I've been at my parents' since last Friday for the build-up to Christmas, and now in just 5 minutes time the date chosen by the Western churches on which gift of redemption through the Son of God to be commemorated will commence.
Of course, the Nativity of Christ Jesus didn't really happen in winter - the gospels carry evidence against that notion, but this date is as good as any, and historically there was a feast day already so why not go with the flow?
Anyway, I'm actually feeling a little bit ill (otherwise I'd be at the Midnight Service instead of tucked up in bed with my netbook) so I wish everyone a merry Christmas, and a happy whatever other holiday/festival/celebration you all choose to observe this time of year.
Thursday, 24 December 2009
Monday, 14 December 2009
Masculine violence: a case study
After noting in this post about the assumptions in this post @ In Pursuit of Harpyness, that analysing the anecdote in the source post @ Jezebel could be a blog post all of its own, my mind has indeed been turning over that analysis in my mind and so I was going to lose sleep unless I actually went and wrote the post.
The source post was titled Sex And Violence: Why Is Snooki More Precious Than I Am? which is a pretty dumb remark for a guy to make in front of feminists anyway, and heck - unpicking the knots implied by just that title could be yet another post (God, I hope I don't end up plagued by it until I write that one too! - but no, I think I've written enough about the catches in there before).
To justify his main claim that society is less inhibiting of violence against men, the writer (Cord Jefferson) offers this anecdote from his own experience:
I accept that the events happened as outlined (although I'm willing to bet that there was more than one lewd comment directed at his friend before he returned). In this much, I have to let Mr Jefferson be expert in his own experiences. His analysis of his experiences is up for debate.
The first problem is that if it is true that the attacker(s) thought that "I can't hit a woman" then his own actions were pretty dumb: if they can't hit a woman, then there's no need to place one's body between the attacker and his friend! Besides which, if they were thinking "I can't hit/hurt a woman" then their body language was an odd way of expressing this fear of hurting her - Mr Jefferson describes the three drunken friends' actions as "immediately stood up and squared off with my friend". That implies a perfect willingness to do harm, and of course, Mr Jefferson's reaction was based on an assumption that they did indeed intend to harm his friend.
So if he really believes that was what they were thinking then it is something he has constructed after the fact to explain why he got hit.
But really, Mr Jefferson seems to have based his behaviour entirely on false assumptions about masculinity.
Breaking down the scenario, we see:
A group of male friends who are confident (due to being in a group, and due to being in familiar territory) who express their ownership of the territory and those within it by acting with male-privilege entitlement towards the body of a (in their eyes) unattached female (unattached, therefore fair game for their desires).
This female (Jefferson's friend) responded in self-defence against threatening (and certainly extremely unwelcome) behaviour in a way that re-established some of her power over the situation by seeking to humiliate those who were humiliating and threatening her.
Into this scene strides our hero, Cord Jefferson.
Jefferson's response tells us a lot about his perception of his own masculinity. e automatically assumes a subservient posture, "I'm sorry!" The purpose of this is to say, "Violence is unnecessary here, we surrender, you are in charge." It's the equivalent of the "roll on the back exposing the belly" posture adopted by a subservient dog. He has perceived these men as being bigger, stronger, more aggressive than he is and therefore the most important thing is to tell them they have won so they will not need to do anything else to prove how big and strong they are.
What actually happens, though, is that Jefferson takes responsibility for the situation: "I'm sorry she did that" says, "It's my fault she did that". A wrong has been done and Jefferson has neatly taken the blame for it; to maintain alpha-masculine status, that means retribution must be meted out against the person responsible. A second ago, that person was "Friend"; and in the situation as Jefferson arrived back from the bathroom, as explained already, they were intent on exacting some form of retaliation upon her. Now it is Jefferson. By this argument, then what the man was actually was thinking just before he hit Jefferson, was, "That's for letting her dump nachos on my head, asshole!"
But there is a secondary strand to this play of masculinity in action.
You see, as explained, the 3 drunk friends were expressing their ownership of the territory and of the woman in their territory. By interposing himself between them and their intended prey, Jefferson (despite his subservient language) was presenting himself as a challenge to their right to act how they wanted in this space (that they have declared as theirs). What's more, since they are already "squared off" against "Friend", the implication is that to put oneself between the two sides one would have to become uncomfortably close to the aggressor. This, too, in performative masculinity constitutes a challenge to the other's authority.
By this analysis, then what the guy was thinking just before he hit Jefferson, was, "Don't stand up to me, whelp!" In fact, the verbal admission of subservient status reinforces the need to put down the challenge to authority (especially since there's an audience of two of his friends).
What do the rules of performative masculinity suggest would have been a better approach?
Well, there's two options that I can see.
The first is the confrontational approach.
This requires a direct challenge to the men's behaviour, and is best presented with some kind of implicit or explicit statement of ownership: "Hey, what did you do to my girl/my friend/my partner?" (partner not necessarily in relationship sense, but as "travelling partner" or whatever). Although this could still end up in violence, the rules have changed because there is an implication of prior ownership rights established. Admittedly, it requires a basic amount of front to pull it off (and ideally the ability to make a quick telling blow - the "2-second fight" theory - if things turn uglier) so there's a certain amount of risk involved. The aim is to play a classic role in performative masculinity: "defending my girl". Jefferson probably thought he was playing that role when he interposed himself between his friend and the attackers, but he wasn't (and we'll get to why not in a minute). Because it's a classic role, it's a respected role and the intention is to say clearly, "she dumped nachos over you because she is already spoken for, I am claiming her as mine, she is not available."
The second aspect is that the challenge is presented in a question, not as a "leave her alone!" Questions require answers, and asking this question the most likely answer is "Nothin', we was just foolin'" or something like that (if it isn't then the strategy may be about to fail and that whole 2-second fight thing may be needed). If they deny any particular intent then the energy in the situation is defused and a withdrawal from the situation should be possible - and an apology offered only when both "Friend" and "Hero" are safely at/out the door.
That's the confrontational approach.
The other option is the comforter approach, and in feminist terms this is the better option by far.
This opens with the cry of "Oh my God, [name-of-"Friend"], what did they do to you?" or "Are you okay, [name-of-"Friend"]?" This also establishes a role of "defender of girl", although this time there is no possessive role necessarily indicated so it's a slightly different form of performative masculinity. The basic elements are similar to the confrontational approach, in that there is a clear implied accusation of the attackers (which is explicit in the confrontational form), an establishment of some connection with the victim, and an engagement from distance. Unlike the confrontational approach, any closing down of distance should be to stand directly with "Friend". The aim, of course, is to make as quick and smooth an exit as possible.
