Damned if you do, and damned if you don't, you're killed anyway  

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I saw this posting on Reddit and it presents an angle to the subject of women being murdered which I must confess that I've never thought of before. Having thought it over agree 100%, so

Why is femicide not considered a hate crime?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Feminism/comments/1bg855u/why_is_femicide_not_considered_a_hate_crime/  

"If you attack or kill someone strictly because of their identity, religion, sexuality, "race, etc. it’s considered a hate crime. You are charged extra and more harshly. Men kill THREE women a day for the same reason, and they are not charged with hate crime. I’ve actually never even seen a man in America be charged with a hate crime, just oversees (mexico, you’re awesome) So why are women excluded from protection? Men would not be killing /beating/ raping us if we weren’t women. Men will specifically target us because we are easy prey, and have a vagina that they can take advantage of. I often hear the argument that it’s because it’s a domestic situation. You could say that the husband killed the wife because they got into a dispute that was not about gender, but ultimately the wife was killed because she is mostly likely weaker and smaller. It would have to be case by case, obviously if a husband kills his wife over a “non gender topic” then he would not be charged with a hate crime. I’m talking more about women that are attacked randomly. (Please keep this a friendly conversation! I’m not trying to fight or be mean with anyone ❤️)"

These murders are going on all over the world, but we have heard more about the worst atrocities in Muslim countries than of those in Western non-Muslim areas. However, that doesn't mean that The West, i.e. Christian societies, go free of rightful accusations. Murdering women has been a special "male sport" for ages, and in America right now there is a tightening of the shackles of the victims, so to speak, and women are losing out on many other issues like e.g. abortion. Actually, certain states are trying to turn their female citizens into some kind of "cattle" by claiming that they are not the true owners of their inborn uterus: Girls (children!!!!) and women are being criminalized for abortions even when their health is at stake if they don't have them. All of this is part of a pattern that gets more and more clear to those who know how to see, and it's not acceptable ....

 

https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/GSH2018/GSH18_Gender-related_killing_of_women_and_girls.pdf 

 

Wikipedia

 

I Saw A White Bird Today ....

 

My fable or short story, "I Saw A White Bird Today", is from my antology, "Animals, Humans and So On" (SAXO)

I Saw a White Bird Today

I saw a big, white bird today
No wait, I saw a picture of a big white bird today
and actually there were not one, but two birds

One very big and ferocious one
the other smaller and a victim for a murderer in feathers
Yeah, and both were in the air, flapping their wings

The small one being eaten alive by the other one
a beak deep inside its back, but none the less alive
what struck me was their twin quality, Cain and Abel
the killer was a seagull and so was its victim
forever the big Cain killing his smaller brother Abel

By the way, do seagulls eat seagulls?
Well, do humans obliterate humans?

And didn’t I avert my eyes from this unbearable cruelty
because it wasn’t real, only a picture of something real?
Maybe we should stick with the pictures and throw out
what’s only all too real in the world of realities?

 

Was Saint Peter An Usurpator That Should Have Been Replaced By Mary Magdalen???

At the time of Jesu the name of Mary was extremely common as one in four, or maybe even more, women was named "Mary". That fact has given rise to a lot of confusion, especially about one of the most important Biblical women, namely Mary Magdalen. She was the one whom Pope Gregory the Great in the sixth century conflated with the anonymous "sinful" woman mentioned in the chapter before she's introduced in the Gospel of Luke. Was this pope right or was this just a clever action to curb the influence of women? After all, Mary Magdalen from The Bible was a female apostle who made the males jealous because they felt that Jesus loved her the most. Could she really be the same woman as the one who washed the feet of Jesus and afterwards dried them with her hair, the so-called "sinful" woman whom he forgave for her presumed sins???? 

No, she was not, but that special myth has always been exceedingly popular with male Christian theologians of all kinds and the scenery of the penitent beauty has been painted over and over by various (male) painters. Obviously most of them were so beset by the very idea of her "sinfulness" that they ended up sexualizing her in the extreme, seeing her "sinful" sex-appeal as the main part of the legend.

 

Anthony van Dyck

Half-naked, what can be more appropriate in a great artist's depiction of a "sinful", but penitent woman? (Whatever that is).

