took his life. However, the technical problems of the execution also made me think of something else: How is it to be the assistant of a system which makes it legal to kill someone like e.g. the young and presumably innocent boy George Stinney? Or put another way, how is it to be the one who carries out the orders of someone who deems it OK to kill another person?

I read somewhere that the Nazi scum Heinrich Himmler was worried that those who had the job of murdering Jews and others in the name of an insane ideology of "pure blood lines" and many other crazy ideas would find it too trying. He didn't see the murdered victims as humans, but still, he must have recognized their humanity in looks and behavior even to consider the job of their executioners too psychologically demanding which actually turns his and his fellow Nazis' ideology into an obvious scam: They were murdering people and they knew it. That said it's interesting that to him and the executioners who worked for him and the Nazi establishment the main problem was not the murders themselves, but what they did to those who committed them.

I can't deny that I love the rumor that the executioner of the infamous murderer Ted Bundy was a woman. He himself had murdered about 30 young women and probably even more that we don't know of. If anybody deserved the death sentence it's him and to me it feels good that he may have been killed by a woman. I have no idea of what she felt by pulling the handle that set the electrocution going, but I know that he is someone I wouldn't have felt any regrets of sentencing to death or executing myself. That means that to me some killings are not murder ....

Up through history people have done awful things to each other without feeling any kind of regrets. For instance, the man who cuts open the poor man on the ladder does what he is hired to do. Maybe he hates doing it, or maybe not. We shouldn't be blind for the possibility that being an executioner or his assistant may be the dream job of certain individuals, but in The Middle Ages of Europe many of them were condemned criminals themselves. As to their job the assistants - called "rakker" in the Scandinavian languages - also had to clean up the loos, to remove dead animals, etc., etc. and they were not allowed to live with "decent citizen" who did not have to do the dirty jobs of their society. Without the "rakker" that society would go to pieces in filth and illnesses, but he himself (and maybe also his family) were set apart as "unclean". They were not allowed to live within the walls of the cities, but had to stay outside which to many must have been very scary because of their belief in ghosts, demons, etc., etc..

 

I don't know what the condemned man has done, but in a way both he and those who execute the verdict that put him into that barrel were alike in fate: He was condemned and so were many/most of them ....

 

Wikipedia

 

Jobs of Low Merit

Vintage "dust man"

Up through history there has been loads and loads of hideous jobs. Most of them also were in low merit although they, at the same time, were the most useful in making society run as smoothly as possible. Everybody may have admired intellectual workers like e.g clergymen, lawyers, artists, etc., even though they were expendable when it came to "keeping the wheels running". To get one's fingers "dirtied" by removing and disposing of garbage of all kinds has been seen as humiliating and those who had that kind of jobs had low status. Now we honor these people with yearly national garbage man appreciation days, but I doubt that it's more than a symbolic gesture.

I just love this picture of the three leaders of the WWII world, Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin, having to lift their feet so that the bent and worn charlady may wash the floor. This particular version - and I have seen others - has an added symbolism as her scrubbing brush is formed like a scythe .... Without her the three leaders would have to sit in the dirt and dust that heaps up without somebody like her doing their job. 

Another one who "keeps the wheels running" in a patriarchal society, is the prostitute. Hopefully her job wasn't always as awful as it seems to most of us, but she didn't exactly get honored for it. On the contrary, she got abuse and discrimination for her services: The double standard of the patriarchal society didn't leave much room for her as a citizen. The church raged and condemned her for doing what she was paid to do, and the law was against her and marked her down as a criminal which is ridiculous. In her own way she was another kind of "charlady" as the one in the Yalta drawing above. Prostitution always was a job, but somehow it became seen as a special "female sin". These women were perceived as sinners where in reality they were just business women, earning money to make the wheels of their private life turn around.

 

It's obvious that the intellectual jobs always had status, but the ones that were of a physical nature didn't although they were necessary in all societies. One may ask oneself why this is so, but I don't think there is an easy formula for this discrepancy. At this point we may only start mapping the various ideologies we have inherited from our ancestors, but as we ourselves are part of them it will be very difficult really to see what has been going on for so long.

 

https://www.waste360.com/haulers/showing-appreciation-waste-workers-national-garbage-man-day 

 

Wikipedia

When Men HATE Women: Misogyny revival

Are men animals as this guy seems to suggest? No, no, let's not insult the animal kingdom with that kind of statements ....

Some men really ARE stinkers, I admit that much, but let's not forget that so are some women. The female and the male worlds consist of overlapping as well as separate parts. As most of these parts are entwined they in many ways mirror each other: What's considered a  good and acceptable behavior in the "male part" may be seen as the opposite in the "female part". For instance, we still harbor loads of ideas of former generations, especially about sex and e.g. social status: A succesful Casanova is considered a conqueror, whereas his - more or less willing sex partners - are seen as "conquests" which isn't only stupid, but naive. As it is, some women just wanna have fun as the saying goes, but somehow they are only seen as "prey" or even victims if they, as the sexual legend goes, "surrender" to the male.

Now, WHAT IS SHE DOING THERE????? Well, to me that's obvious: She is staring at a well formed butt, dreaming of undressing it. Surprise, surprise, women have a sexual drive too, even though she may be elderly and not considered "beautiful" by men. That means that she is not what patriarchy - which I often insist on calling "the perversion" - likes her to be, namely a commodity for sex and child birth. She was raised to believe that her status as a woman is built on male notions of her beauty and biological usefulness. 

- Much more should be said on that subject and I will, but not today. For now I want to talk about something else that both I and some other women have noticed: These years we seem to be under an evil barrage of new forms of misogyny. Some even call it "The War of the Worlds", i.e. the male and the female worlds, ideologies, etc. ....

When I visit sites as e.g. Reddit I'm surprised at the blatant misogyny in young men. I've seen it in the older generation, but didn't know that the younger one may be even worse. Now there seem to be a general male  demand for modern women - and that means their own generation - stop their feminism and instead return to the sex roles of their great-great grandmothers: ONE sexual partner - namely them - and they don't lose their so called virginity to anyone else but these male "prizes". Men, on the other hand, should be free to roam the streets of whatever "love city" they fancy. Women should stay at home which may be a bit difficult as these men don't seem to suggest that they (namely the women and the children) will be provided for by male labor. One might try to laugh it off as it really is ridiculous, yes, more or less like child fantasies, but on the other hand it seems to gain acceptance in some circles that ought to know better. Vile creatures like e.g. Andrew Tate, the pussy-grabber, ex-president Donald Trump, etc., etc. sprout up, spewing their hateful, perverted rhetoric against women at the same time as Roe v. Wade is shot down by those who should protect the rights of the female sex. That would not happen if the ideological climate hadn't changed in a sad manner.