text:
Restoring Mayberry
An older world is still around
The Lost Chances of the Greens, part II
Kaller: Would you say that Greens everywhere are in favour of a more localized economy?
Gilman: I don't know about that. I would suspect that's true, because it's almost forced by the idea of a more Earth-friendly society. On the other hand, I don't know what Green Parties in other countries are doing. Certainly in this country, that is true, and is something I've worked for in Minnesota, a more localized economy.
Kaller: When I looked at the early issues of the North Country Anvil [a 1970s publication Gilman edited in rural Minnesota], I found it interesting. How integral would you say that was to the early Green Movement?
Gilman: I'd say a good many of them were integral.
[Gilman went on to describe some of the early Greens, mostly farmers and homesteaders from various Christian denominations; I didn't want to publicise their names without permission.]
They were Luddites; back-to-the-landers, and that particular aspect of the Anvil, carries over to the Green movement … [but] the Greens function on the Internet, and they are not Luddites in the sense of wanting to go back to the land; that was a function of the 1960s and 1970s, especially here in the Midwest. It may not have been as strong elsewhere, but I suspect it was – certainly in New England it was. That was one aspect of the Anvil.
Kaller: It felt like such a rural publication.
Gilman: One of the things that interested me was that it is a rural voice for the Green movement, whereas many others like Murray Bookchin were very much urban.
Kaller: When you were talking about these early ideas -- systems theory and the Club of Rome – how many people were paying attention? How big was this movement?
Gilman: It would be impossible for me to say; I was very much on the fringes of it. I was reading a lot of books, but I wasn't involved; I was raising kids. I was not involved as an activist in any way.
Kaller: But you were interested early on.
Gilman:Yes, I became interested in the mid-1970s, and my reading went back before that. But through the 60s I was "nesting," as they say, working full-time and raising a family, and that does keep one a little busy.
Kaller: I know (chuckle). I was trying to get a feel for how small the number of people were, and what kind of people.
Gilman: One key person whose work I read a good bit of, and went to several conferences with, was William Irwin Thompson – and I won't blame you if you've never heard of him. I have a number of his books up there; he came out of the Sixties. His first and best-known book was The Time Falling Bodies Take to Light, the rest were less well-known and less interesting.
In any case, I joined his Lindisfarne Association, and went a number of seminars and conferences, where I met some very interesting people. Mary Catherine Bateson – I never met Gregory, but his daughter Mary Catherine was at many of these conferences – and people like Wendell Berry and his wife, and a number of very Green-leaning people. They were also anti-capitalist, also, but again it's a much broader thing than capitalist vs. socialist.
Posted by Brian Kaller at 23:28
Publications of interest
5 Acres and a Dream
Catholic Ecology
Dragon's Tales
Eco Catholic
Ecosophia
Great Change
HipCrime Vocab
Imaginative Conservative
No Tech Magazine
The lost chances of the Greens, part III
The lost chances of the Greens, part 1


The other day my wife Pat heard a Mormon scholar on the radio saying that they are very Jesus-centred and so are therefore, to all intense and purposes, just another branch of the evangelical church. Ignoring for a moment the various doctrines, rites, and practices of modern day Mormons which differentiate them from evangelical churches, the central issue is Jesus. Is the Jesus of Mormonism the same Jesus who the Bible reveals as God incarnate?
I cannot even attempt to offer a comparison between Mormonism and evangelical Christianity in a short blog post like this. However, my understanding of Mormon teaching is that they believe Jesus to be the first naturally procreated son of the union between a god of flesh and bone, and Mary. (http://wri.leaderu.com/mormonism/jesus-refs.html). Traditional Mormons also appear to teach that Jesus Christ is actually a god named Jehovah, a different god to The Father, who is better known as Elohim. This Jesus/Jehovah is, they claim, actually our elder brother who evolved and became the god of this world. He is also Lucifer's brother! Now this is a very different Jesus to the Jesus of the Gospels.
I am not concerned in this posting about critiquing Mormonism and I am using their doctrine of Jesus simply to point out just how central the biblical Jesus is to our Faith. Jesus Christ could not have legitimately paid the penalty of death for humanity if He were anything less than fully God and fully man. Jesus could not be our supreme example if He were not fully man. Jesus Christ, God incarnate, is central to the Christian faith.
Because God the Son became a man, humanity was able to see Him, learn from Him, and relate to Him. The New Testament is therefore not a literary work about a religious concept, but an account of God Himself who came to earth, died for our sin, and returned to Heaven in bodily form where He reigns right now.


Samsung today announces the availability of the Note9 in Alpine White and a slew of activities for the coming Chinese New Year in Singapore.
One of the most anticipated phones from OnePlus is the 6T. For this review, I will focus on the camera features, especially the "Night" mode.


text:
Q: Conditional c.d.f Let $X$ and $Y$ be independent exponential random variables, with
$f(x;\lambda)= \frac{1}{\lambda}e^{-x/\lambda}, x \gt 0$
$f(y;\mu) = \frac{1}{\mu}e^{-y/\mu}, y \gt 0$
Let $Z = min(X,Y)$ and $W =1$ if $Z = X$, $W =0$ if $Z = Y$
Find the conditional c.d.f of $Z$ given $W = 1$ ?
Here is my trial:
$P(Z \le z| W=1) = 1 - P(Z \ge z| W=1) = 1 -\frac{P(Z \ge z, Y \ge X)}{P(Y \ge X)} = 1- \frac{P(X \ge z, Y \ge z, Y \ge X)}{P(Y \ge X)}$
$ = 1 - P(X \ge z, Y \ge z) = 1 - e^{(\frac{1}{\lambda} + \frac{1}{\mu})z}$
Is there anything wrong in my solution ?

A: You went awry at the second last equality; it is not true.   $~X,Y~$ being independent does not mean they will still be independent under condition that $~Y\geqslant X~$.
You will need to perform the following integrations.
$$\begin{align}\mathsf P(Y\geqslant X\geqslant 0) ~&=~ \int_0^\infty\int_x^\infty (\mu\lambda)^{-1} e^{-y/\mu-x/\lambda}\mathop{d}y\mathop d{x}
\\[3ex]
\mathsf P(Y\geqslant z,X\geqslant z, Y\geqslant X) &=~ \mathsf P(Y\geqslant X\geqslant z)
\\[1ex] & = ~ \int_z^\infty\int_x^\infty (\mu\lambda)^{-1} e^{-y/\mu-x/\lambda}\mathop{d}y\mathop d{x}\end{align}$$