The reason this is preferable from a feminist point of view is, of course, because it allows the woman (who is the victim in all this) to define the terms of the situation and gives her a validated voice (it's validated in performative masculinity terms because a man has asked for it) so that her objections to the men's behaviour are explicit. Contrast this to what Jefferson actually did, which was to take away not only any right she had to object to their behaviour but also countermanded her feelings about it. Instead of supporting her, he actually said to the attackers that they had the right to be angry. Is it any wonder that the exercised that right?
Now, I said that Jefferson probably thought he was playing the performative masculinity role of "defend the girl" when he interposed himself between his friend and her would-be attackers. However, in that case he weakened his role in this respect by a) countermanding her reaction and b) presenting as weak (by offering apology and begging for it not to be a fight). In fact, the role he adopted was "owner of the girl", and "let's sort this out like men". For that to work, then he had to come down clearly and explicitly in the opposite direction, reprimanding his friend for her actions (e.g. "[name-of-"Friend"], what did you do that for!?") before turning to the attackers and trying to negotiate a non-violent conclusion. Obviously, not acceptable from a feminist point of view, I'm just explaining what the rules of performative masculinity required.
In short, the reason that Cord Jefferson ended up with 36 stitches was because he performed masculinity poorly. Not because he wasn't a woman, but because he wasn't (by the rules of Patriarchy) enough of a man.
The source post was titled Sex And Violence: Why Is Snooki More Precious Than I Am? which is a pretty dumb remark for a guy to make in front of feminists anyway, and heck - unpicking the knots implied by just that title could be yet another post (God, I hope I don't end up plagued by it until I write that one too! - but no, I think I've written enough about the catches in there before).
To justify his main claim that society is less inhibiting of violence against men, the writer (Cord Jefferson) offers this anecdote from his own experience:
Unfortunately, I'm all too familiar with the taxonomy of violence. Six years ago, at late-night taco shop in Tucson, Arizona, a table of drunk jackasses in glittery t-shirts made a comment about my friend's breasts while I was in the bathroom. I exited just in time to see her lifting her tray of nachos and dumping it all over one of the guy's heads. The three men immediately stood up and squared off with my friend, and I ran over and put myself between them and her. "I'm sorry she did that," I told them, my friend still screaming obscenities at them behind me. "But let's let this one go, huh?" They didn't. Instead, one of them cracked me in the side of the face while I turned around to try and calm my friend, who was in tears at that point. I fell hard, hitting my skull on a table on the way down.
When I came to, my face was in a pool of my own blood, and an ambulance was on its way. I couldn't remember where I was, and the guy who beat me was long gone. But to this day I'm almost certain I knew what he was thinking the instant before he smashed my face in and gave me 36 stitches in my head: "I can't hit a woman."
I accept that the events happened as outlined (although I'm willing to bet that there was more than one lewd comment directed at his friend before he returned). In this much, I have to let Mr Jefferson be expert in his own experiences. His analysis of his experiences is up for debate.
The first problem is that if it is true that the attacker(s) thought that "I can't hit a woman" then his own actions were pretty dumb: if they can't hit a woman, then there's no need to place one's body between the attacker and his friend! Besides which, if they were thinking "I can't hit/hurt a woman" then their body language was an odd way of expressing this fear of hurting her - Mr Jefferson describes the three drunken friends' actions as "immediately stood up and squared off with my friend". That implies a perfect willingness to do harm, and of course, Mr Jefferson's reaction was based on an assumption that they did indeed intend to harm his friend.
So if he really believes that was what they were thinking then it is something he has constructed after the fact to explain why he got hit.
But really, Mr Jefferson seems to have based his behaviour entirely on false assumptions about masculinity.
Breaking down the scenario, we see:
A group of male friends who are confident (due to being in a group, and due to being in familiar territory) who express their ownership of the territory and those within it by acting with male-privilege entitlement towards the body of a (in their eyes) unattached female (unattached, therefore fair game for their desires).
This female (Jefferson's friend) responded in self-defence against threatening (and certainly extremely unwelcome) behaviour in a way that re-established some of her power over the situation by seeking to humiliate those who were humiliating and threatening her.
Into this scene strides our hero, Cord Jefferson.
Jefferson's response tells us a lot about his perception of his own masculinity. e automatically assumes a subservient posture, "I'm sorry!" The purpose of this is to say, "Violence is unnecessary here, we surrender, you are in charge." It's the equivalent of the "roll on the back exposing the belly" posture adopted by a subservient dog. He has perceived these men as being bigger, stronger, more aggressive than he is and therefore the most important thing is to tell them they have won so they will not need to do anything else to prove how big and strong they are.
What actually happens, though, is that Jefferson takes responsibility for the situation: "I'm sorry she did that" says, "It's my fault she did that". A wrong has been done and Jefferson has neatly taken the blame for it; to maintain alpha-masculine status, that means retribution must be meted out against the person responsible. A second ago, that person was "Friend"; and in the situation as Jefferson arrived back from the bathroom, as explained already, they were intent on exacting some form of retaliation upon her. Now it is Jefferson. By this argument, then what the man was actually was thinking just before he hit Jefferson, was, "That's for letting her dump nachos on my head, asshole!"
But there is a secondary strand to this play of masculinity in action.
You see, as explained, the 3 drunk friends were expressing their ownership of the territory and of the woman in their territory. By interposing himself between them and their intended prey, Jefferson (despite his subservient language) was presenting himself as a challenge to their right to act how they wanted in this space (that they have declared as theirs). What's more, since they are already "squared off" against "Friend", the implication is that to put oneself between the two sides one would have to become uncomfortably close to the aggressor. This, too, in performative masculinity constitutes a challenge to the other's authority.
By this analysis, then what the guy was thinking just before he hit Jefferson, was, "Don't stand up to me, whelp!" In fact, the verbal admission of subservient status reinforces the need to put down the challenge to authority (especially since there's an audience of two of his friends).
What do the rules of performative masculinity suggest would have been a better approach?
Well, there's two options that I can see.
The first is the confrontational approach.
This requires a direct challenge to the men's behaviour, and is best presented with some kind of implicit or explicit statement of ownership: "Hey, what did you do to my girl/my friend/my partner?" (partner not necessarily in relationship sense, but as "travelling partner" or whatever). Although this could still end up in violence, the rules have changed because there is an implication of prior ownership rights established. Admittedly, it requires a basic amount of front to pull it off (and ideally the ability to make a quick telling blow - the "2-second fight" theory - if things turn uglier) so there's a certain amount of risk involved. The aim is to play a classic role in performative masculinity: "defending my girl". Jefferson probably thought he was playing that role when he interposed himself between his friend and the attackers, but he wasn't (and we'll get to why not in a minute). Because it's a classic role, it's a respected role and the intention is to say clearly, "she dumped nachos over you because she is already spoken for, I am claiming her as mine, she is not available."
