Sorry, "joke", wasn't the correct word. Maybe I just meant that you could
refer to it in a light tone, just like the other day, Bob said he was, "a
horney guy", in a light tone. I did say to someone the other day, that I think
that every blind person is an angry person, although not every blind person
recognizes his or her anger. Yes certainly, there have been cosmetic changes.
That's why we had a Black President and why Amy Goodman has to say, in her
reporting, "the N word", rather than quoting what the cop actually said which
was "nigger". But the cop still says what he said in the 50's and he still
shoots unarmed black men. We still have black ghettoes and we still have a cold
war with Russia, even though Russia isn't a Communist country anymore. The US
is still supporting coups in Latin America, and on and on.
Miriam
Miriam.
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 2:22 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Trump just handed Gellibrand her origin story
While I agree with much of what you wrote, Miriam, I would protest the use of
the word "Joke" when referring to my personal exposee. What I write in a light
vein is not to joke about my past, but to attempt to explain how different our
Male Attitudes were some 50 years ago. Yes, I agree that ours is still a
White, Male Sexist, selfish culture. But it is not the same White, Male,
Sexist selfish culture that we lived in back in the 50's, 60's and 70's. Just
as an example, when my first wife and I married, she would have been mortified
to have even thought of keeping her own family name. She could not buy
anything on credit without my consent. We could not include her income when we
bought our first house, "Because your wife might get pregnant and have to quit
working". In most churches, Catholic and Protestant alike, women wore head
coverings while men entered bare headed. There were so many open ways of
keeping women in their place. And the same was true with Black and Brown
citizens. At least by making some changes in our laws, those who can afford
to, have the ability to force discrimination that once were accepted. But your
post goes hand in hand with my point. Until we are able to put in place a
society with People as its bottom line, we will simply go on doing the cosmetic
stuff and hoping we can hold onto our few gains.
Finally, back on the word, "joke". What I write on this and other lists may
appear to be frivolous, but inside my own private world I am one Hell of an
angry White, Blind Man.
Carl Jarvis
On 12/14/17, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Conditions aren't different now than they were then. We are a sexist,
racist society. We worship wealth and scoff at intellectdualism. We
are a nation that favors white, Christian, wealthy men. But over the
years, we've managed to camouflage the reality with cosmetic changes.
The powerful have kept the majority silent by giving them a President whose
father was born in
Africa and by providing a great deal of distraction with reality TV,
pretend luxury like overcrowded cruises with inferior food and
entertainment, and smart phones, and constant terrorist or pretend
terrorist incidents so they would have a scapegoat.
The beauty pageants were a tool with which to socialize women so that
they would accept male domination. Beauty pageants and all of those
movies with glamourous women. All of us born female, grew up believing
that we were unworthy unless we could meet , or at least approximate,
the standards of beauty that those pageants represented. Nothing has
changed. Hillary Clinton had to have beautifully dyed and coiffed
hair, perfecdt makeup, beautiful clothes, in order to run for the
Presidency. None of that was necessary in order for Bernie Sanders to
run. All of us born female who are physically disabled, not
particularly attractive, or aging, know that no matter how capable or
intelligent we are, our value is diminished in this society. But if we
are young and physically attractive, then we are automatically prey to
the men who surround us. Even those men who do not have money and
political power, are physically stronger than we are, and they have social
power, power that we don't have.
We have all been socialized to accept these sexual dynamics. Those of
us who rebel, are seen as bitter, angry, poor sports. Carl can easily
joke about his past sexual exploits on this list. That is a male
prerogative. It is not something that a woman would do, even if she
had a similar history in relation to men. Back in the late 60's, we
called it sexual politics. It is so pervasive, so ingrained, that men
are unaware that it exists, and women, find various ways of dealing
with it. The women who voted for Trump and Moore, have been completely
overwhelmed and corrupted by it.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 11:08 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Trump just handed Gellibrand her origin
story
Even "back then" in my days as a Womanizer, actually as a Floundering
Member of Womanizer's Anonymous, back in 1962, I came to believe that
such pageants as Miss America and Miss Universe, were contributing to
our sexist attitudes by approval of such parades. That year, 1962,
the year my eldest daughter was born, I watched for the last time the
exhibition of shapely young women attempting to become America's "most
perfect" woman.
Back then, if my faltering memory is correct, about half the women
watched the Pageant and half were disgusted. Men, in the company of
other men, mostly enjoyed gawking at the shapely young women. They
looked in a way that would have had them swinging and screaming at any
young man looking that way at their own daughters or wives.But in the
company of the woman folk in their families, they mostly said that
beauty contests were a foolish waste of time.
