Cracking the codes of bureaucracy would be good. There is always a biological "there" - but no need to give up to it. The Barbie world is in fact very ugly.
On Tuesday, March 31, 2015 at 10:39:06 AM UTC+1, Molly wrote: > > Being moved by beauty is quite different than objectifying a person for > self interest, isn't it? But I think we understand so little about beauty, > and the notion of courtly love drifted away with those of nobility and > valor decades ago. Not to sure the schizophrenic doesn't objectify > themselves and others a million times over to create their psychodramas. > And all that has little to do be being honestly moved by love and beauty. > > The sacrilegious women that I know are deeply in tune with their innate > intelligence, and see religion for the (often ridiculous) bureaucracy that > it is. > > On Monday, March 30, 2015 at 9:22:34 PM UTC-4, archytas wrote: >> >> Can't get enough of them myself. Rosa's time is round again, our >> politics back to sordid choices of left and right that are no choice at >> all. Our sacrilegious women are perhaps the Greens, though the Anglicans >> have thrown up a female Bishop. My genes, of course, organise my view of >> women in some dire connection with libidinal reproduction and sexual >> preference. It is somehow profane to talk of such, yet this "language" is >> everywhere. Women are these "things" in front of me in newsrooms are they? >> I use the word "things" in the sense of how the bevy of 'beauty' hits me. >> Bored with no news, and I can't remember in what year there last was any, >> my mind runs a little salacious. I don't notice the men, as they do >> nothing at all for my crude eye, other than get looked at by the "things" >> in occasional adoration. And what are these "things", cooing no news? >> >> I grant, to an extent, that I have become a sad old man, like one of >> Plato's characters in The Republik, watching naked gymnastics. Yet it >> isn't me who writes in complaining I can't see the legs on these "things". >> You see, I'd listen to Microsoft Sam ahead of the sickening bimboism of >> the newsroom, he "he" had any actual news. Newsrooms are just one example >> of of the glaring use of crude sexuality, mannered into manners as though >> some decent way of being. This "way of being" is just another way to make >> real people, real women invisible. One trip to the town centre, and I know >> these newsroom things must be another species. They wouldn't add up to one >> Rosa, maybe not the shoe left in the mud. >> >> Real people have been invisible or are rendered so in our history. There >> are no people in our newsrooms, nothing sacrilegious enough to be real. >> The pornography is obvious. Yet this is easily made invisible by making >> it profane to speak of. What a dirty old man I must be to notice any of >> this. Did I mention that whatever is in these newsrooms bores me to death >> and disgusts me? It is a sexist, ageist, lookist, ableist generally >> pretty world, the profane as the sacred. In a classic incident in the UK, >> Susanna Reid, once a cute bimbo at least, now some over-tanned and past it >> before 40 'orange person', was bought from the BBC to resurrect ratings on >> ITV. and pay her somewhere near £500,000. Letters flooded in when they >> exhibited her behind a desk and "we" couldn't see her legs. >> >> Top Gear is now in the toilet owning to Clarkson having some spat with a >> producer. I think it's long past time to get real in sacrilegious protest. >> Quite how these aliens make us invisible to each other I don't know yet. >> They are overpaid and the 'sex' they offer is probably some kind of >> pheromone like that used by slaver ants. One smell of Rosa's shoe is >> antidote - but now you'll all be thinking the wrong thing! >> >> On Tuesday, March 31, 2015 at 12:07:07 AM UTC+1, Molly wrote: >>> >>> Some of my best friends are sacrilegious women. >>> >>> On Monday, March 30, 2015 at 8:32:43 AM UTC-4, archytas wrote: >>>> >>>> In 1919 Rosa Luxemburg, the revolutionary, was murdered in Berlin. >>>> >>>> Her killers bludgeoned her with rifle blows and tossed her into the >>>> waters of a canal. >>>> >>>> Along the way, she lost a shoe. >>>> >>>> Some hand picked it up, that shoe dropped in the mud. >>>> >>>> Rosa longed for a world where justice would not be sacrificed in the >>>> name of freedom, nor freedom sacrificed in the name of justice. >>>> >>>> Every day, some hand picks up that banner. >>>> >>>> Dropped in the mud, like the shoe. >>>> >>>> Uruguayan writer Eduardo Galeano. >>>> >>>> I don't want to write in praise of women. There should be no need. The >>>> particular trials (and terrors and losses and triumphs) of women in a >>>> world >>>> that generally prefers to ignore whatever they did or dreamed of doing >>>> mean >>>> little to me, much as I love sacrilegious women. I am now sick of the >>>> equality movement in as far as it is based on gender. We need more >>>> equality, but the gender debate is now more often about special pleading, >>>> from new men trying to get inside knickers to posh white tarts breaking >>>> the >>>> glass ceiling and turning out to be just as corrupt as the posh white >>>> crooks already up there. >>>> >>>> What i'd like to see us work out is how we can put together a society >>>> that doesn't disable people. "Success" disables other people. Does it >>>> matter if your crap boss is male or female, or that the CEO of Apple is >>>> gay? Not if you've just seen your kid killed in an Apple supply chain mud >>>> slide, it don't. I want to see more sacrilegious women kicking over the >>>> traces of newsroom bimbos (the female on is the one looking dreamily at >>>> the >>>> male one, as I understand the ethography), not the sisterhood of posh. >>>> >>> -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