The second aspect is that the challenge is presented in a question, not as a "leave her alone!" Questions require answers, and asking this question the most likely answer is "Nothin', we was just foolin'" or something like that (if it isn't then the strategy may be about to fail and that whole 2-second fight thing may be needed). If they deny any particular intent then the energy in the situation is defused and a withdrawal from the situation should be possible - and an apology offered only when both "Friend" and "Hero" are safely at/out the door.
That's the confrontational approach.
The other option is the comforter approach, and in feminist terms this is the better option by far.
This opens with the cry of "Oh my God, [name-of-"Friend"], what did they do to you?" or "Are you okay, [name-of-"Friend"]?" This also establishes a role of "defender of girl", although this time there is no possessive role necessarily indicated so it's a slightly different form of performative masculinity. The basic elements are similar to the confrontational approach, in that there is a clear implied accusation of the attackers (which is explicit in the confrontational form), an establishment of some connection with the victim, and an engagement from distance. Unlike the confrontational approach, any closing down of distance should be to stand directly with "Friend". The aim, of course, is to make as quick and smooth an exit as possible.
The reason this is preferable from a feminist point of view is, of course, because it allows the woman (who is the victim in all this) to define the terms of the situation and gives her a validated voice (it's validated in performative masculinity terms because a man has asked for it) so that her objections to the men's behaviour are explicit. Contrast this to what Jefferson actually did, which was to take away not only any right she had to object to their behaviour but also countermanded her feelings about it. Instead of supporting her, he actually said to the attackers that they had the right to be angry. Is it any wonder that the exercised that right?
Now, I said that Jefferson probably thought he was playing the performative masculinity role of "defend the girl" when he interposed himself between his friend and her would-be attackers. However, in that case he weakened his role in this respect by a) countermanding her reaction and b) presenting as weak (by offering apology and begging for it not to be a fight). In fact, the role he adopted was "owner of the girl", and "let's sort this out like men". For that to work, then he had to come down clearly and explicitly in the opposite direction, reprimanding his friend for her actions (e.g. "[name-of-"Friend"], what did you do that for!?") before turning to the attackers and trying to negotiate a non-violent conclusion. Obviously, not acceptable from a feminist point of view, I'm just explaining what the rules of performative masculinity required.
In short, the reason that Cord Jefferson ended up with 36 stitches was because he performed masculinity poorly. Not because he wasn't a woman, but because he wasn't (by the rules of Patriarchy) enough of a man.
Sunday, 13 December 2009
Feminists know a lot, but not everything
Via Renee:
Before I get started in on this post by Pilgrim Soul @ 'Pursuit of Harpyness', I want to be clear that I agree with the poster that the man who is the main target is an absolute jerk; anyone who can seriously argue that women shouldn't complain about being hit for no reason is not worth a great deal in my book. Incidentally, if he thinks that the guy was thinking, "I can't hit a woman", then he really doesn't seem to understand male-on-male violence either: from the description, it's much more likely he was thinking "I'm stronger than you, how dare you challenge me, whelp?" - indeed, just analysing that one anecdote could generate a whole post of its own.
Anyway, I am getting sidelined from my main point, which is almost a tangent from the Harpyness post. Pilgrim Soul makes a series of criticisms of men who "Arrive on the Scene to Explain It All", and to be clear, I don't think I am such a man. However, I do want to respond to some of the points that Pilgrim Soul argues and bring some counterarguments; in part this is because they are relevant to what I do here, but at the same time again - I'm explaining why I am not the man she is really writing about. But in so doing, I'm also saying why the blanket dismissal is unhelpful.
I think there certainly is a class of man for whom the criticism is valid, and it's probably the majority of those who wander by in feminist debates.
But my issue is that feminists whom I've read, and feminist debaters online and in the media, do not know what it is like to be men, for the most part. Assumptions are made when talking about men that just don't hold true, or are at best very imperfect pictures of masculine experience. There's some good stuff there, of course, but it inevitably misses the mark. As I discussed on an earlier post, arguments that women can know what men's experience is really like are necessarily limited by the fact of gendered oppression. Talk like that ascribed to MacKinnon (whom I haven't read, because of the reactions that sex-positive feminists have towards her and the rather obvious likelihood of not finding my experience reflected in her writing as a result!) is all very well, but it isn't specific, it isn't even particularly helpful. And yet, I agree - feminism is a natural ally to men who want liberation from gendered suffering.
Which is why the next point is particularly annoying to me:
As regular readers will know, I am very clear about my engagement with feminism. I am interested in feminism for what it can do for me, a man. If any point made by Pilgrim Soul is directly about me, it is this one.
PS says, "highly contingent alliances are not alliances. They are quid pro quo bargains. (You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours.) Their loyalty is purely strategic, not altruistic..."
I say that an altruistic alliance is untrustworthy, because the minute the going gets tough, 99% of altruists disappear in a puff of smoke. Hell, that's even what they complain of the "Arrive on the Scene" men doing, let's be fair. If anything, that's the proof that the Arrive on the Scene aren't interested in any kind of alliance but just saying that feminism is wrong. Like I said, I'm not in any way in agreement with them! But a loyalty that is strategic, that is something on which I will depend. Something that I can trust.
I play a game called Diplomacy, which for those who don't know, is a board game that is built around the concept of negotiating for the help of other players to defeat yet other players, and of course ultimately try to win the game yourself (and not for the other players with whom you negotiated). That game (and watching real life) has taught me that the alliances you can trust are the ones where you need each other's support. If someone says they'll do something out of the goodness of their heart - fuck 'em, they're looking to get an advantage over you and use it against you.
If you're looking for big-hearted, altruistic men to be your feminist allies, then you're waiting for a chimera.
On the other hand, if you're looking for men who actually get that ending gendered oppression will benefit men, then we can make an alliance and actually get stuff done that benefits women. And men.
The problem with the men who are really the target of Pilgrim Soul's piece is that they aren't really interested in their own activism, let alone anyone else's: they want feminists to do it all for them, instead of actually getting out there are being activists for gender liberation (including liberation of men). Which kind of is also what Pilgrim Soul's next point talks about:
Again, I'm definitely not the man discussed here. Again, I totally agree that such arseholes exist and are a waste of time and resources. But since I do say that in certain areas feminism seems to show evidence of blindspots or myopia, then I guess I need to explain why what I am saying and doing is not the same as what the Arrive on the Scene men are saying.