Hint: clearly the first is a special case of the second when $z=0$, so save some work.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Late-night TV writer Steve O'Donnell will be this year's recipient of the WGA East's Herb Sargent Award for Comedy Excellence. Nominated for 20 Primetime Emmys and the winner of four, O'Donnell spent 10 years as head writer on NBC's Late Night with David Letterman and another five years as head writer on ABC's Jimmy Kimmel Live.
The award, which will be presented February 19 at the WGA Awards ceremony in New York, is given to a writer "who embodies the spirit, commitment and comic genius" of the late Herb Sargent. He served as president of the WGA East for 14 years and for more than 20 years as a writer-producer of Saturday Night Live.
O'Donnell was hired by Letterman in 1982 and went on to be his head writer at NBC's Late Night from 1983-92, leading the writing of memorable reoccurring segments such as "The Top 10 List," "The NBC Bookmobile" and "Calling Meg, the Office Worker in the Building Across the Street." In 1993, he followed Letterman to CBS' Late Show, where he worked until 1995.
He was a writer on Jimmy Kimmel's The Man Show from 1999-2001 and took on the head writer duties for Jimmy Kimmel Live from its launch in 2003 to 2008. He's also written for Seinfeld, The Simpsons, The Chris Rock Show, The Dana Carvey Show, Lateline, The Bonnie Hunt Show, Norm Macdonald Live, and Why? With Hannibal Buress.
Past recipients of the Sargent Award include comedy greats Lorne Michaels, Judd Apatow, James L. Brooks, Gary David Goldberg and Norman Stiles.


text:
Longleat Forest wildlife highlights over the past 24 years
In tribute to world animal day on the 4th October 2018, we are travelling back in time to look at the Longleat Forest wildlife highlights over the years
Our Senior Conservation Ranger James Monk has gone back to when Longleat Forest first opened in 1994 and has gathered lots of information about the wildlife that's lived there. Over the last 24 years, our beautiful forest has evolved and been home to several different animals.
A grand total of 604 species were identified when Longleat Forest However, in 1995 when the very first annual ecological report was completed the total number increased to 984 species
The Firecrest bird, one of the smallest birds in the UK and part of the Kinglet family was recorded for the first time with two pairs of breeding. This was a nationally significant population in the UK as the breeding population was around 20-30 pairs
Center Parcs was one of the first companies in the UK to achieve the Wildlife Trust's Biodiversity Benchmark accreditation. This recognised our commitment to protecting the forest and wildlife in the best and most environmentally friendly way
Longleat Forest won the Wildlife Trust's Corporate Green Award for Outstanding Contribution to the Environment and in the next following years for Sustainable Progress and Working for Wildlife
The first dormouse was found at Nockatt Coppice nature reserve after dormouse tubes were placed in the reserve the year before
A rare bee orchid flower was sighted near the Wildflower Meadow
We have the largest breeding population of siskin in Wiltshire
There are 75 varied species of trees in Longleat Forest
Longleat Forest in the future will continue to have a growing number of species with the help of the Conservation Rangers and Ground Services team who continue to protect the forest and wildlife.
In the meantime, enjoy world animal day and spoil your animals. Or enjoy our wildlife at Longleat Forest on your next break at Center Parcs.
Alisha Patel
As Marketing Assistant at Center Parcs, I'm here to give you a sneak peek into what is new and wonderful across Center Parcs. A lover of food and travel myself, Center Parcs is the perfect place to discover new things and share my tips and tricks with you, to make sure you get the most out of your stay.
"After 16 years and the loss of my husband, Center Parcs…
The Lowdown on Las Iguanas at Longleat Forest
VIDEO: Longleat Forest new water slides
Date for Longleat Forest's new rides revealed

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Le tigre blanc, parfois appelé tigre blanc royal, est un tigre (Panthera tigris), un mammifère carnivore de la famille des félidés présentant une mutation génétique lui conférant une robe blanche rayée de noir.

Cette anomalie génétique est appelée leucistisme ou leucisme. Les tigres blancs ne sont donc pas des spécimens albinos, qui n'ont quant à eux pas de rayures et des yeux plutôt clairs, apparence due dans ce cas à une autre mutation génétique, l'albinisme.

Le tigre blanc n'est pas une espèce ou une sous-espèce à part entière et n'est donc pas menacé d'extinction en tant que tel, même si l'espèce du tigre est, elle, classée « en danger » par l'Union internationale pour la conservation de la nature.

Son élevage en captivité est de plus en plus controversé car la reproduction des tigres blancs entre eux, pratiquée dans le but d'assurer une descendance entièrement leucistique, entraîne une forte consanguinité qui est associée à de nombreux troubles de santé. Cet élevage ne présente par ailleurs aucun intérêt dans la conservation du tigre et peut fausser le rôle pédagogique des parcs zoologiques lorsqu'ils les présentent séparément des autres tigres ou comme une espèce ou une sous-espèce à part entière.

Description

Le tigre blanc est un tigre de l'espèce Panthera tigris, mais qui se caractérise par son pelage blanc (de couleur crème à coquille d'œuf) rayé de noir ou de marron. Ses yeux sont bleus et le nez est rose. Il est en général plus grand qu'un tigre normal. , rencontrée chez d'autres mammifères, notamment le chat domestique et le lapin. . De nombreux cas de tigres entièrement blancs, sans aucune rayure, ont été reportés, mais il s'agissait de tigres dont la coloration était très pâle, et non pas inexistante. Pour paraître plus impressionnants, les tigres blancs sont souvent croisés avec le tigre de Sibérie, la plus grande sous-espèce de tigre.

Le nom scientifique Panthera tigris uncia lui est parfois attribué, mais n'a aucune valeur scientifique car le tigre blanc ne constitue pas une sous-espèce de tigre.

Génétique et albinisme
Dans les années 1970, un couple de tigres hétérozygotes roux nommés Sashi et Ravi ont donné naissance à treize petits aux jardins zoologiques d'Alipore dont trois étaient blancs .

Dès 1907, le naturaliste Richard Lydekker doute de l'existence des tigres albinos.

Les chats siamois et le lapin himalayen possèdent des enzymes dans leur fourrure qui réagissent à la température : les poils sont plus sombres dans les régions froides. Une tigresse blanche nommée Mohini était plus blanche que ses congénères blanc crème du zoo de Bristol : cela pourrait être dû au fait qu'elle passe moins de temps dehors en hiver. K.S. Sankhala, observa que les tigres blancs de Rewa étaient toujours plus blancs que les autres, même s'ils naissaient à New Delhi pour revenir à Rewa.

Plus récemment en 2013, une équipe de scientifiques chinois de l'université de Pékin a réussi à découvrir l'origine génétique de la couleur blanche des tigres blancs. L'équipe de chercheurs a étudié le patrimoine génétique d'une famille de 16 tigres (9 orange et 7 blancs) élevés en captivité au Chimelong Safari Park de Guangzhou Chimelong Tourist Resort à Canton, en république populaire de Chine. À la suite de la cartographie de leur génome, ils sont arrivés à la conclusion que la mutation du gène  est à l'origine d'une inhibition de la synthèse des pigments orange et jaune, mais comme elle n'a que peu d'effet sur le noir, les tigres blancs conservent leurs rayures.

Tigres blancs sans rayure et tigre doré

Un autre gène peut retirer les rayures du tigre blanc. Un de ces spécimens est exposé à Exeter Change en 1820 et est décrit par Georges Cuvier comme « une variété blanche du tigre que l'on peut parfois voir, avec des rayures opaques, qui ne peuvent être observées que selon certains angles de lumière » ; Richard Lydekker rajoute que : « un tigre blanc, dont la fourrure est de couleur crème, avec des rayures à peine visibles en certains points, a été exposé dans l'ancienne ménagerie d'Exeter Change dans les années 1820 ».

