Wednesday, March 27, 2013

Like Ann And Gays: He, Too, Was All About The Fashion


White Power. Black Power. Grrrl Power. Gay Power. Whatever's next. It doesn't matter what they put before the word "power," they're all striving hypocritical assholes to me, slithering around, trying to exploit anyone they can. I've been watching it my whole life:

These post-'70s Eldridge Cleaver types will say anything, but in the end, have always stood for nothing more than the power to con the naive and idiotic into focusing on their privates.
We compare football, which women are especially fond of watching. The big shoulders, the tight pants (bulge-enhancing,...)...Basketball players are dressed like very unattractive women or horribly oversized children..."It's completely not sexy."
Sigh. "Sexy". Yes, that's what professor and gay rights activist Ann Althouse finds important in a discussion about sports, people.


Trying to have a discussion with these people is like living with Janet Jackson's nipple slip at the Super Bowl - completely unprompted - all the time.

(I know, I re-used this photo, but it worked,...)


That switch - turning every topic of conversation into a reason to reference (and something to be subject to) that itch in their pants - is how you know who's "spiritual" today.

Or stupid.

Whichever it is, they make me stop caring about, pretty much, anything - and pretty fast.


See, what I'm thinking is, I could be writing "Kill Whitey!" for you to read. And that would be no different from me reading a certain twice-"married" white feminist, with a gay son, discussing the worth and role of men and tradition in society. 


Of course, if anyone did see me "go black" and write "Kill Whitey!" every day, the twice-"married" white feminist with a gay son would think I was a "bad man".

(Is it just me, or do those women, above, look like three dudes in drag?)


At least, I'd be less than a "good man" like San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who is another of these *reasonable* defenders of "gay" marriage. Like Ann, he, too, is divorced (and twice "married") but was also busted for adultery with his best friend and campaign manager's wife - making him an even bigger (and better!) authority on the subject of how things should go than even Ann Althouse, who is incredulous anybody but someone like she and good ol' Gavin and her gay kid (with their hair, and pants, perpetually on fire) should call the shots:
"What a nutty set of things we're asked to believe! Who the hell is this stereotypical married man, constrained by what other people are forbidden to do? And why should his ridiculous, tenuous connection to norms carry the day? And how can obsessing over what makes him tick work to keep marriage focused on the raising of children and not on the emotional needs and desires of adults? It seems to be all about the needs and desires of adults — really ridiculous heterosexual male adults. 
Who are these people?!"

I don't know, but I do know it's impossible to have anything resembling a reasonable conversation, or a true debate, with someone who is so fucked up - so steeped in portraying any form of deviancy as anything but - the entire concept of straight upstanding men as a focus, and standard, of normalcy can seem "ridiculous" because (as the divorced, and supposedly-twice-married mother of a gay son) it centers around nothing they have cultivated.


Just like the racists of the 50s and 60s hadn't cultivated a relationship with blacks.


And, just as before, good and normal folks are trapped between the extremists. 


No, there's nothing wrong with you, Miss Ann, or "spiritual" gays - and your constant "search" for something "sexy" - it's the rest of "normal" society that has the problem:



It's been this way since the day Martin Luther King died - that's when people started listening to you Eldridge Cleaver "power" types, trying to get your little (very little) revenge on everybody for who-knows-what:


That was the point of the cod piece, all along,...
 

2 comments:

  1. For educated and sophisticated people they have very crude, limited understanding of "sexy". And a rather obsessive sexual nature -- even as a young, awash with hormones girl, I didn't watch a football game with constant thoughts of my whoo whoo; sometimes it was just to watch the sports -- and you know, teenager, can't expect those to have adult sensibilities (but it would be rather nice if adults would).

    There is appreciation for the beautiful and arresting (which has to do with art -- which they appear to have to feel for) ; there is sexual (where they seem to be overly obsessed); and there is sexy (which involves things not covered by the beautiful and the sexual and is a matter that can be of very individual taste).

    And much like the smell of violets or the taste of truffles, you can't wallow in it because then you lose it. Your senses are too coarse to appreciate large doses.

    Of course, our society seems determined to have our senses so coarse that we "lose it" -- leaving us with the sensibilities of rutting animals (perhaps less -- because at least the pig can sniff out the truffles and only occasionally eats its own young, the rest of the time being loving, devoted, and very faithful to its kind...in the manner of pigs).

    PW

    *as for Black people/White people: I will never fully understand black people, because I am white -- I have never lived as a Black person, so therefore I don't really know what it's like and never will. That's ok -- I don't feel the need to wallow all over black people in an effort to try and "really discover what makes Black folks tick" -- as some of my white peers seem dead set on doing (which, imhao, will get them nowhere and has to be highly annoying to the recipients, as no one likes to get wallered). I do know that it is laughable and sad that this sort of obsessive behavior winds up creating a paradigm of Black = other = somehow akin to other forms of "otherness" some of which are deviant behaviors, when that is definitely not the case, which leads to all manner of misunderstanding, and also leads to an extreme level of annoyance on the part of the recipients of this I should think (does this tie into this over sexuality of things? oh hell yes! and it's obnoxious, vicious even).
    Please feel free to correct my assumptions if they are wrong, because, hey, white here -- don't have the same experiences.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Uhm, should probably also add, for clarity:
    Does this mean I have any special like or dislike for Black people?
    Nah! While there are people in this world I am very fond of, some I even love far better than myself, and I try to be a good person in regards to how I conduct myself (which isn't easy for me), overall, I'm pretty cynical in regards to humanity -- that means you too Black folks; stand in line and take a number, you're not getting a pass from me, expecially not out of any stupid notions of generic white guilt. You're people, just like everybody else, and that means I'll view you with the same jaded eye as I do everybody else (white, yellow, brown, red -- makes no difference; you're all animals in my book; sometimes not even very good animals).

    PW
    *guess this kinda goes for the whole man-woman thing too; I don't think it's becoming to waller men, because I certainly don't want them wallering me, and no gender gets a pass just because either.

    ReplyDelete

COMMENTS ARE BACK ON