I guess the key point is in that whole "doing more about..." passage, because I do actually do stuff about sexual assault (56 posts with that tag, 2 are episodes of "Cyborg Sleeps", several deal with feminist claims that sex work is somehow tantamount to rape, but plenty are calling out men or MSM for perpetuating rape culture; also calling out men when I am in a situation to, for sexism/harassment etc). And look, not asking for a cookie here - just wanting to get the fuck on with trying to end gendered oppression because, hey, that's how I get liberated too.
If I comment about "how feminism is wrong" (or more likely, what I perceive to be a blindspot concerning men's issues) then the point is to make it easier to get rid of gendered oppression, see?
(there is a point 4, but I don't have anything to add on that because it really really isn't anything to do with me, and I agree with it fully - go read it for clarification!)
***
In the comments thread there were also some choice remarks to which I feel a response is appropriate.
From yvanehtnioj:
The phrasing here is interesting: "a man's point of view", not "men's points of view". And that's the key to my problem with this frequently-heard objection that feminists make to men wanting to speak freely. Because you have to ask yourself, "The point of view of which man?". And the answer is, it isn't an actual, real-life breathing man whose voice we hear, but the monolithic "ideal man" as constructed by Patriarchy. Just as the voices of women that we are allowed to hear do not represent actual women but rather the way Patriarchy needs women to sound, the overwhelming majority of audible male point of view is used to oppress men in the same way.
Genuine male experience, males' POV - that actually is rare. Men are stuck in a situation of performing their gender so that "a man's point of view" is not his, but rather is the medium by which he is trying to prove to other men that he is also a man.
And that, my dear reader, is precisely why actually, yes - when a man breaks ranks to express his point of view, it is rare and it does need to be protected and encouraged. Because otherwise, the Patriarchy that we all oppose so vehemently is never going to show enough cracks for it to crumble and fall.
Following on from which, we have baraqiel:
Now, it is true: a lot of men complaining about these issues don't recognise that gendered oppression of males is perpetrated chiefly by other men.
But other than that monumental blindspot (one that I have addressed a few times in posts on this blog) there are other reasons why men don't do as baraqiel blithely advises. And the fact that she "100%" doesn't understand these reasons is precisely why men feel the need to explain ("mansplain") to feminists about "masculinity is painful" etc. and why reading MacKinnon or whoever is really not going to get anywhere. The only female writer I've encountered who got it was one who actually lived the experience of masculinity for a year.
"If you don’t like violence against men, talk to OTHER MEN about not being so violent. If you don’t like men making you feel bad for whatever reason, talk to OTHER MEN about it."
You think it's that easy? Do you have any idea what happens to most men if they try to do that?
The best that happens is you get dismissed as a whingeing, pathetic loser and you get told to "suck it up", "man up", "be a man", "grow some balls" etc.
There's a significant chance of being relegated to "sissy", "poofter", wuss", "girl" status, and that leads to more violence against one's person and in extreme cases can lead to being killed.
This is directly imposed by men on men, but some women play their part in reinforcing the gendered oppression - some of them even self-identified feminists. It is also precisely why it is so hard for men to get together to do anything about the oppression we experience. If you speak up about it, you get smacked down hard, even though what you say might be experienced by everyone else: because the show of masculinity is important to make sure you're not the next one being smacked down. This passage from Richard Feynman still strikes me as an excellent illustration of what happens:
That's what being a man is like, all the time, in life. And worst of all, even if you all know you're not really learning anything, you dare not admit it because that's when everyone else laughs at you (or, as explained above, in masculinity, it's when you get pounded).
I've included this comment by Tall-in-Heels because it sums up the whole thing with reported experience so well:
Women are experts on their own experience. It is sadly all too true that many men think that they can interpret women's experiences for them, and tell them what they "should" feel. There again, hanging out around sex-positive feminists' and sex-worker rights advocates' websites, I get to see that quite a lot of women do the same shit as well (heh - that feels like an obligatory disclaimer for me, because damn, it makes me mad when I see feminists do that, and for the same reason as ascribed by Tall in the quotation above).
I am in full agreement that men who can't accept women as speaking truth, but who cling to the "arbiter" role of power, are poor allies. But I do think men need to be arbiters of their own experience. As noted already, I don't feel most men are experts on their own experience in the way that women are experts in their own experience; this is because the tools that centuries of feminist thinking have developed are not yet easily available for men (and it's one of the things that men's liberation can learn from feminism). But I do think that feminists do better to accept that women cannot be experts in masculinity either, and for similar reasons that men cannot be experts in women's experience. I think that women do have more insight into male experience than vice versa, because of the inequalities of gendered oppression but the whole thrust of this post I think points out that even so, it does not make for true understanding unless there is trust from both sides.
That's why it NEEDS to be a strategic, contingent alliance and not mere altruism, because only when the alliance is based on a full understanding of the interconnected nature of the issues facing the two sides, can an alliance be solid and lasting.
Before I get started in on this post by Pilgrim Soul @ 'Pursuit of Harpyness', I want to be clear that I agree with the poster that the man who is the main target is an absolute jerk; anyone who can seriously argue that women shouldn't complain about being hit for no reason is not worth a great deal in my book. Incidentally, if he thinks that the guy was thinking, "I can't hit a woman", then he really doesn't seem to understand male-on-male violence either: from the description, it's much more likely he was thinking "I'm stronger than you, how dare you challenge me, whelp?" - indeed, just analysing that one anecdote could generate a whole post of its own.
Anyway, I am getting sidelined from my main point, which is almost a tangent from the Harpyness post. Pilgrim Soul makes a series of criticisms of men who "Arrive on the Scene to Explain It All", and to be clear, I don't think I am such a man. However, I do want to respond to some of the points that Pilgrim Soul argues and bring some counterarguments; in part this is because they are relevant to what I do here, but at the same time again - I'm explaining why I am not the man she is really writing about. But in so doing, I'm also saying why the blanket dismissal is unhelpful.
1. Men who think that feminists need urgently to know that masculinity is painful have not actually read any feminism. I’d say, despite the standard throwaway lines they usually include with their critiques, à la “I am just as much of a feminist as any woman,” or “I totally think violence against women is a serious problem but,” most of the men who Arrive on the Scene are only interested in feminism insofar as they can explain why it’s wrong. I mean, these guys are not citing other internal feminist discourse to us, though they could had they the least interest in reading any. They’d be shocked to know, actually, that their best sympathizers on this score are usually radical feminists like MacKinnon who say things like that men’s oppression of women will not end until dominance as a mode of social organization is over. But to get to that shock, they’d first have to read some feminism, and this above all, they haven’t time to do. Their pain is in too urgent need of address by the closest self-described feminists at hand.
I think there certainly is a class of man for whom the criticism is valid, and it's probably the majority of those who wander by in feminist debates.