Comparaison de couleur
Le tigre blanc tend à être plus grand que le tigre roux, tant à la naissance qu'à l'âge adulte. Cela pourrait lui donner un avantage dans la nature en dépit de sa couleur inhabituelle. Les tigres roux hétérozygotes sont également plus grands que les autres tigres ; Kailash Sankhala, le directeur du zoo de New Delhi dans les années 1960 déclara que .

Historique
Les tigres blancs commencent à faire parler d'eux vers la fin du  : quelques spécimens sauvages sont signalés. Des tigres blancs à rayures noires sont signalés dans la nature en Inde durant l'Empire moghol (1556–1605). Une peinture de 1590 d'Akbar le Grand chassant près de Gwalior montre quatre tigres dont deux blancs. Dix-sept cas de tigres blancs sont recensés en Inde entre 1907 et 1933 dans les districts d'Orissa, Bilaspur, Sohagpur et Rewa. Le , le premier ministre népalais tire sur un tigre blanc au campement de Barda au Terai dans le Népal. Le dernier tigre blanc fut tué en 1958 et la mutation est considérée comme éteinte dans la nature. De nombreuses rumeurs de tigres blancs sauvages ont parcouru l'Inde depuis lors, mais aucune n'a été considérée comme crédible. Le célèbre chasseur Jim Corbett dans son film Man-Eaters of Kumaon a filmé une tigresse blanche et ses deux petits roux ; cette vidéo, la seule montrant un tigre blanc dans la nature, a été utilisée par National Geographic dans un film sur Jim Corbett.

En 1965, la « collection indienne » de Marjorie Merriweather Post présentée à Washington contenait une chaise rembourrée en peau de tigre blanc. Une photographie en couleur de cet objet apparaît dans le numéro du  du magazine Life. Le numéro d' du National Geographic montre une photographie du ministre de la Défense des Émirats arabes unis avec un tigre blanc empaillé dans son bureau.

S.H. Prater écrit dans The book of Indian Animals (1948) que « les tigres blancs ou partiellement blancs ne sont pas rares dans certaines forêts ouvertes humides d'Inde centrale »

C'est un mythe que les tigres blancs ne sont pas capables de prospérer dans la nature et l'Inde avait planifié une réintroduction de tigres blancs captifs dans une réserve près de Rewa. Dans la nature, les tigres blancs se reproduisent depuis des générations et A.A. Dunbar Brander dans Wild animals in central India (1923) ajoute que « Les tigres blancs se rencontrent occasionnellement. Il y a des croisements réguliers de ces animaux dans les environs de Amarkantak, à la jonction entre l'État de Rewa et les districts de Mandla et Bilaspur. La dernière fois que je suis allé à Mandla en 1919, une tigresse blanche et ses petits blancs y vivaient. En 1915, un mâle a été capturé par l'état de Rewa et emprisonné. Une excellente description de cet animal par Mr Scott de la police indienne, a été publiée dans le volume XXVII, numéro 47 du journal de la société d'histoire naturelle de Bombay.

Cet article mentionné par A. A. Dunbar Brander décrivit : « Le tigre blanc captif de Rewa a été capturé en décembre 1915 dans la jungle de l'État, près de Sohagpur. Il devait avoir deux ans à ce moment-là. Il y avait deux autres tigres blancs au sud de Rewa liés à celui-ci, mais on considérait que la mère de cet animal n'était pas blanche... Un tigre blanc a été tué par un Sardar à Sohargpur Tahasil il y a dix à douze ans. Deux autres tigres ont été signalés près de Shahdol et Annuppur mais les ordres de sa Majesté étaient de ne pas les tuer. On disait que celui d'Annuppuer était le frère de celui qui avait été capturé. Ces tigres blancs erraient dans les environs des districts britanniques des provinces centrales et semblaient vivre dans les montagnes de Maikal. »

Victor H. Cahalane signala des tigres blancs au nord de la Chine en 1943 : « … La Chine du Nord a produit de nombreux albinos, avec les inévitables rayures brunes effacées. De très rares tigres mélanistiques (noirs) sont connus. »

Dans la nature
 Exceptionnels dans la nature, ils sont quelques centaines dans le monde, répartis principalement dans les parcs zoologiques et les réserves animalières.

En captivité

La majorité des tigres blancs captifs sont les descendants de Mohan, un tigre du Bengale sauvage capturé dans les années 1950. Mohan naquit dans la forêt de Bandhavgarh avec ses deux ou trois frères et sœurs. Le , il est aperçu par un bûcheron. Le lendemain, une battue est organisée : l'ensemble de sa famille est tuée et Mohan est capturé et recueilli par le maharadjah de Rewa.

Il s'accoupla par la suite avec une tigresse de couleur normale nommée Begum. Ils eurent deux portées, et leurs petits étaient tous de couleur rousse. On croisa alors Mohan avec Radha, une de ses filles, et les quatre petits qui naquirent étaient tous blancs. Les quatre petits de Mohan, un mâle et trois femelles, furent respectivement nommés Raja, Rani, Sukeshi et Mohini.

Mohan mourut le  à l'âge de 19 ans et 7 mois. Il fut empaillé et exposé au musée privé du maharadjah de Rewa.

En Amérique du Nord

En Asie

En Europe
Le premier parc à en présenter en Europe fut le zoo de Bristol en 1963. Le ZooParc de Beauval, en France, en présente depuis 1991, date de l'importation d'un couple, Gorby et Raïssa, nés dans un élevage de Floride et achetés pour 100 000 dollars. Depuis ils auraient eu 26 petits, dont certains les ont remplacés à Beauval et dont les autres ont essaimé dans d'autres parcs, en France et en Europe.

Parmi les autres couples présentés à Beauval se trouvent ainsi Katharina et Igor, et plus récemment Chili et Sherkan. Le parc zoologique de Bordeaux-Pessac, présente un couple, Olga et Ashka, qui ont notamment eu 4 petits en 2014. Le Cerza, en présente également, et possède notamment une femelle, Lisa, ayant mis bas de 2 petits en 2008. Le Parc des félins a eu des naissances en 2008 et 2010.

Le Kameltheater Kernhof, un zoo privé autrichien, est connu pour ses naissances multiples et répétées de tigres blancs. En , pour la première fois en Europe, des quintuplés (Lali, Lela, Lila, Lulu et Obama) y sont nés en parfaite santé.

Depuis 2015, le parc Pairi Daiza, dans le sud de la Belgique présente Mumbai et Sanka, hôtes de la nouvelle installation du Temple des Tigres.

Controverses autour de l'élevage des tigres blancs
Les tigres blancs captifs sont tous issus du même individu mâle, Mohan, qui a transmis ses gènes à travers différents accouplements. De ce fait la consanguinité au sein de sa descendance est très élevée et conduit à des malformations graves dès la naissance.

En effet, 80 % des petits tigres qui naissent blancs meurent à cause d'anomalies dues à la consanguinité. Dans les 20 % restants, beaucoup ont des problèmes physiques comme des déficiences immunitaires, des scolioses, un strabisme élevé ou des troubles mentaux. En fait, les dresseurs de tigres estiment que sur 30 tigres blancs, un seul est réellement en bonne santé.

Strabisme

Les tigres blancs sont souvent atteints de strabisme. Selon le dresseur de tigres Andy Goldfarb, quand ils sont stressés ou troublés, tous les tigres blancs louchent. Le strabisme est associé aux tigres blancs issus de croisements entre tigre du Bengale et tigre de Sibérie. Le strabisme est probablement directement lié au gène provoquant la couleur blanche, et n'est pas une conséquence de l'élevage de tigre blanc. Il devrait pouvoir être réduit, voire éliminé, par un élevage sélectif.