In protestant theology there are six Marys, the most important of them, as with the Catholics, being 1) the mother of Jesus. The others are 2) Mary of Bethany, 3) James' mother, 4) John Mark's mother, 5) Mary of Rome, and 6) Mary Magdalen who have gained a new importance as a saint when pope Francis declared her an acknowledged apostle in 2016. He wasn't even the first one who considered her to be a very important figure in the Jesu legends as Thomas Aquinas declared her "The apostle of the apostles" in the 13th century which is the official nomination she has regained now. 

As it is she was one of the very first followers of Jesus, and, what's more important, she was the first one to witness his resurrection. Something which makes her very special theologically.

Even before the crucifixion she and Jesus were close and it's interesting that Peter, the apostle who became "the Cesar of the Catholic Church", i.e. the pope, had several fights with her. That happened because he resented the fact that she, being a woman, had her say with Jesus and the other apostles. Actually there were many power fights in the group of Jesu followers that stemmed from males resenting the devout females being close to Jesus, gaining influence over him, especially Mary Magdalen. 

 

That happened more than 2000 years ago, but all of these fights took a new turn when the lost and forgotten "The Gospel of Mary" was discovered in a fifth-century papyrus codex in 1896. This gospel is a fragment in sahidic which is considered non-canonical as it has not become part of the official Bible. Maybe it was sort of "muted" by the males who fought the idea of the holiness of Mary Magdalen.

 

 

 Gospel of Mary, P. Oxyrhynchus L 3525

 

However, since then two other fragments of "The Gospel of Mary" have been discovered, both written in Greek. However, it has been difficult to date these fragments so an important question remains: WHEN were they written, and by WHOM? Many scholars discuss this, but as far as I know there are no definite PROOFS of either date nor authorship. Some even suggest that the "Mary" of the gospel may be Jesu sister or someone else with the same name. However, Mary Magdalen is mentioned in several other Biblical scriptures like e.g. Luke 8:2, John 20:14-16, Matthew 27:56 and Mark 16:9. Levi defends Mary Magdalen and her teachings against the jealous and misogynist Peter: "Surely the Savior knows her very well. That is why he loved her more than us." According to some Jesus was - or became - married to Mary Magdalen, but where are the proofs? I haven't found any reliable evidence that that was the case, but according to one legend he survived the crucifixion and went to France with her as his wife. Their daughter became an ancestor of the royal house of France. 

Well, that's an interesting "turn of the screw", but there is no doubt that we need more proofs, also about the so-called "skull of Mary Magdalen" that may - or may not - be genuine ....

 

 

https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gospelmary.html 

https://www.historyhit.com/the-mystery-of-mary-magdalenes-skull-and-relics/    https://www.history.com/news/mary-magdalene-jesus-wife-prostitute-saint    https://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php/199647.pdf    http://www.magdalenepublishing.org/skull-mary-magdalene/   https://www.kristeligt-dagblad.dk/kronik/maria-magdalene-og-mariaevangeliet    https://www.gotquestions.org/upon-this-rock.html    https://www.vaticannews.va/en/liturgical-holidays/saint-mary-magdalene.html     https://www.parsontom.com/books/The%20Gospel%20of%20Mary.pdf     Wikipedia

The Obligation To Look "Feminine"

 

I stumbled upon this on a website I sometimes visit. My reason for doing that is that I often find notes, questions or statements that are of interest and which make me browse a subject. In the above statement I see a woman who is tired of all the bullshit that all too often is heaped upon women by men. They try to pass it off as some kind of scientific or historical facts which it is not. Another reason why I like what "Farida D." writes is that it reminds me of the old concept of a "sisterly solidarity" that once was an ideal for feminists. Actually, it's something I think we should revive in this time of manifold kinds of backlashes ....

I suspect that many women nowadays feel obliged to signal femininity in the old-fashioned manner: Full make-up, tight dresses, high heels, etc. which turns them into over-sexualized Patriarchy-victims. Ideals of femininity that rob women of bodily strength, the right to exhibit a strong personality, etc. without being ostracized by society is a trap. To me it's obvious from what I read on various websites that many women are battling their feelings of being kept in a role that has been outdated for several decades. They don't want to appear "manly", but on the other hand, neither do they want to lose the freedom to be what - and who - they are.