But my issue is that feminists whom I've read, and feminist debaters online and in the media, do not know what it is like to be men, for the most part. Assumptions are made when talking about men that just don't hold true, or are at best very imperfect pictures of masculine experience. There's some good stuff there, of course, but it inevitably misses the mark. As I discussed on an earlier post, arguments that women can know what men's experience is really like are necessarily limited by the fact of gendered oppression. Talk like that ascribed to MacKinnon (whom I haven't read, because of the reactions that sex-positive feminists have towards her and the rather obvious likelihood of not finding my experience reflected in her writing as a result!) is all very well, but it isn't specific, it isn't even particularly helpful. And yet, I agree - feminism is a natural ally to men who want liberation from gendered suffering.
Which is why the next point is particularly annoying to me:
2. Men whose alliance to feminism (assuming they state one) is dependent on feminism addressing their pain are allied to feminism on highly contingent grounds. It seems frustrating to have to say it, but highly contingent alliances are not alliances. They are quid pro quo bargains. (You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours.) Their loyalty is purely strategic, not altruistic; what these men are saying is that the liberation of women alone is insufficient reason to ally with feminism. What big hearts they do have, these men. (This is a point other people have made more eloquently than I, but I say it again because I feel like we’re not internalizing this. We’re still telling men who are lecturing and hectoring and demanding things of us that we consider them allies. Ick, you guys, ick.)
As regular readers will know, I am very clear about my engagement with feminism. I am interested in feminism for what it can do for me, a man. If any point made by Pilgrim Soul is directly about me, it is this one.
PS says, "highly contingent alliances are not alliances. They are quid pro quo bargains. (You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours.) Their loyalty is purely strategic, not altruistic..."
I say that an altruistic alliance is untrustworthy, because the minute the going gets tough, 99% of altruists disappear in a puff of smoke. Hell, that's even what they complain of the "Arrive on the Scene" men doing, let's be fair. If anything, that's the proof that the Arrive on the Scene aren't interested in any kind of alliance but just saying that feminism is wrong. Like I said, I'm not in any way in agreement with them! But a loyalty that is strategic, that is something on which I will depend. Something that I can trust.
I play a game called Diplomacy, which for those who don't know, is a board game that is built around the concept of negotiating for the help of other players to defeat yet other players, and of course ultimately try to win the game yourself (and not for the other players with whom you negotiated). That game (and watching real life) has taught me that the alliances you can trust are the ones where you need each other's support. If someone says they'll do something out of the goodness of their heart - fuck 'em, they're looking to get an advantage over you and use it against you.
If you're looking for big-hearted, altruistic men to be your feminist allies, then you're waiting for a chimera.
On the other hand, if you're looking for men who actually get that ending gendered oppression will benefit men, then we can make an alliance and actually get stuff done that benefits women. And men.
The problem with the men who are really the target of Pilgrim Soul's piece is that they aren't really interested in their own activism, let alone anyone else's: they want feminists to do it all for them, instead of actually getting out there are being activists for gender liberation (including liberation of men). Which kind of is also what Pilgrim Soul's next point talks about:
3. Men like this want free cookies without actual selflessness. I know I just said these men want a quid pro quo bargain, but usually they’re not even prepared to make what strikes me as the minimum initial commitment of doing something more about women getting raped/beaten/intimidated/discriminated against, the whole shebang, than writing an internet comment in which one damn line is devoted to lip service. For this – for declaring themselves to be not like totally opposed to feminism, just of the opinion that it is myopic – they think we ought to alter the focus of our work. And while this is not universally true, most of the (internet and otherwise) feminists I’ve ever met are doing in the trenches work, and often it’s with men too. This I cannot generally say for the kind of guy who spends his days internet commenting about why “feminism is wrong.”
Again, I'm definitely not the man discussed here. Again, I totally agree that such arseholes exist and are a waste of time and resources. But since I do say that in certain areas feminism seems to show evidence of blindspots or myopia, then I guess I need to explain why what I am saying and doing is not the same as what the Arrive on the Scene men are saying.
I guess the key point is in that whole "doing more about..." passage, because I do actually do stuff about sexual assault (56 posts with that tag, 2 are episodes of "Cyborg Sleeps", several deal with feminist claims that sex work is somehow tantamount to rape, but plenty are calling out men or MSM for perpetuating rape culture; also calling out men when I am in a situation to, for sexism/harassment etc). And look, not asking for a cookie here - just wanting to get the fuck on with trying to end gendered oppression because, hey, that's how I get liberated too.
If I comment about "how feminism is wrong" (or more likely, what I perceive to be a blindspot concerning men's issues) then the point is to make it easier to get rid of gendered oppression, see?
(there is a point 4, but I don't have anything to add on that because it really really isn't anything to do with me, and I agree with it fully - go read it for clarification!)
***
In the comments thread there were also some choice remarks to which I feel a response is appropriate.
From yvanehtnioj:
And FFS, let’s all please please please FOR THE LOVE stop pretending like a man’s point of view is a rare triple crested hornblower or some such shit, which needs to be protected and encouraged lest it never be heard again. You have to look pretty damn hard to find anything other than a man’s POV in day to day life. Welcome to the Emmereffing Patriarchy.
The phrasing here is interesting: "a man's point of view", not "men's points of view". And that's the key to my problem with this frequently-heard objection that feminists make to men wanting to speak freely. Because you have to ask yourself, "The point of view of which man?". And the answer is, it isn't an actual, real-life breathing man whose voice we hear, but the monolithic "ideal man" as constructed by Patriarchy. Just as the voices of women that we are allowed to hear do not represent actual women but rather the way Patriarchy needs women to sound, the overwhelming majority of audible male point of view is used to oppress men in the same way.
Genuine male experience, males' POV - that actually is rare. Men are stuck in a situation of performing their gender so that "a man's point of view" is not his, but rather is the medium by which he is trying to prove to other men that he is also a man.
And that, my dear reader, is precisely why actually, yes - when a man breaks ranks to express his point of view, it is rare and it does need to be protected and encouraged. Because otherwise, the Patriarchy that we all oppose so vehemently is never going to show enough cracks for it to crumble and fall.
Following on from which, we have baraqiel:
What I absolutely 100% do not understand is why these men never do shit about their problems themselves. ... If you don’t like violence against men, talk to OTHER MEN about not being so violent. If you don’t like men making you feel bad for whatever reason, talk to OTHER MEN about it. ... I swear, it’s like these men cannot comprehend the fact that the people making life bad for them are, in fact, also bepenised.
Now, it is true: a lot of men complaining about these issues don't recognise that gendered oppression of males is perpetrated chiefly by other men.