Des tentatives pour corriger chirurgicalement le strabisme se sont soldées par la mort des spécimens sur la table d'opération, comme Scarlett O'Hara, tigresse blanche qui ne louchait que d'un œil ou Cheytan, tigre blanc du zoo de San Antonio.

Sensibilité à l'anesthésie
Les tigres blancs ne réagissent pas comme les autres tigres à l'anesthésie. L'anesthésique CI 744 (tilétamine, zolazépam) est le plus utilisé pour immobiliser les tigres. Cependant, cette drogue a un effet de re-sédation 24 à 36 heures après l'injection sur les tigres blancs. Selon le vétérinaire David Taylor, cela doit être corrélé à leur incapacité à produire une tyrosinase normale.

Maladies
Mohini a été testée pour le syndrome de Chediak Higashi en 1960 mais les résultats ne furent pas concluants. Cette maladie, observée chez le chat domestique, est similaire à l'albinisme et cause des reflets bleutés dans la fourrure, un strabisme et des saignements prolongés après une chirurgie ou une blessure.

Un cas unique de tigre blanc atteint d'une atrophie progressive de la rétine a été rapporté du Milwaukee County Zoo et pourrait être lié à la réduction de la pigmentation de l'œil.

La mortalité infantile des tigres blancs ne serait pas supérieure à celle des tigres roux reproduits en captivité. Selon Ed Maruska, le directeur du zoo de Cincinnati,

Dans la culture populaire
 Dans le monde des comics américains, plusieurs super-héros successifs de l'univers Marvel portent le nom de Tigre blanc.

Notes et références

Notes

Références

Articles connexes

 Tigre doré
 Tigre noir
 Tigre maltais
 Lion blanc
 Panthère blanche

Mammifère (nom vernaculaire)
Panthera tigris
Morphe

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


The Kasselshoop tradition prides itself in the crafting, curing, marketing of innovative and exceptional cheese while consistently delivering our products with the highest levels of service to meet the needs of retailers and foodservice professionals across the country.
We believe that our customer is our most important stakeholder working hand in hand with education, teamwork and the continuous improvement which is fostered in our business as they are the cornerstones of our success.
Another core value of Kasselshoop is to strongly support sustainable agriculture and manufacturing practices by partnering with our suppliers and the greater community to creatively address economic, social and environmental sustainability.
We take pride by sharing the success of our business with our employees, customers, vendors and the local community.


text:
Music » Music Features
No boundaries, no expectations
You Women
by Andy Klingenberger
You Women is a wide-ranging side project by Sports band mates Ian Proper and Ian Egling. PHOTO BY MIKE HANLON
Youwomen.bandcamp.com
You Women was conceived in short bursts via text message, with snippets of songs being sent back and forth by the two official members of the band, Ian Proper and Ian Egling, both from the Rochester band Sports. In You Women, the two share primary songwriting duties, each playing all instruments and singing on their own material, incorporating the other's input to make the songs complete.
But despite You Women being named after one of their other band's songs, Proper is quick to dismiss any comparisons between the two projects. "People come to see Sports because they want to dance and have fun," says Proper. "If we played a slow, noisy track everyone would leave the room." Conversely, with You Women, the pair is branching out from the sound it has become known for with Sports. "This allows us to be a little more schizophrenic. There's no certain style. There's no expectation."
That professed schizophrenia is demonstrated in the diverse cast of talent the pair has assembled to record the band's first album at Victrolaphone Studios, run by Amos Rose from Walri. Having enlisted the likes of Matt O'Brian from local reggae outfit Thunder Body, Travis Johansen from Joywave, and Sasami Ashworth, a classically trained student from the Eastman School of Music, it's clear that You Women wants its project to be more of a communal one, in contrast with the more conventional lineup of Sports. "We want those musicians to take (our songs) and put their own spin on them. There are no boundaries," says Proper.
You Women, as a project, works in an opposite way when compared with Sports' more developed, well-thought-out sound, and Proper wants to allow the other musicians to take part in that freedom. "The idea of us being able to do different stuff is the idea I want to extend to these other musicians. They're all in bands that are in straightforward genres. I want to get these people in weird circumstances and see what happens."
Before that recording can take place, however, Proper wanted to have a full-length album ready, to use as a starting point for the individuals that work with them on the recording. Gathered together on the You Women Bandcamp page, the 14 songs that are the most complete are freely available for download under the title of "Easy Love." Even though the songs are incomplete, it's important to both Egling and Proper that they are heard as they take shape, that fans be able to hear the songs' progress. The evolving nature of the project is part of the appeal to both members. "It's kind of cool that anyone can tune in," says Egling.
Proper agrees. "I like the idea that people can see the songwriting process. This isn't going to be the finished product; this is how people write songs. It's not always perfect."
But even though the duo is fond of putting its process on display, that doesn't mean the songs are slapped together haphazardly. Egling explains that, despite the songs' demo status, he still wants the songs to sound good. "I try to make them sound as produced as I can," he says.
As for now, there are no plans for the pair to play live. "The idea was a recording project, so now we have to get the other musicians in and see what works. Once the recordings are done we'll be able to figure out the live stuff," says Proper.
But despite the lack of concrete plans to perform, that doesn't mean that the pair isn't thinking about it. "I'm thinking how we could play this live, even just what we have now," says Egling. "It's a challenge. I'm always trying to figure out how to do what I do at home live, and make it sound comparable."
"I'm a big proponent of the James Murphy [of LCD Soundsystem] philosophy that if you play something electronically, you should be able to play it live — without electronics," says Proper. "When I see an Apple logo onstage, I'm turned off. I like the mistakes and the live aspect. So, if we're going to play, all those parts that we did electronically would have to be played live."
When asked about a time frame for the album release, Proper mentions August, but Egling contends that that ETA is as flexible as the songs the pair has made available. "But that doesn't mean it's not going to happen," Proper says. The two musicians are happy to let the project develop on its own schedule.
Even though there is a definite separation between You Women and Sports, the two projects are forever linked. The two are a study in contrasts, with the meticulous process of Sports on one hand, and the unrestricted development of You Women on the other. Not unlike the project's conception, You Women has an air of the ephemeral to it. It's not difficult to envision it as a constant work in progress, ever evolving, even after the pair releases its finished album later this summer.


t's that time of the year again! December might bring us some of the coldest, darkest, rainiest weather but with it comes Chef Gregory's exquisitely prepared Peking duck! Peking duck is prized for its delicate, crisp skin and is a highly revered dish in China. Chef Gregory begins by curing the duck in 7 spice, salt and sugar overnight. The duck is then dipped in a blanching liquid of shaoxing wine, honey, salt and 7 spice and hung for 24 hours to dry the skin and concentrate the flavors. Finally, the duck is roasted for about an hour and flash fried to order. After Chef Gregory presents the whole duck to your table it is brought back to the kitchen to be carved. It is served with mandarin pancakes made from flour, water and duck fat along with traditional garnishes: cucumbers, sliced scallions, and pickled kumquats. Chef also prepares a house-made plum sauce made with ginger, chili, and hoisin to spread on the pancakes and make mini wraps. As the diners enjoy sharing the first course, Chef Gregory takes all the left over duck and makes duck fried rice to be served as a final course.