Making One's Name As A Writer

 

I keep seeing postings by hopeful, new writers, e.g on Quora, who are ask questions about the presumed future earnings of a nondescript book they are working on. Many of them seem to be deluded by their own dreams of success: To write a book is a piece of cake to them and to have it published by a renowned publisher doesn't look difficult to them, although they may have some vague misgivings about the well-known bad experiences of other authors. As it is, right now the publishing market seems to be swarming with fake agents, fake editors, fake publishers, etc., etc.. 

Some years ago I made the decision to accept the offer from a publisher whom I had been told was very shady: I accepted "A dance with the Devil" so to speak because I wasn't very hooked on the idea that i should make a lot of money on my work. To me it was a question of publishing books I myself felt for, and I chose to close my eye to the fact that this publisher more or less kept his business running not on sales of the books he published, but on what he could get in through grants from firms, etc. which wanted to boost their names by "doing something for culture". As they saying goes: "One hand washes the other one ...." However, i took for granted that this particular publisher would do what he could to market the books he published. After all, he had to get to his pockets to get books on the market, as they don't edit and print themselves. I was surprised to find out that that wasn't the case, or that it was much less than it takes to market books. As marketing and publicity (PR-campaigns) are two completely different things my experience with this particular publisher taught me that one shouldn't chose the one over the other, no, one should always go for both with every book one publishes. 

Marketing may include something like e.g. digital campaigns, paid ads in newspapers and magazines, but also influencer efforts (if that's possible). As to publicity then we are entering the realm of events, articles and reviews: The more the better. As every published author knows by now it's very hard to get any of this coverage, but part of it is considered the obligation of the publisher who should be able to draw on his/her market contacts. However, what if one is working with someone who doesn't have a publicity budget and who thinks that the author him-/herself should take the load of that part of the publishing, preferably without any "fuss"? It's not fair to the author, but I think that's what many experience these years. 

Some authors resort to the strategy of hireing their own publicist, but how does one know the good ones from the bad - and even destructive - ones? That's part of the problem: One doesn't because the publishing market is also swarming with people who either are fake or just not good enough. Bad advice about this part of the publishing process may have grave implications for the hopeful author and one again i'm thinking of those writers who take for granted that they may make a living by writing ....

 

https://www.editage.com/book-editing-services-articles/11-powerful-book-promotion-ideas-for-self-published-authors 

 

https://blog.reedsy.com/book-promotion-services/ 

 

https://savory-pr.com/why-you-should-hire-a-book-publicist-for-your-book-launch/ 

 

 

 

Don the Con and his Deluded Followers

 

Actually, these people don't really need the second coming of Christ now that they have their orange "savior" - or so they think. The only reason for feeling that way is that they have stopped thinking as thinking people do. They need to feel protected and thus they do the same as what they do with the Christian religion: They appoint the former president, Donald Trump, to be their new savior just like they did with Jesus whom they, sort of, have kidnapped and twisted into shape as some kind of "Santa" who let himself be controlled by them by their perpetual prayers. It's a situation that's quite interesting to watch, but, at the same time, very, very sad to see as it speaks volumes of the delusions of these people.

To support, chose and elect someone who is set to represent what one wishes should be done in one's society takes thoughts. Obviously one should look for a person who formerly has proved that he/she wants to fight for what's right according to this specific voter's beliefs. Otherwise this individual should neither be supported, chosen or elected. Instead it looks like the followers and electors of "The Orange Messiah" have closed their eyes to the facts that should tell them that this "savior" positively hates them. Donald Trump is not the friend of those who follow him, in or without, silly, red caps. Actually he has given vent to his disdain and hatred of them, but why? Because they being non-billionaires represent the worst he can think of: POVERTY. According to him the most awful and humiliating one can be is not a rapist, a pedophile, a thief, a fraudster, or a traitor one's country, no, it's being poor. To be poor is being without the protection of money. Poverty may even send you into combat with other soldiers and, as we know from what he has said, those who are being sent are nothing but "losers and morons". 