But other than that monumental blindspot (one that I have addressed a few times in posts on this blog) there are other reasons why men don't do as baraqiel blithely advises. And the fact that she "100%" doesn't understand these reasons is precisely why men feel the need to explain ("mansplain") to feminists about "masculinity is painful" etc. and why reading MacKinnon or whoever is really not going to get anywhere. The only female writer I've encountered who got it was one who actually lived the experience of masculinity for a year.
"If you don’t like violence against men, talk to OTHER MEN about not being so violent. If you don’t like men making you feel bad for whatever reason, talk to OTHER MEN about it."
You think it's that easy? Do you have any idea what happens to most men if they try to do that?
The best that happens is you get dismissed as a whingeing, pathetic loser and you get told to "suck it up", "man up", "be a man", "grow some balls" etc.
There's a significant chance of being relegated to "sissy", "poofter", wuss", "girl" status, and that leads to more violence against one's person and in extreme cases can lead to being killed.
This is directly imposed by men on men, but some women play their part in reinforcing the gendered oppression - some of them even self-identified feminists. It is also precisely why it is so hard for men to get together to do anything about the oppression we experience. If you speak up about it, you get smacked down hard, even though what you say might be experienced by everyone else: because the show of masculinity is important to make sure you're not the next one being smacked down. This passage from Richard Feynman still strikes me as an excellent illustration of what happens:
One other thing I could never get them to do was to ask questions. Finally, a student explained it to me: "If I ask you a question during the lecture, afterwards everybody will be telling me, 'What are you wasting our time for in the class? We're trying to learn something. And you're stopping him by asking a question.'"
It was a kind of one-upmanship, where nobody knows what's going on, and they'd all put each other down as if they did know. They all fake that they know, and if one student admits for a moment that something is confusing by asking a question, the others take a high-handed attitude, acting like it's not confusing at all, telling him he's wasting their time.
That's what being a man is like, all the time, in life. And worst of all, even if you all know you're not really learning anything, you dare not admit it because that's when everyone else laughs at you (or, as explained above, in masculinity, it's when you get pounded).
I've included this comment by Tall-in-Heels because it sums up the whole thing with reported experience so well:
Men are often not willing to accept that women have a unique perspective and insight into the world that they will never have, and they certainly aren’t willing to simply trust a woman’s viewpoint. Rather, women’s viewpoints are, at best, questioned, and at worst written off entirely. Being a true ally requires trust. A man who doesn’t want to trust women’s viewpoints is a man who doesn’t want to give up the privilege of always being right, of being the authority. A man who doesn’t want to trust women’s viewpoints is a man who doesn’t want to relinquish the power of being the arbiter of truth. That’s not an ally.
Women are experts on their own experience. It is sadly all too true that many men think that they can interpret women's experiences for them, and tell them what they "should" feel. There again, hanging out around sex-positive feminists' and sex-worker rights advocates' websites, I get to see that quite a lot of women do the same shit as well (heh - that feels like an obligatory disclaimer for me, because damn, it makes me mad when I see feminists do that, and for the same reason as ascribed by Tall in the quotation above).
I am in full agreement that men who can't accept women as speaking truth, but who cling to the "arbiter" role of power, are poor allies. But I do think men need to be arbiters of their own experience. As noted already, I don't feel most men are experts on their own experience in the way that women are experts in their own experience; this is because the tools that centuries of feminist thinking have developed are not yet easily available for men (and it's one of the things that men's liberation can learn from feminism). But I do think that feminists do better to accept that women cannot be experts in masculinity either, and for similar reasons that men cannot be experts in women's experience. I think that women do have more insight into male experience than vice versa, because of the inequalities of gendered oppression but the whole thrust of this post I think points out that even so, it does not make for true understanding unless there is trust from both sides.
That's why it NEEDS to be a strategic, contingent alliance and not mere altruism, because only when the alliance is based on a full understanding of the interconnected nature of the issues facing the two sides, can an alliance be solid and lasting.
Thursday, 10 December 2009
FICTION: Cyborg Sleeps Part 15
In which Asira turns her eyes back on (kinda grim description of what that involves, but no goriness) and Bena Wainwright arrives on a mercy mission with a hidden agenda.
Language note: For those unaware, "Pontoon" is essentially the same game as casino blackjack.
Note on writing this: the scene was planned out for months in advance of writing it, but when I got to this point Asira was, um, uncooperative. Bena has therefore had to acquire a certain extra amount of stubborn assertiveness that wasn't originally there, in order to make the scene work. I think I prefer this Bena, though, and it works well for what I have lined up for her in later developments.
Language note: For those unaware, "Pontoon" is essentially the same game as casino blackjack.
Note on writing this: the scene was planned out for months in advance of writing it, but when I got to this point Asira was, um, uncooperative. Bena has therefore had to acquire a certain extra amount of stubborn assertiveness that wasn't originally there, in order to make the scene work. I think I prefer this Bena, though, and it works well for what I have lined up for her in later developments.
Part 15
On reflection, Asira really wished she hadn't done it. Her eyes were not supposed to be deactivated like that, and reactivating them was going to hurt. Also, it hadn't worked properly: although the whole world had gone dark, she could still see a glimmering image of Director Gattell as he left. He disappeared as the door closed behind him. Asira wondered why she had still been able to see him when the optic circuitry that gave her vision had no power. She resolved to ask the experts once she was allowed to leave the hospital building.
There was no point delaying any longer: recovering her sight would grow any easier with waiting, but she remembered the only other time that she had done it, and she figured that the longer she gave herself to think about it, the harder psychologically it would be to go through with it. Gritting her teeth, she willed the appropriate command to the circuits.
At first, it wasn't too bad, but after a few seconds the agony began. As the circuits' interface with her nerves began to warm up, a sensation like intense and painful pins-and-needles began to build in what felt like the backs of her eyeballs (she had no eyeballs, only the optics, but the nerves still believed she did). At first it was relatively easy to ignore, but it grew and grew until it was quite maddening. It was all Asira could do to keep enough self-control to stop herself clawing at her face trying to stop the sensation. She was blinking, pulling faces, anything that gave her the impression that she might be able to do something about the torture that she had just inflicted on herself. With a sense of grim humour, she thought to herself that she hoped Sam appreciated her display sufficiently to make it worthwhile. She also grimly mused that she couldn't feel the pain in her side at all, her sense of pain seemed to be totally occupied with her eyes.
After about 5 minutes, that felt more like 5 aeons to Asira as she battled through the torment, the pins-and-needles sensation started to fade. Asira braced herself for the next onslaught: the return of her vision.
This was because her vision would not return like opening her eyes, but through a rather more painful means.
Sure enough, as soon as the pins-and-needles had faded to nothing, she found herself staring directly into the brightest imaginable light – brighter than any human eye was supposed to see. And though it was purely an artefact of her circuits warming up, and not from any external source, it still hurt just as much as though someone was shining the light of the sun directly into her pupils.