Nyabingi Kuti: After touring the LA County Jail I concluded that the condition were so inhumane that If the arrestees didn't have mental problems when they arrived, there's a good chance they'd develop mental problems before leaving.
Nyabingi Kuti: Our resolution played a major role in the Governor's decision to halt construction on the condemned inmate Taj Mahal at San Quentin, a few days before the convention. All supporters of the resolution can take credit for this savings of half a billion dollars. I think he will come around sooner, rather than later, for fiscal and moral reasons.
Nyabingi Kuti: Governor Brown was against the death penalty as a two-term Governor years ago. Why didn't he commute death sentences when he first entered office in 2010? Why do we have to lobby him to do this, at a time when it is fiscally prudent?
Nyabingi Kuti: The growing LA progressive movement began lobbying Marcy Winograd to jump in. Winograd, a teacher at Crenshaw High, has twice caused Harman concern with her strong challenges to the seat.
Nyabingi Kuti: The Crenshaw office is one of the main reasons that Kamala is now ahead by a razor-thin margin. Over 500 volunteers of all races and ages came to Crenshaw and banged out over 25,000 calls in two weeks in support of Kamala.
Despite minimal support from the Democratic Party leadership, Orange County has great potential to fare well in the November elections. The Obama 2008 campaign did better in Orange County than any other Democratic presidential candidate in history, raising eyebrows among some party activists.


text:
#ifndef LoadSQLTestMeta_H
#define LoadSQLTestMeta_H

#include <xmlinc.h>
#include <twine.h>
using namespace SLib;

#include "ActionClass.h"
#include "OdbcObj.h"
using namespace Helix::Glob;

#include "SQLTests.h"
using namespace Helix::Logic::admin;

namespace Helix {
namespace Logic {
namespace admin {

class DLLEXPORT LoadSQLTestMeta : public ActionClass
{
	public:
		/// Standard Constructor
		LoadSQLTestMeta(xmlNodePtr action);

		/// Standard Copy Constructor
		LoadSQLTestMeta(const LoadSQLTestMeta& c);

		/// Standard Copy operator
		LoadSQLTestMeta& operator=(const LoadSQLTestMeta& c);

		/// Standard Destructor
		virtual ~LoadSQLTestMeta();

		/// We implement the ExecuteRequest method
		virtual void ExecuteRequest(IOConn& ioc);

	private:

		void Disconnect();
		void Connect();
		void LoopSqlStatements();
		void RunSqlTest( SQLStmt* stmt );
		void CaptureMetadata( SQLStmt* stmt );
		void CaptureResults( SQLStmt* stmt );

		// Registers us with the global factory map:
		static ActionClassRegister<LoadSQLTestMeta> reg;

		SQLTests* m_Tests;
		OdbcObj* m_odbc;

};

}}} // End of Namespace definitions

#endif // LoadSQLTestMeta_H Defined

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


This summer began very interestingly. I graduated high school and started my first summer before college hanging out with the senior staff of Save The Harbor. We visited many of the sites the youth program and towards the end of the long week, Bruce decided to surprise us all by making everyone fillet a fish... ON OUR OWN. Watching everyone go before me made the anticipation build higher and higher. Mary started the first half of the fish and then it was handed off to me.
Although my filleted fish was perfect, I never got a chance to bring the pollock home )': But this summer, I promise to definitely get a fish, fillet it myself, and make myself an amazing dinner!


