The Vicarious Power of Women

 

Well, he is cute so of course he has his female fans. Hopefully he stays adorable even when he grows up. As we know that happens for some, but not all men. This man is a good example of that truth: Clark Gable. Obviously he, in his turn, adores being adored ....

As to the women then they may resent their fellow Gable-fans: They are rivals, but not necessarily for the sexual favor of this or other men in the meaning "bedded by him". No, what still is important to many women is the status that they obtain by being courted by men. Women have their own inner lists of social status that are based on the impact each of them make on men. That means that rivalry for status may not even be about the man as such, but about their ability to make him and others like him fall for their charms. It sounds crazy, but actually, it's quite logical in a Patriarchy where one sex is turned into a sex object: The female. To be good at being a sex object gives her the right status, primarily with her own group, namely other women. 

She may enjoy being adored by all of these men - whom she most/very likely - has no ideas of sleeping with, and she regrets when age or other circumstances put a stop to it. However, now most women know that that kind of sex symbol-adoration keeps them in a social situation that makes it difficult for them to do much about their true position in a Patriarchy: It, sort of, takes out the steam of their efforts to obtain a genuine, not sex-based career as they may be judged unfavorable by deeds that get men to the top of the ladder. (Actually, that also goes for deeds that make them succeed via the bed of rich and powerful men: In some respects women are "damned if you do, damned if you don't ....")

I bet she will turn some male heads and get some nasty comments by women, either to her face or to her back, as she in some ways give in to the Patriarchal ideas of women as "pure body" and thus nothing but a "sex doll". Theoretically she may be anything from a successful business woman, a politician with genuine power, a famous artist or writer, but her clothes signal that she is nothing of that kind: She is the plaything of men a toy. However that may be only men will be naive enough to think that all of this comes without thought and planning. As women will know that's far from it, and what's more, by turning herself into a plaything she may obtain the kind of power which is open to women in a Patriarchy: The influence on those in power, namely the men. The female vicarious power should not be shrugged at, but in my opinion more because it has its limits and it deludes women into believing that they are powerful, than anything else. Genuine power is something else:

 
   
 

Severed Heads And Those Who Want Them

The words "Bring me his head!" have a certain Biblical ring to them as they may get us to think of the beautiful Salomé revenging the insults of John the Baptist when he called her mother a "whore". The still quite famous Hebrew king Herod didn't want to execute the holy man, but watching the sexy dance of his Salomé made him forget his wish to protect John and instead give in to her when she demanded the head of the prophet as her reward for tickling his senses with her dance skills (Mark 6: 21-29 and Matthew 14: 6-11). 

The decapitaded head of the French king Louis XVI

Several royal individuals have lost their head when they lost the power that made them one of the "heads" of the state. That goes for e.g. two of the six queens of Henry VIII, Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard. Sad stories of the trials of these two women depict them as innocent according to modern standards so maybe that's the reason why the ghost of Anne Boleyn, carrying her decapitated head, has been seen ever since her untimely death?   

Presumably the ghostly finger of Anne Boleyn as captured on camera

OK, the idea of Anne as a victim who may have got a new life after her death is at least funny or even thought-provoking, but what about her experience of the decapitation? I remember that the heinous French serial killer Henri Désiré Landru was very concerned to get to know for how LONG his severed head might experience the situation and whether it might be able to perceive his dead body. Well, that's not as far out as it may sound as scientists from New Zealand in 2013 took on an experiment of decapitating some rats, and they observed neural activities for 10-15 seconds after the decapitation .... 

Major General Horatio Gordon Robley

This fine (!!!) collection of what is severed heads of dead people are to be found in the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, but i t stems from an European obsessions with this kind of "memoralia" from what was considered "primitive societies". Many of the heads of unfortunate people who met head hunters of various observations and nationality lost their life because of this uncanny obsession. Heads like these had been holy objects or just some kind of souvenirs of defeated enemies, but with the Christian invasions they turned into merchandise. Sadly enough that meant that many of them were "made to order": Some were hunted down, got killed and beheaded so that their head might bring in some money ....  

Shrunken heads which are known to the Indians who made them as "tsantsas" stem from an age old belief that shrinking the head of an enemy would make it impossible for his spirit to take revenge. Those who bought them most likely didn't believe in this ideology which in my opinion makes their obsession to get these heads even more uncanny. To them the heads were nothing but a macabre kind of souvenirs whereas they actually were vital parts of murdered peoples' corpses.

We still know the expression "Headhunting", but not in such an uncanny way as in former societies. To be hunted  down by a skillful head hunter may even be the dream of many modern people who want a career ....

 

https://allthatsinteresting.com/mokomokai

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3184015/Anne-Boleyn-s-ghost-captured-camera.html 

 

https://www.profilpartners.dk/en/companies/headhunting-search-and-selection-denmark/ 

 

Wikipedia 

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