Asira couldn't help herself: she screwed up her eyelids against it, and thrust out her hands trying to block the light. Of course, it couldn't be blocked. She couldn't curl up, hide her face or shadow herself in any way because there was nothing outside her body to protect herself from. It was all happening inside her nervous system and the technology wired into it.
But then, after just a few seconds this time, it was over. The brightness started to fade, and the world started to resolve itself into ordinary colours, light and shade, shapes – vision was returning properly, until at last Asira could see perfectly again. More than perfectly. Her variable vision range was back, too. Asira set her eyes to something close to normal human vision, and coloured them to their neutral brown camouflage.
Her side hurt. She checked quickly that she hadn't pulled her stitches when her body reacted to the bright light.
***
A nurse came and went, delivering lunch for Asira to eat. Although she didn't think she was hungry, Asira found that she wolfed it down. She didn't know if a large appetite was normal for a victim recovering from blood loss, but the nurse seemed very pleased with the empty plate. Asira did notice that several of the foods she had ingested were iron-rich, which she assumed were to help the body replace the lost red blood cells.
Already, boredom was beginning to set in: she was not used to long periods of inactivity, and even when on surveillance assignments, there was always something she was doing even if she was lying still in a ditch for days on end. There was some focus and direction to her inactivity then. Here, she was just supposed to lie still and “get better”. There was nothing she could do to help it, nothing for her mind to latch on to.
***
Her next visitor was a surprise to her. When Bena Wainwright's grey eyes and blonde hair peeked around the door, Asira merely scowled. The blonde priestess seemed not to get the hint because her body soon followed, her sloppy Joe pullover sparkling with the response of the cryptoscopy. A loose skirt completed her ensemble and Asira wondered for a moment about it. More immediate concerns bothered her for the moment, though.
"What are you doing here?" Asira snarled.
"You're bored, I'm bored, I have games. We can help each other out."
"I'm in no mood to play with you."
"Of course you're not, but I'm going to be here for a while since I have nothing better to do than be cursed at by you, so here we are."
Tacitly admitting defeat, Asira turned to the other question: "And that's what you wear off-duty!?"
"Yup! It's comfy and cheap, and it's not like there's any reason for dressing up all smart, like."
"You know, your bright, cheery attitude is going to get on my nerves reeeally quickly, bitch!" Asira noted grimly, giving no ground.
Bena answered lightly, "Yeah, and your grumpiness is irritating me, too. But like I said, I'm here for a while and if the best I can do is annoy you then at least it'll keep you from feeling bored."
"What makes you think I'm bored?"
"You're a fighter and right now you're unable to fight or train. It's logical, innit? And I get bored too, so I figured maybe we could help each other with that."
"I don't want your help!"
Bena's voice was suddenly slightly harder: "Tough, cos you've got it."
"Oh, for fuck's sake! Why!?"
"Well, that's for me to know and you to figure out. Meantime, let's play a game."
"How about arm wrestling?"
Bena smiled, "Sure, but we don't have anywhere to do it. Tell you what, when they let you out of bed I'll give you a match. Or, if you really just want to hurt me, we can play cards for shoulder-punches – I'll keep track of who owes how many and at the end we dish it out to the other."
"Stop acting like you're my friend. I don't know you, I don't want to know you. I still don't know why you're here."
"I want to be. I need no other reason. Now, are we going to play a game, or shall I get out my pocket games console instead?"
"You are really fucking annoying, you know that, right? Alright, Pontoon it is. But I'm going to own your arse by the end of this, and I will make you pay!"
Bena smirked, "Ooh, promises, promises!" and slapped herself on the rump before sitting by Asira's bed.
Warning message meme
Via TrinityVA:
Answers in comments please to the question:
Explanations not necessary (although I'd be curious to know!)
Answers in comments please to the question:
If I had a warning message, what would it be?
Explanations not necessary (although I'd be curious to know!)
Wednesday, 9 December 2009
Planet Earth, limited
I'm still a bit poorly, so not much in-depth analysis here. I've just watched the latest episode of the BBC's documentary series Horizon, which was titled How Many People Can Live on Planet Earth?
Just a couple of points that really struck me (or I thought would be interesting to readers here).
Firstly, an ecologist calculated the capacity of the Earth to support human population. In units of "global hectares" (hereafter abbreviated as "gh"), it turns out that at the current population we have an equal share of 2gh each. At India's current gh usage per capita (i.e. rate of resource consumption), the Earth could sustain a population of around 15 gigahumans (fifteen billion people!) if everyone lived at that level of consumption.
At the USA's gh usage per capita, that drops to 1.5 gigahumans.
(For Britain's usage, it's around 3 gigahumans)
***
A different scientist reckons that even these calculations are over-optimistic, because he thinks humans are currently using resources at a rate 50% more than Earth can sustainably produce.
***
David Attenborough explained the evidence that education and freedom of women lowers birth rates. Lowering birth rates, and controlling population levels, are pretty obviously key if the human race is going to survive beyond the next fifty years or so.
Access to contraception is also necessary for managing our population. If anyone ever talks about "culture of life" talking about crap like abstinence-only, restriction of abortion access, etc - their ideas will lead to the complete collapse and annihilation of humanity! FFS, it's like they WANT a Malthusian catastrophe to happen!
(Sorry, I'll take a moment to calm down now...)
Oh yeah, one thing they didn't mention: too much fertile land is used to farm meat or supply food for meat animals. Now, I'm not an advocate of complete vegetarian diet to save the planet, but it is a fact that (Western) diets are far too meat-rich for what humans are designed to eat. We can and should cut down a lot on the amount we eat. A hectare of land used for arable farming produces around 10 times the useful food energy as a hectare of land used to produce meat. Some land is obviously not as useful for producing crops (I'm thinking, for example, of the higher lands in Britain: Scottish Highlands, Yorkshire Dales, Dartmoor, etc) and can be used instead for animal farming, but we should really look at reducing meat diets and moving farming to arable where possible.
Anyway, that's all my brain can come up with today.
Just a couple of points that really struck me (or I thought would be interesting to readers here).
Firstly, an ecologist calculated the capacity of the Earth to support human population. In units of "global hectares" (hereafter abbreviated as "gh"), it turns out that at the current population we have an equal share of 2gh each. At India's current gh usage per capita (i.e. rate of resource consumption), the Earth could sustain a population of around 15 gigahumans (fifteen billion people!) if everyone lived at that level of consumption.
At the USA's gh usage per capita, that drops to 1.5 gigahumans.
(For Britain's usage, it's around 3 gigahumans)
***
A different scientist reckons that even these calculations are over-optimistic, because he thinks humans are currently using resources at a rate 50% more than Earth can sustainably produce.
