Bodies in Thought

Why do we study a woman’s every move? Some women can speak, and some women cannot speak. Or if these women dare to speak when they shouldn’t, we see how they say nothing. Their generic bland words convey a static form of silence.

Husband by their side, they shake their heads in agreement, as all the while their bodies are screaming no. Their bodies betray their words, undercutting their veracity.

Picture Mommy on the steps of her house, smiling to her 3-year-old son who is frightened by the noise of his father’s rising anger, indicative of pending violence. She’s says Daddy’s not mad, Mommy’s okay. She smiles. But the terror behind her smile reveals her lie.  She convinces no one, and her son associates smiles with lies and terror.

I had a teacher like this, the only teacher I remember from elementary school. Mr. T smiled and spoke softly when he was mad, and he would hurl abusive insults at anyone who disturbed classroom peace.  Whereas I can’t remember one of the “yellers,” as we called the female teachers who expressed their anger.  Expressing their anger was direct.  No mixed-up signals, no ambiguous social cues.  Unpleasant . . . it was true.

The most an abused woman can do is sneakily shout for help.  Melania certainly did with her highly interpreted wrist-flick rejection of Trump.   You have to watch it 5 or 6 times, but it’s there.

And of course there is the infamous happy/sad façade or the creepy or skin-crawling meme of Melania at her husband’s 2017 Inauguration.   No mistaking that face.

Whether it is Melania’s wrist or her quick frown-of-relief smile we all see, what we see is real, albeit subjective.

Crazy counternarratives can be spun, for sure. These narratives will be heard in captions by those in their part of the polarized political valley. But these narratives will be twisted and counterintuitive. Bodies are visceral. Bodies express feeling more freely than words. The difference between recoiling and rejecting someone’s spontaneous touch is immense. We don’t need words to know something strange is going on. The movement requires explanation. The movement is significant.

So if politics includes bodies in movement, not just words, how can we read American Political Thought that does not cover bodies of thought, but only words — let alone published words from eras when white men with property had a monopoly?

There are no bodies in thought. Yet bodies moving in emotional reaction can be pegged as triggers.

 

 

 

Fox’s Ailes Is Better at Chasing . . .

imgres   TellingStories   imgres

Here’s a picture that won’t surprise you. By picture, I mean read the lawsuit. A sample: “I think you and I should have had a sexual relationship a long time ago and then you would have been good and better and I would have been good and better.”

What I mean by “better” is more effective in hiring, targeting, harassing, and then firing their loyal women announcers (who undoubtedly don’t believe in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, protecting them from discrimination, until it “suits” them).

http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/?GCOI=80140100171860

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2941030-Carlson-Complaint-Filed.html

Her Mother’s Womb; & Scary Anti-LGBTQ Rhetoric

default “We are losing the white male vote in droves,” said former Democratic New Mexico governor Bill Richardson. And the issue is — wait for it — “economic inequality.”

How does this Bill, a hopeful Latino presidential candidate from 2008, wish to woo them back? Charging women a higher discrimination tax? Is it because white women went from 59 to 78 cents in three generations, and he thinks that’s moving too fast? Or is it because the SLAMs (straight, liberal, Anglo men) are starting to identify only with the SCAMs (straight, conservative, Anglo men)?

Since they are just 5 percent* of the American population, why should any politician coddle them? To be sure, 5 percent is not 1 percent, but really. (Five percent is the figure given to represent those who the police regularly, repeatedly serve when they’re fighting crime.)

And in identifying with SCAMs, are the SLAMs also going to become more obsessed with our bodies? Is this really only about money? Or is there a cultural fear permeating here?

I mean, another recent New York Times headline was about how women and their daughters can start sharing uteruses with temporary transplants, so that more women can give birth. Now isn’t that cool? Rent a uterus. What does Hobby Lobby mean for this reproductive transplant, particularly if it’s temporary?

Being temporary also means it facilitates women having their own biological children, and keeping this part of the process “in the family.” At the very least this should please Jeb!, who eschews that state, particularly when it comes to the family.

This Bush argues for “parental consent over government intrusions into families.” He knows about being neotribal, making sure who in each family retains supremacy and remains “chief.”

Talk about neotribal, and women, girls, boys, and the 95 percenters fear. What if “family first” puts them in danger? No, safety first, family second, or so I say.

Listen to this anti-LGBTQ rhetoric (warning: not for PG ears!)

Maybe these white Democratic men should start beating on drums again to gain a bit of perspective, if not consciousness. Male consciousness-raising might help them out of this self-esteem progressive pity party, so that they don’t have to increase my discrimination tax to make themselves feel better.

Maybe SLAMs and SCAMs should spend more time in male-dominated China — domination defined here in sheer population numbers, though the nation finally loosened its one-child policy (read one-boy policy). Hillary Clinton’s “it takes a village” leadership clearly scares the former heads of the village, particularly since this village contains a rainbow umbrella that Obama, after all, built.

 

* Italian men are part of the 95 percent, being in a protected class in some locales, such as New York City.

Her Mother’s Rent-a-Womb; & Scary Anti-LGBTQ Rhetoric

default “We are losing the white male vote in droves,” said former Democratic New Mexico governor Bill Richardson. And the issue is — wait for it — “economic inequality.”

How does this Bill, a hopeful Latino presidential candidate from 2008, wish to woo them back? Charging women a higher discrimination tax? Is it because white women went from 59 to 78 cents in three generations, and he thinks that’s moving too fast? Or is it because the SLAMs (straight, liberal, Anglo men) are starting to identify only with the SCAMs (straight, conservative, Anglo men)?

Since they are just 5 percent* of the American population, why should any politician coddle them? To be sure, 5 percent is not 1 percent, but really. (Five percent is the figure given to represent those who the police regularly, repeatedly serve when they’re fighting crime.)

And in identifying with SCAMs, are the SLAMs also going to become more obsessed with our bodies? Is this really only about money? Or is there a cultural fear permeating here?

I mean, another recent New York Times headline was about how women and their daughters can start sharing uteruses with temporary transplants, so that more women can give birth. Now isn’t that cool? Rent a uterus. What does Hobby Lobby mean for this reproductive transplant, particularly if it’s temporary?

Being temporary also means it facilitates women having their own biological children, and keeping this part of the process “in the family.” At the very least this should please Jeb!, who eschews that state, particularly when it comes to the family.

This Bush argues for “parental consent over government intrusions into families.” He knows about being neotribal, making sure who in each family retains supremacy and remains “chief.”

Talk about neotribal, and women, girls, boys, and the 95 percenters fear. What if “family first” puts them in danger? No, safety first, family second, or so I say.

Listen to this anti-LGBTQ rhetoric (warning: not for PG ears!)

Maybe these white Democratic men should start beating on drums again to gain a bit of perspective, if not consciousness. Male consciousness-raising might help them out of this self-esteem progressive pity party, so that they don’t have to increase my discrimination tax to make themselves feel better.

Maybe SLAMs and SCAMs should spend more time in male-dominated China — domination defined here in sheer population numbers, though the nation finally loosened its one-child policy (read one-boy policy). Hillary Clinton’s “it takes a village” leadership clearly scares the former heads of the village, particularly since this village contains a rainbow umbrella that Obama, after all, built.

 

* Italian men are part of the 95 percent, being in a protected class in some locales, such as New York City.