text:
Tag: object
OMG! Miley Cyrus is Racist!!
I should start by stating that Miley Cyrus is not racist. This is just the latest moron meme in a series of increasingly moronic attacks on Cyrus from the Guardianista ex-liberal tendency. Cyrus isn't the real target, but she has become a convenient scapegoat. The real target is black music and dance.
I blogged a couple of months ago on the Guardian's opening shot in this story, in which Hadley "I Have Black Friends" Freeman launched an attack on Cyrus for her "racist" twerking episode at the VMAs. The claim was that Cyrus was racist. Because – wait for it – she's white and had black backing dancers.
Since then, the Guardian, in true bullying tabloid fashion, has wheeled out one has-been after another to condemn Miley, or to patronise her. Yesterday, they outdid themselves, producing 73 year-old Christian singer Cliff Richard to express the hope that Cyrus "grows out of it". If you're starting to wonder where the line is between the "quality, liberal" Guardian and the "gutter, right-wing" Daily Mail, you're not alone.
Perhaps realising that a parade of white faces screaming RACIST! at Cyrus was looking a little strange, the Guardian recently found a black person to do the same thing. Ikamara Larasi helpfully pointed out that she is a black woman, and she doesn't twerk, but complains (in straw-man style) that she thinks people expect her to twerk, because she's the same colour as Rihanna.
Don't worry Ikamara, I don't expect you to twerk. You see, Rihanna is a stunningly talented international music artist. And you're not. Nor do I expect you to play tennis like Serena Williams, or be the First Lady like Michelle Obama. I don't expect you to read the news like Moira Stuart, nor do I expect you to write incredible, moving novels like Toni Morrison. You see, while that kind of stereotyping does still exist, it's fading fast, and it mostly exists among people like your Oxbridge-educated, Home Counties-raised, Guardian journalist chums. Most of us are perfectly aware that not all black women are amazing singers and dancers like Rihanna, and we're happy to accept that situation. In fact, the only people I can see stereotyping anybody are you and your ignorant "lynch Miley" mates, who think that the average person is too stupid to tell the difference between you and Alexandra Burke.
Of course, this has absolutely nothing to do with race. It is a continuation of the "ban all sex, help, we're all being sexualised!" campaign which some individuals at the Guardian have been nurturing for years, and now appears to have reached fever pitch. Those who have been paying attention will know that much of the noise comes from a small group of individuals: Kat Banyard of UK Feminista, Julia Long of Object (who, together, are competing to be today's Mary Whitehouse) and a small group of Guardian journalists who have somehow managed to turn a quality newspaper into the Object house journal. Ikamara Larasi, who stuck the latest knife in Miley's back, comes from a "black feminist" group called Imkaan, which appears to be (like Lose The Lads' Mags) another group linked to Object, and thus can claim Object privileges, including Guardian column inches.
Sadly, Larasi's intervention seems to have confused people who might have been more skeptical had a white woman penned such obvious nonsense. On Twitter, I was told (by a white woman) that I, as a white man, should pay attention when a black woman writes about race. Because, of course, ALL black people believe the same thing and Larasi is black, so is therefore a spokesperson for black people (or "people of colour" as she tweeted… I kid you not). I wonder what would happen when such a person encounters two black women with opposing views. Would her head explode? A (black) friend of mine commented, "Miley isn't the first. Might as well burn Madonna at the stake for having black and gay dancers then…"
Another tweeter posted a link to a page showcasing The 9 Most Racist Miley Cyrus Moments, which I still can't tell is a parody or not. Gems from this page include she wants her new album to have a "black sound" (OMG Amy Winehouse, Joe Cocker and Elvis were RACISTS!) and she pretended to perform analingus on a black backing dancer (only pretended? Damn… I'd pay good money to see that).
Miley is playing the morality brigade perfectly (this week, she allegedly smoked weed on stage in Amsterdam, and was met with fake shock from the coke-snorting journalistic fraternity), and I applaud her. When society becomes as pathetically (small-c) conservative as it has become again today, the best response is to shock the fuck out of it. That's why the Sex Pistols topped the charts in 1977 with God Save The Queen (despite it being banned), and the Prodigy's wonderful Smack My Bitch Up (watch it!) video won awards 20 years later (despite it also being banned).
Rather than scream at racism-that-isn't-racism and sexism-that-isn't-sexism we should take aim at bullying-that-is-truly-bullying. The moronic British media loves to destroy people, especially young women. Doubtless Guardian and Mail journos alike are salivating in anticipation at the moment Miley appears drunk in public, has a messy break-up, or is rumoured to have a drug problem. I've cancelled my Guardian app subscription, and will be investing the savings in Miley's latest album. Why don't you do the same?
Posted on November 14, 2013 November 14, 2013 Author Jerry BarnettCategories Racism, Sex, UKTags censorship, feminism, guardian, julia long, kat banyard, lies, london, mary whitehouse, miley cyrus, morality, moron, morons, object, objectification, racism, racist, sex, sexism, sexuality, twerking, uk, uk feminista, us26 Comments on OMG! Miley Cyrus is Racist!!
Moral Panics: a useful political tool?
In 2010 I found myself in the middle of a moral panic, so began reading around the subject and watching how moral panics unfold. The panic was around East End strip pubs where I worked and that had been in the area for decades. Usually family businesses, run by the matriarch of the family, and an accepted part of the East End. Then a panic hit and suddenly these places were the gates of hell and all that was evil in the world emanated from them. People who had previously been oblivious to them were suddenly on a crusade. I went to a 'debate' in October 2011, called 'Lap-Dancing: a choice or exploitation' which demonstrated the mechanisms of power and politics perfectly and shocked me.
A small lobby group whips up fear until they create a panic. The narrative then moves on to 'Something must be done!/Won't anyone think of the children!' and when it gets to this point you have manipulated your audience correctly and you will be able to legislate. But there was also a lot of manipulating being done to those who were creating the moral panic. A group that called it's self Communities Against People Exploitation, that claimed to be helping the East London community, had a 'feminist' spokeswoman. This woman would give the full dramatic performance about the evils of 'pornification', 'objectification', 'sexualisation' throwing out all the fashionable buzzwords to appeal to her audience. However a little investigation using the Land Registry and the good old Internet showed that she was not running this organization. It was actually run by a man who lived in leafy Surrey but, surprise surprise, owned property right next to one of the strip pubs he was trying to close down. From this moment on I lost what little respect I still had for the 3rd wave feminist movement. Was this all about property development and investment? Were they being manipulated by the 'patriarchy' that they so despised in order for that 'patriarchy' to make money? Were they complicit or ignorant?
So it seems that moral panics can be very useful. They are generally created by pressure groups and lobby groups, often through good intentions and a genuine trigger, which is then picked up by media as they have a lot of space to fill. Column inches, 24-hour news, websites etc. There is a lot of content to be generated so even if the journalist or editor doesn't really believe in the panic it's their job to explore all the angles. They run opposing editorials asking 'Is this right? Is this wrong?, look for the human angle, can they get a confessional piece from someone involved? Run the story for a bit as it gives you something to talk about, to fill airtime with, to fill column inches. These mechanisms of the media are borne out of necessity but do our governments look at these panics and view them as useful? Are they a very convenient smoke screen? Can they use them to implement certain policies that the public may find unpalatable?
The panic of the moment is porn on the internet, the very thing that drove the early development of the internet, and it makes sense if you look at it in an historical and political big picture way. So let us look at the timeline of the last 3 years, the changes that have happened and the role of the Internet in all of this. Three years is a really short space of time for governments to lose control and I'd take a bet that there have been some fraught behind closed doors meetings.
1.The first strand is that too much classified information has been freely distributed online beginning with Bradley Manning. The decorated US private released around 750,000 restricted documents to Wikileaks causing major embarrassment to the United States government and many of its allies. Including of course the UK but also allies such as Saudi Arabia when it was discovered they had been urging the west to go to war with their Middle Eastern nemesis Iran. Then between April and November 2010 Wikileaks and news outlets around the world published these documents to all their readers and viewers. To these news outlets this was like striking gold (or oil). Julian Assange is now running from the US government rightly fearing a fate similar to Bradley Manning. So first it was Bradley and Julian and then when all had seemed calm Edward Snowden struck. Releasing all the details of the Prism surveillance operation that included America spying on it's European allies and once again causing great embarrassment to the US and UK governments. (As GCHQ had also been implicated.)
I would take a guess that western governments and especially the UK and US governments are no longer enamored with the idea of a free and open Internet.