***
David Attenborough explained the evidence that education and freedom of women lowers birth rates. Lowering birth rates, and controlling population levels, are pretty obviously key if the human race is going to survive beyond the next fifty years or so.
Access to contraception is also necessary for managing our population. If anyone ever talks about "culture of life" talking about crap like abstinence-only, restriction of abortion access, etc - their ideas will lead to the complete collapse and annihilation of humanity! FFS, it's like they WANT a Malthusian catastrophe to happen!
(Sorry, I'll take a moment to calm down now...)
Oh yeah, one thing they didn't mention: too much fertile land is used to farm meat or supply food for meat animals. Now, I'm not an advocate of complete vegetarian diet to save the planet, but it is a fact that (Western) diets are far too meat-rich for what humans are designed to eat. We can and should cut down a lot on the amount we eat. A hectare of land used for arable farming produces around 10 times the useful food energy as a hectare of land used to produce meat. Some land is obviously not as useful for producing crops (I'm thinking, for example, of the higher lands in Britain: Scottish Highlands, Yorkshire Dales, Dartmoor, etc) and can be used instead for animal farming, but we should really look at reducing meat diets and moving farming to arable where possible.
Anyway, that's all my brain can come up with today.
Monday, 7 December 2009
Heads-up for Feb.
On the Paul O'Grady show today, professional dancer Brian Fortuna from the BBC's Strictly Come Dancing (the US version is called Dancing with the Stars) announced a new show called Dancing on Wheels.
This is not a roller-blading or roller skates version of Dancing on Ice.
Fortuna explained that someone (I think he said his mother) had created the first syllabus for wheelchair ballroom dancing. Dancing on Wheels is a show based on this, with 6 professional wheelchair dancers partnered (as is the custom on these shows) with 6 celebrities. Fortuna said that it was set up specifically to promote awareness of PWD issues (yes, he used the term "people with disabilities"). The series is due to start in February in the UK.
This is not a roller-blading or roller skates version of Dancing on Ice.
Fortuna explained that someone (I think he said his mother) had created the first syllabus for wheelchair ballroom dancing. Dancing on Wheels is a show based on this, with 6 professional wheelchair dancers partnered (as is the custom on these shows) with 6 celebrities. Fortuna said that it was set up specifically to promote awareness of PWD issues (yes, he used the term "people with disabilities"). The series is due to start in February in the UK.
Gone down with the lurgy
I am feeling ill. Poorly. Sick. Unwell. Yucky in general.
This is why I am less of a fan of winter than I am of summer, because I don't suffer from hay fever but I do suffer from nasty cold-y viruses that think they live in my body, and when they do they cause all manner of discomfort, like unwanted house guests. It's horrible.
Current symptoms: it started with a horribly sore throat on Saturday night, and I went to bed early hoping that lots of sleep would be enough to heal that problem. I woke up very late on Sunday. Sore throat not gone, but add sniffly nose to the symptoms. That symptom has got progressively worse over the past 24 hours. The most noticeable symptom though has been the lethargy (it's a lethargy lurgy. And this is a lethargy lurgy litany! (Try saying tht three times fast)). Last night I started feeling sleepy around half past 7, although I stuck it out for a few more hours before hitting the sack. For much of the night, I drifted in and out of "dozing sleep", finally reaching full sleeping sometime in the early morning; I have only just woken up at gone 2pm.
Even when I'm awake the thought of doing... stuff... really seems impractical. Which is a pain because I need to visit the shops and stuff soon.
The only upside is that it does not seem to have a fever element to it, so it's unlikely to be any kind of flu.
Right, I'm done having a whine and a moan, normal service will be resumed somewhen.
This is why I am less of a fan of winter than I am of summer, because I don't suffer from hay fever but I do suffer from nasty cold-y viruses that think they live in my body, and when they do they cause all manner of discomfort, like unwanted house guests. It's horrible.
Current symptoms: it started with a horribly sore throat on Saturday night, and I went to bed early hoping that lots of sleep would be enough to heal that problem. I woke up very late on Sunday. Sore throat not gone, but add sniffly nose to the symptoms. That symptom has got progressively worse over the past 24 hours. The most noticeable symptom though has been the lethargy (it's a lethargy lurgy. And this is a lethargy lurgy litany! (Try saying tht three times fast)). Last night I started feeling sleepy around half past 7, although I stuck it out for a few more hours before hitting the sack. For much of the night, I drifted in and out of "dozing sleep", finally reaching full sleeping sometime in the early morning; I have only just woken up at gone 2pm.
Even when I'm awake the thought of doing... stuff... really seems impractical. Which is a pain because I need to visit the shops and stuff soon.
The only upside is that it does not seem to have a fever element to it, so it's unlikely to be any kind of flu.
Right, I'm done having a whine and a moan, normal service will be resumed somewhen.
Friday, 4 December 2009
Guilty, but oh so good - new guitar!
Second hand, about 60 quid (plus a bit more for a carry-case and new strings): this is a baby flying-V guitar designed by Greg Bennett. It has beautiful tone and plays so sweetly (the sustain is awesome too). I cannot afford it, but I bought it anyway.
Half in jest, when I was explaining to a friend yesterday my plan to purchase this guitar, after seeing it in the shop window, I gave it a name because I was gushing a little too much and she told me I sounded like I'd fallen in love. The guitar's name is now Valerie* (because 'V' for the flying 'V' design, and I happen to like the name). When I got home I used a paintpen to add the name to the upper tail of the 'V':
Valerie is a great metal guitar, so in my photo session I struck a mad-metal manic grin pose:
I have been playing with Valerie all day since getting home, all manner of noodling tunes and riffs of every shape and hue. I have a feeling this could be the start of a beautiful friendship...
ETA: the latest XKCD is eerily appropriate!
-----
*Just to be clear, I know that there are issues concerning giving female names to inanimate objects - I admit it, I've let the side down here!
Half in jest, when I was explaining to a friend yesterday my plan to purchase this guitar, after seeing it in the shop window, I gave it a name because I was gushing a little too much and she told me I sounded like I'd fallen in love. The guitar's name is now Valerie* (because 'V' for the flying 'V' design, and I happen to like the name). When I got home I used a paintpen to add the name to the upper tail of the 'V':
Valerie is a great metal guitar, so in my photo session I struck a mad-metal manic grin pose:
I have been playing with Valerie all day since getting home, all manner of noodling tunes and riffs of every shape and hue. I have a feeling this could be the start of a beautiful friendship...
ETA: the latest XKCD is eerily appropriate!
-----
*Just to be clear, I know that there are issues concerning giving female names to inanimate objects - I admit it, I've let the side down here!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)