I'm sure that Trumpists have talked themselves into believing that this man stands for the old-fashioned world they want and which they feel is disappearing into the modern world of LGBT, abortion, feminism, electric cars, etc., etc.. Trumpism is full of a wide range of right-wing ideologies that to them look like a bulwark against what they don't like and maybe even feel is "Unchristian". Well, it may go against the Santa-Christ they have made in their own image, but which goes against the Jesus we may meet in The Bible.

Yup, that it is, but still, it happened. That's the reason why nobody would recognize Jesus if he came back. Probably he would be shunned as a pretender or an insane individual. One thing is for sure, Donald Trump would not serve the real Jesus as he was, because he was anything but a carefree capitalist, exploiting people to his heart's delight. That means that the followers of Don the Con are deluding themselves on a subject that is close to their heart. Something that also goes for their hopes of a second Trump election period. They - not being billionaires - would be targeted the same as poor people were in his first period: His laws give us written proofs that what he did was to wage war against the poor, not to help them or give them some kind of compensation for having been under-paid and thus exploited for years. That NEVER was his concern which is a potent message to those Trumpists who want him back in The White House.

 

https://www.cbpp.org/research/trump-budget-deeply-cuts-health-housing-other-assistance-for-low-and-moderate-income 

 

https://time.com/5859209/donald-trump-administration-inequality/ 

 

https://spotlightonpoverty.org/donald-trump/ 

 

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/12/how-one-company-is-making-millions-off-trumps-war-on-the-poor/ 

 

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/02/trump-isnt-waging-a-war-on-poverty-hes-waging-a-war-on-poor-people/ 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/29/donald-trump-americans-us-culture-republican

https://time.com/6550686/trump-autocracy-dictator-polling/

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a42946/donald-trump-poor-people-morons/

 

Wikipedia

Jesu Foreskin And Its Presumed Magic

Friedrich Herlin (ca. 1430-1500): The Circumcision of baby Jesus 

I suppose it takes a Catholic to be concerned with Jesu foreskin and what happened to it after the circumcision a few days after his birth. Others - both atheists and e.g. Protestants - most like have never been giving this piece of skin a single thought. They may even see the concern with this special part of the body of Jesu as somewhat ridiculous. However, many Catholics seem more or less beset with worries about the destiny of this intimate body detail of Christ and during The Middle Ages several churches all over Europe did what they could to boast that it was in their possession. As Jesus presumably didn't have several penisses that's quite odd, but as we know, in religion anything may happen, absolutely anything ....

The circumcision of Abraham

Well, it started with Abraham being told that he had to cut off his foreskin as part of his pact with the Biblical god, Yahweh. He was the first, but after him there were endless foreskin massacres wherever there were new born Jewish boys. I always felt that this murder rampage of foreskins were a health precaution to protect women by avoiding the damages of the smegma beneath it, but the subject is still being discussed. However, the very first mention of the circumcision of baby Jesus is found in Luke 2:21 which didn't go unnoticed by relic hunters and first and foremost relic traders who made fortunes selling parts of holy men and women.

As might be expected there are several paintings of the "holy moment" of baby Jesus losing his foreskin, and this one may be found at Louvre. The rabbi cutting the foreskin looks more devious and also a bit cruel to me, but then I'm not a Catholic so I don't appreciate this kind of surgeries. However, one who really, really was into it was another woman, i.e. the super holy Saint Catherine of Siena (1347-1380) who thought she had a mystical marriage to Jesus, using the foreskin as a wedding ring.

Whoever thought of anything like that? Nobody as far as I know, but in a world and time where relics were venerated by Christians on all social levels of society that must have been some sort of a coup that gave her added status.

Here it is - or is it? I would say that this may be a foreskin of somebody, but I doubt it belonged to Jesus, also because the foreskin that was given to the pope Leo III ca. 799 AD was stolen in 1527 in an invasion. It was considered extremely powerful because it was said to be a part of the body of Jesus, but if that really is the case then it should have made the thieves and their families happy and prosperous. Like all relics - and this is seen as a high class relic - it was believed to be indestructible so wherever it is it may still work miracles - or not ....

 

Wikipedia

 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/what-happened-to-jesus-foreskin 

 

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/how-jesus-foreskin-became-one-of-christianity-s-most-coveted-relics-and-then-disappeared-1.6002421