2.The second political and historical strand that has been a feature of the past three years is revolution. The Arab Spring began in Tunisia in December 2010 and quickly ignited the Arab world into demanding freedom and democracy. From the success of Tunisia to the disaster of Syria, the Arab world has been finding it's voice, and this has been coordinated on social media. Syria has been especially bad as Iran and Hezbollah are now involved and this could result in years of trouble. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Buzzfeed have allowed those protesting against their governments to organize and sometimes win. Western politicians have been watching, and saying carefully vague sound bites in support for democracy, as long-term allies like Mubarak were toppled. Even prosperous and relatively secular Turkey has seen a popular uprising that no mainstream media reported until the din on social media got so loud they couldn't ignore it.
I wonder if there is a general fear in governments that us normal people are starting to get a little too knowledgeable and possibly feeling a little too empowered?
3.The third strand in recent years is the recession, which has hit Europe particularly hard. Countries like Greece are languishing in a terrible depression with lots of anger amongst people and extremist groups growing popular. There has also been a raising of awareness in the United States with the Occupy movement starting in November 2011 with Occupy Wall Street. One of the causes of the Arab Spring was youth unemployment and cost of living. The world is getting more and more populous and those at the top are not releasing any wealth so an anger is fermenting. Many young people in Europe are unemployed and over qualified with no hope of attaining the future they dreamed of. What if revolution is not confined to the Arab world? Which can be understood in terms of freedom, what if a European nation is the next to fall? Then it is no longer an 'us and them' situation it becomes something bigger? Maybe something about social justice in general?
Again, I can't imagine our governments feeling very easy with all of this anger, and the information in the hands of the masses.
Information, revolution and recession; it's like a perfect storm of poverty, over population, inequality, empowerment and access to all information and the ability to communicate it. I'm pretty sure these three strands have made our leaders feel rather uneasy. So what are the governments of the world going to do about this potential dangerous set of circumstances that have evolved in only three short years? Conveniently for the UK Government, the 'sexualisation' moral panic has been rumbling away for around a decade, and conveniently it has reached the 'Something must be done!/Won't anyone think of the children!' stage. The groundwork has already been laid which is very handy indeed. So could it be that David Cameron's recent attack on Internet porn is in fact a smoke screen?
The porn panic has been fuelled by supposedly well-meaning but extremely foolish people and lobby groups and will now come back to bite. After all we are not party to the late night phone calls from Washington that may go something like this,
'The United States may be unable to work with the United Kingdom unless …… (insert instructions here)'.
It seems like this has everything to do with limiting access to information in general and protecting the power structure. The clamp down on Internet porn is, in my opinion, all about censoring the Internet brought to the fore due to recent world events and absolutely nothing to do with protecting the innocence of children. It may also be run by Chinese Internet filtering firm Huawei, who are no doubt censorship experts.
So beware of moral panics, as there may be a hidden agenda behind them. All is not what it seems on the surface and be aware of new ones forming. What is the end game of these panics and who exactly benefits from them?
Posted on August 15, 2013 Author Edie LamortCategories Sex, UKTags censorship, feminism, london, moral panic, morality, moron, morons, object, objectification, porn, rape, sex, sexuality, striptease, uk feminista14 Comments on Moral Panics: a useful political tool?
Why Don't Women Hunt? Sex Work: The New Civil Rights Struggle
Recent debates about sex and sexuality, in the context of moral panics and attempts at censorship, have revealed a lack of understanding among "experts" of the core subject itself: human sexuality. Perhaps that's not too surprising, given how taboo sex has been – and still is, for many.
Both left and right have found themselves equally drawn into the panic, each one imposing its own values on sexuality. Meanwhile, scientific understanding of the subject develops rapidly, and undermines the assumptions and dogma of both sides. The left rejoiced when it was discovered that homosexuality is ubiquitous in the animal kingdom. This demonstrated both that homosexuality is natural, evolved behaviour (rather than a modern-day "sin") and that sex is about far more than procreation: it appears to have social and health purposes too.
But new research also undermines left-wing dogma. Many on the left are as keen to demonise prostitution as the right are to attack homosexuality. The existence of prostitution is blamed on "Capitalism" or the ethereal "Patriarchy". And yet, we are discovering that the sex trade too has its origins deep back in nature. Conservatives on both sides of the political spectrum are keen to paint the animal kingdom as "innocent", while we humans have somehow polluted and twisted our idea of sexuality in modern times. It is a deeply conservative view of the world – that somehow our ancestors were pure and unsullied, while modern society is dirty and tainted.
It becomes increasingly clear that all widespread sexual behaviours – including homosexuality, masturbation, prostitution and rape – are inheritances from our animal past. That we are still struggling to accept the first three, and eliminate the fourth, is a measure of how young our civilisation really is.
The evolution of gender created a massive imbalance in nature. Males (of any species) are designed to create vast numbers of offspring, while females can have relatively few. In humans, men have been known to father hundreds of children (and theoretically could father thousands), while a woman can manage – at great cost – a few dozen. The same imbalance exists across all sexual species, both plant and animal.
Economics take over. Such an imbalance of supply and demand will have consequences. A fertile human egg has huge value to a male, while sperm (as any young man or woman can tell you) are so common as to be almost worthless. Masturbation is one way in which the imbalance can be corrected, and this, too, is common in nature.
The anthropologist and author of some wonderful books, Jared Diamond, published a small book called Why Is Sex Fun, featuring a chapter titled Why Do Men Hunt? Here's the spoiler: it's not for nutrition. There are easier and safer ways to get good nutrition from plants and small animals. Men (in early societies) hunt because they can trade the meat for sex. Diamond shakes his head at the way in which successful hunters that he has studied, in tribal societies, use their catch to spread their seed around the village.
Diamond looked at the male perspective, but the corollary is: Why Don't Women Hunt? I put a similar question to a "liberal" in a Twitter discussion, and they told me it was because The Patriarchy oppresses women, making them stay home and cook. And yet hunting is hard and dangerous. Cooking in the village is not. Similarly, in all modern societies, men take on the most dangerous jobs: soldier, fisherman, security, construction, late-night taxi driving, etc. Men have lower life expectancies than women, partly because they are far more likely to die from violence or accidents. Could The Patriarchy have its wires crossed? Why is it sending men off to do the nastiest, most dangerous jobs?
Just as the answer to Why Do Men Hunt? is: to increase their chances of having sex, so the answer to Why Don't Women Hunt? is: because they don't have to. Sex is the oldest commodity of them all, and female sex is far more valuable than male. The first commercial transaction between two humans was almost certainly a gift of food from a man to a woman in exchange for sex: people had nothing else to trade in pre-civilised times.
This isn't human behaviour. It's sexual behaviour. In an experiment in 2008, an economist introduced monkeys to the concept of currency, and they swiftly responded by inventing prostitution (to the great surprise of the researcher).
So how would men respond to this unfairness of nature? It's obvious in hindsight: men would seize ownership of female sexuality and take it for themselves. The Bible is full of laws to enforce just this: laws which make a daughter the property of her father, to be sold in marriage to a man. Laws which punish rape as a property crime against a father, not a crime of violence against a girl. Female fertility, humankind's most valuable possession, was stolen by men.
And now, beginning in the past couple of centuries, women are reclaiming their bodies. As women take back control of their own fertility – via their right to sleep with who they want, their right to contraception and abortion, and, still most contentiously, their right to sell sex – they have created a shock through a male-dominated economic order that is many centuries old.
Those who cling to the old order attack sluts, contraception, abortion and prostitution, not because they want to protect women, but because they want to restrain female economic power. They claim that these things weaken, rather than strengthen, women, and (in order to protect the poor, delicate things) they must be outlawed.
Progressives claimed the right to "sluttishness", to contraception and abortion in the last great culture clashes of the 1960s. Today, front-line battles are being fought by sex workers against prejudice, hate and stigma. Conservatives are manning the barricades against them – and many of these conservatives have adopted liberal language, falsely linking prostitution to trafficking, and claiming to be saving, rather than attacking sex workers. This "saving fallen women" mantra is, of course, an old trick, often employed to keep women in their place.
This is the civil rights battle of the 21st century, and it demarcates the modern line between conservatism and progressivism.