But to compare how men behaved back then with how we claim to behave
today...with those notable accused Sexual Predators being called out,
is like debating whether Notre Dame's "Four Horsemen" of bygone years
could be better than their counterparts today. Or whether Joe Lewis
could have beaten Jack Dempsey. Conditions are different and it will
always be like comparing apples to oranges.
While I applaud those women who, in the face of all the crap thrown in
their faces, come forward to reinforce the fact that we have always
been, along with being racist, we have always been a sexist society.
Our culture, which is built upon a bottom line of profit, creates the
atmosphere for Power Tripping. That bottom line of Profit has some
rewards other than simple wealth. Wealth buys privileges. One of
those privileges is dominance over those beneath you in the pecking
order created by our worship of Capitalism. Despite the
brave(foolish)talk, there are no Level Playing Fields in a Capitalistic
society. Socialism is a sign of weakness.
Women's bent toward mothering, which they extend to their community is
tolerated by the macho men. Rugged individualism still rules men's minds.
Even though the powerful men in the Ruling Class band together, they
sneer at efforts by working class members to organize unions, or to
provide comfort to those less fortunate than themselves.
So yes, we should thank those women who stand up for respect and
decency, but we should understand that this is just one part of the
struggle on the road to an all inclusive society. And the only way to
have that society which respects all its members is to change the form
of the society we now live in. Otherwise, no matter how often we push
new benefits through congress, those Powerful Bottom Liners will find
ways of destroying them, even as they profit from them.
Talk all we want about "reforming" the Democratic Party, and certainly
we must do what we can to take power away from our Corporate Masters,
but that will only be a short term fix. Down the road, like it or
not, a major social change must take place.
Carl Jarvis
On 12/14/17, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Back then, and remember, I was alive back then, women were not heads
of corporations either. A woman's purpose was to support her man, to
do the housework, to raise the children, and to do volunteer work if
she were wealthy enough to half household staff. Back then, a woman
was supposed to be flattered if a man made sexual advances, whether
or not she liked the man. And back then, women entered beauty
pageants so that she could be judged according to her appearance and
sexiness, and what followed from that was expected. 30 of 40 years
later, if one joins a beauty pageant in order to have one's physical
appearance judged, even if it's dressed up by adding on other
capabilities like piano playing, one has willingly entered the horse
show, just like way back then.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Frank ;
Ventura
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 3:07 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Trump just handed Gellibrand her
origin story
Miriam, back then women were too smart to want to be president; only
me were that foolish.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Miriam ;
Vieni
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 10:42 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Trump just handed Gellibrand her
origin story
Harry never mentioned any women, did he?
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl ;
Jarvis
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 9:42 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Trump just handed Gellibrand her
origin story
The way Jaws reads her name, Gellibrand sounds a little like some
brand of grape spread. But I'm not going to stick my nose out on
this next election.
Not after reading all the signs wrong in the last presidential fiasco.
I think I'll stop right here. I'm in a funky mood and not feeling
very productive.
The System is broke and is crying for fixing. But all the "fixers"
are gone fishing.
Old Harry Truman once told reporters that he figured there were more
than a million American Men who could be president. The big puffed
up political cream puffs postured and pouted and snorted. How dare
that Haberdasher devalue our mighty presidency by such blasphemy as
telling the world that this great office could be handled by over a million
men.
So enter Donald Trump. Old Harry is chortling in his grave.
Carl Jarvis
On 12/13/17, Frank Ventura <frank.ventura@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
See:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/stevens/ct-life-stevens-wed
n e sday-kirsten-gillibrand-women-rising-1213-story.html
http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/stevens/ct-life-stevens-wed
n e sday-kirsten-gillibrand-women-rising-1213-story.html
=
The gist of the above article is that Trump is hand picking
Gellibrand as his opponent for the 2020 presidential race. He may be
a sleazy fascist but evidentially not stupid. She is running from a
very weak position. Other than Obama and JFK senators don’t fare
well in presidential elections their voting record is always tough
to explain off and congressional approval ratings are at an all-time
low. She is also a woman and women don’t fare well in presidential
races. She is from a Northeast blue state and they also don’t fare
well with the heartland and the southland. The fourth major problem
with her candidacy is that she has chosen Trump’s predatory behavior
as her flagship issue. As we just experienced in the Alabama
election white women have basically said they don’t care as long as
the predator is a republican. Another mystery card in the deck is
what would happen if Trump decides not to run for reelection? Could
she even make a ripple with a republican candidate that isn’t a
predator or maybe even a female republican candidate, Sarah Palin,
Candalisa Rice, etc.? If I was a far right republican and I wanted
to pick an opponent she may be a good choice.
Frank