On the Subject of Women Being the Property of Men

Well, I just finished reading Beloved by Toni Morrison. In it, she describes the ravages of black slavery and the buying and selling of human beings. We don’t or aren’t supposed to be doing that any more. I totally agree with you when you say “What does that even mean?!” Still, sadly, it’s true. I am reading a book by or about Baudrillard, and in it he has been attributed to saying that we are at the stage where we pay our employers to work for them. We educate ourselves so that we can then fit into the groove we have been assigned. Women have a purpose too, I am afraid, where men have bought the world and money is the means of barter, and capitalism’s slaves use their bodies as a means to their financial ends vs. the Capitalist’s machines, which keep him at a distance and so he never gets his hands dirty. A woman’s place is as a sexual tool, a baker of bread, and a barer of children. For far too long we have been deluded about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Man has even corrupted God to have us believe that we are the property of others. When a man says he wants a woman to be his property, he is speaking in Christian terms. Putting the fear of God in you is to make you think in heaven you shall be rewarded for your sacrifice. But, I know life here and now is the only waking state. You’d better fight like hell against what’s coming back. A trillion dollar tax cut is going to go far to making women the property of rich men.

Advertisements

What is the kindest way someone broke up with you?

For some reason this question seems irrelevant, where a harsh breakup actually gets you where you want to be. I believe in the truth and I don’t want to be in a relationship that doesn’t truly honor that. The kindest breakup is a lukewarm handshake with undertones of disrespect. Save that. I want my breakups to be sure, so I don’t mire in hopeless fantasies. I actually still pine for the woman, who sent her mother to tell me. Talk about disrespect and weakness. That was in ‘99. Love is a drug; you need addiction therapy and medical attention. 5150.

How would you feel if your child says he/she doesn’t want to get married and/or have kids?

Rather amazed in a good way. Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari talk about the effects of capitalism on human beings such that like Marshall McLuhan’s thesis of ‘medium is the message,’ which means the thing affects behavior, where capitalism, as a pyramid scheme putting all money and resources into the hands of fewer and fewer, note gig economy, Amazon, Google, in effect, strangles and kills all those outside of it walls. In Jean Baudrillard Live Theory by Paul Hegarty, Baudrillard talks about paying your employer to work there. Work is harder and faster and demands more and more as accountants “do the numbers” and create more ways to make money either on the backs of workers or without them: automation and robotics. Such a response to where someone would not want children or to get married, both implying a compromise of self when our work world has compromised human ambition and force-fed it, to the point of throwing up, it is every man, woman, and child for themselves, and there is no way of telling when oil, for example, is going to stop flowing and everything stops in its tracks. Your child can instinctively sense this and these circumstances. That child is healthy. You should praise him/her and pay attention. We are all canaries in the mineshaft. Trump, for example, is a manifestation of the braggard response of such power and manipulation that goes unchallenged. The People are enslaved. Reality is spun so it can take as much as possible from a stunned populace that may have onced believed in health and happiness.

My bedroom redecor

Daylight, no light, and evening.

Invalid

I have the capacity to love only one. Her lack of interest leaves me alone. I will be no one without her. That she would love me validated me. Now that she has finalized our relationship, I am invalid.

My heart longs only for her. I show it others, but it balks: “She is the best you will ever have. You might as well die. There is no point. I cannot lie. I was not built for it.”

Self Bathroom Remodel

“Whatever you are looking for permeates your whole being.” From: The Unknown She by Hilary Hart

NRA

Personal Opinion of “Judge Rules Developer Must Pay 5Pointz Graffiti Artists $6.7M”

https://hyperallergic.com/426658/judge-rules-developer-must-pay-5pointz-graffiti-artists-6-7m/

While I am not a lawyer nor claim to be, I would argue ownership of building property as artistic surface/media and the right to said property not to be defaced, quality of work notwithstanding. Unless, the current owner also owned the property and/or at that time permission was granted to said artists. I do not see graffiti as protected. Paint on my car without my permission, etc. I own the canvas, for example. Even the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 (VARA) excludes “covering” as a work of visual art and Graffiti is defined as “Drawings that have been scribbled, scratched, or painted illicitly on a wall or other surface, often within public view.” Note the word “illicit,” which means “unlawful [or] forbidden.”

Also, as an artist, I would be bound to the truth of the event, not so much to the painting itself, where the medium is also the message and how that plays itself out pro or con to my initial argument. I believe the surface, using another person’s property, stealing, in effect, the wall upon which to produce my work assumes a temporary impression, a single performance for as long as it may last as understood and agreed to. Also, given I have now been exposed, I may be in danger of arrest and conviction for vandalism.

Still, I would argue under the circumstances given governmental suppression of free speech and economic warfare against the American People by the government and corporations, oligarchs, and dictators, etc., that the public sphere may now belong to The People, and where they have been so delegated as to be unable to express themselves due to disenfranchisement, they may now be granted permission by default to communicate what is “appreciated primarily or solely for their imaginative, aesthetic, or intellectual content.” See Declaration of Independence, shifting sands doctrine.

Meaning Behind A Thousand Plateaus by Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari

A friend has asked what the title of the book A Thousand Plateaus by Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari meant.

According to forward writer Brian Massumi, A Thousand Plateaus is intended to be an “effort to construct a smooth space of thought, nomadic thought, likened to Spinoza’s ‘ethics,’ Nietzche’s ‘gay science,’ Artaud’s ‘crowned anarchy,’ Maurice Blanchot’s ‘space of literature,’ Foucault’s ‘outside thought,’ Deleuze and Guattari’s ‘pragmatics’ and ‘schizoanalysis.'”

It has been said by Deleuze and Guattari that there was a rhizome network strangling the roots of the infamous tree, whereas rhizome is a “Mass of roots,… a modified subterranean stem that sends out roots from notes developing axillary buds that grow perpendicular to the force of gravity.” – Wikipedia.

The point, I think the authors want to make is that we should question long-standing views and move nomadically in our thoughts and experiences. They say to explore potential mediums and break from beaten paths, use mathematics and music that create the smoothest of smooth spaces. Philosophy, Massumi said, is music with content.

The experience of philosophy should be affirmative, involve an open system that one weaves into everyday life and take concepts you like and jump around. One should incarnate philosophy into foreign mediums, like painting, be challenged by the book, pry open the vacant spaces that would enable you to build your life and this can affect others positively with new sensations and perceptions, as an act of creation, and to blaze a new trail.