Posted on August 2, 2013 Author Jerry BarnettCategories SexTags biology, evolution, feminism, lies, morality, moron, morons, object, prostitution, rape, sex, sex work, sexuality, uk feminista, whorephobia10 Comments on Why Don't Women Hunt? Sex Work: The New Civil Rights Struggle
Dear Co-op …
A letter from Edie Lamort, feminist and sexual freedom activist, to the Co-operative Group about their latest censorship decision.
Just over five years ago I bought a flat in London SE1. One of my local shops happened to be the Co-op and on my first visit I picked up a Co-op membership form. Loyalty cards can come in handy after all, you get discounts and bonus points. This week the Co-op announced that they had given in to pressure from extremist groups and decided that Lads Mags must come in modesty bags. So as a Co-op member I decided to write a letter to Chief Executive, Steve Murrells. Here it is:
Steve Murrells
Co-operative Group Limited
New Century House
M60 4ES
Dear Steve Murrells
As the Co-op is one of my local stores I decided to become a member and to use it when I can. I prefer use the independent shops and the Co-op rather than give yet more money to the ubiquitous Tesco. However with this weeks news that the Co-op will be demanding that Lad's Mags to be sold in modesty bags I will no longer be shopping my local Co-op. The reasons for this are as follows.
As a woman I find the current trend towards more puritan values very disturbing. Lobby groups such as UK Feminista and Object represent the more extreme and fanatical end of this trend and I am very disappointed that the Co-op has buckled under pressure from them. With the proposed censoring of the Internet last week and the general moral panic at the moment about 'sexualisation' this is another retrograde step. It is almost like we are experiencing a sexual counter-revolution.
I am worried about this overall message that demonises the female body and buys into centuries old patriarchal tradition that female flesh is sinful and corrupting. It is this mentality that spurred the Witch Trials of the 16th Century and in more recent times has cast a veil of silence over sexual abuse. It leads to an environment where people are made to feel shame about a perfectly natural urge leading to anger and frustration rather than self-awareness and understanding.
The message the Co-operative is sending out is that it agrees with the backward idea that female sexuality and the female body is essentially a corrupting and bad thing and therefore must be hidden. That the female body is dirty, wrong, and bad. It is also extremely hypocritical as celebrity magazines such as OK and Heat are far more salacious and negative about bodies. I find it bizarre that you are ok with these gossip mags that foment insecurity around cellulite, weight etc but are not with ones showing confident and liberated women. Will you also require them to be covered up? What about videos games that regularly feature violence?
We have come along way since the 60s, and the emancipation of all of us to wear what we like (a woman will not longer be branded 'tart' for wearing a short skirt) and to explore our sexual selves, which has been a very important social force. I can guarantee you that if this trend towards puritanism continues we will see a rise in sexual harassment, sexual assault and rape. This is because the message you and others are sending is that sex and especially of the female kind is inherently wrong. This will make zealots more confident about chastising the 'temptress' or slut-shaming women who dare to be emancipated. The train of thought that goes 'oh she's a slut look at her she deserved it' will be encouraged by actions such as modesty bags.
It also seems like a cheap publicity stunt, similar to David Cameron's unworkable Internet porn ban. I am aware that the Co-operative Group is not the best financial shape and that a sensational press release will raise brand awareness for far less money than a broadcast advertising campaign.
I would urge you to reconsider your actions; meanwhile please find enclosed my membership card, as I no longer wish to be associated with your company.
Please feel free to add your voice at steve.murrells@co-operative.coop or write a letter to the Manchester head office address above.
Posted on July 31, 2013 April 17, 2015 Author Edie LamortCategories Activism, Sex, UKTags censorship, co-op, coop, feminism, lads mags, london, lose the lads mags, morality, moron, morons, object, objectification, porn, sex, sexuality, uk, uk feminista28 Comments on Dear Co-op …
Sex Work & Feminism, This-ism, That-ism, Ism! Ism! Ism!
Ev'rybody's talkin' 'bout
Bagism, Shagism, Dragism, Madism, Ragism, Tagism
This-ism, that-ism, ism ism ism
All we are saying is give peace a chance
In the 1980s, lefties like me dismissed John Lennon's lyrics as utopian hippy bullshit. Those people who identified as Socialists, Marxists, Maoists, Trotskyists, Communists, Feminists, Fabianites, Anarchists etc. were dismissive of those mindless ideology-free fools. If you couldn't put an -ism to your name, what kind of spineless person were you?
It became apparent as I grew older that -isms are not so much about believing strongly in something as wanting to belong to a tribe. And who doesn't want to belong? I used to think that people like Marx and Trotsky had created brilliant new ways of looking at the world. And I still do. But I suspect that Marx and Trotsky would be deeply embarrassed at most of the Marxists and Trotskyists in the world. Great men are great for the very reason that they think for themselves. The reason so many people like -isms is because they would rather let somebody else think for them.
These labels of tribal identity have become so ossified that they have lost their meanings. I've met conservatives who call themselves Marxists, and progressives who think they're conservatives. A label comes with a handy set of "beliefs", which people can adopt without going through the tiresome process of actually thinking.
As I've blogged before, it's not that I'm no longer left-wing – it's more that the left has become dogmatic, conservative and stupid in its thinking – the very opposite of what it used to be. All groups become stale and stuck in conservative ways of thinking. The left's intellectual heyday was in the 19th century – no wonder it is tired and conservative these days.
Feminism is another label that has lost all sense of its roots. First wave feminism fought for the vote and women's property rights in the 19th century. Second wave feminism fought for gender equality, the recognition of rape as a serious crime (including in marriage) and sexual liberation for women. Having moved on from these goals, 1980s feminism split into various opposing fragments.
Like all other -isms, most people call themselves feminists as a handy tribal label. Most feminists today don't know much about feminist history, any more than Marxists have read Marx. I've heard people say things like "I'm a feminist, so I am opposed to porn". This is dumb at two levels – first, that feminists don't automatically oppose porn (though some do), and second because it isn't a reasoning process, but a mere statement of identity. People who make such statements have clearly not thought through the issues for themselves, but simply adopted somebody else's ideas as their own.
I've written quite a lot about conservative feminism vs. sex-positive feminism. Some people who haven't paid enough attention have accused me of attacking feminism; and yet, I'm pointing out that feminism has been attacked from within. Social conservatives have adopted the feminist label in order to make their ideas seem progressive, and in doing so, have undermined feminism itself.
I'm both amused and pleased that my writing has not only persuaded some progressives that they are no longer feminists, but that I've also persuaded at least one male conservative that he is in fact a feminist.
Today marks a day of protest to end violence against sex workers. Although sex workers are of both genders, most of the stigma associated with sex work, and most of the violence, is targeted at women. If there is a cause for feminists to embrace today, this is it. Feminist sex workers are on the front line in this battle, fighting for recognition and against criminalisation. And yet, the most vociferous opponents to recognising sex worker rights include both the religious right and "radical feminists". These two groups come from very different roots and use very different language, but all too often share platforms to fight for the same goals: censoring sexual expression, stigmatising sexuality, criminalising prostitution, closing down striptease and burlesque venues.
Sex workers have little doubt that criminalisation and stigmatisation increase violence against them. Yet some feminist groups refuse to listen to the workers, claim that no woman in her right mind would choose sex work, and call for the trade to be pushed underground. Feminists succeeded in this goal in Sweden, which introduced the so-called Nordic Model to criminalise the sex trade and push it underground. The Nordic Model is being held responsible by sex workers for the murder of a sex worker and activist known as Petite Jasmine, an event which triggered today's protests.
I personally doubt that anti-sex work feminist groups genuinely have women's interests at heart; they have been caught twisting the facts too often to be credible as feminists (as Brooke Magnanti exposed in her book, The Sex Myth). But if they want to call themselves feminists, that is, of course, their right.
As for me, I'm in favour of decriminalising sex work, and agree with sex worker advocates that the Nordic Model is bigoted and dangerous. Does that make me a feminist? Ism ism ism… I'm with John Lennon on this one.
Posted on July 19, 2013 Author Jerry BarnettCategories Activism, Europe, SexTags feminism, lies, morality, moron, morons, nordic model, object, petite jasmine, prostitution, sex, sex work, sexuality, striptease, uk feminista4 Comments on Sex Work & Feminism, This-ism, That-ism, Ism! Ism! Ism!
Gifts For Strippers
An update from our Stripping Correspondent Edie Lamort, who is thinking about "objectification" and the gifts she receives from her fans.
One of the reasons I find the term 'objectification' doesn't fit with my job as a stripper is in the gifts we receive. Sometimes you find yourself being taken by surprise by the things the regular customers say and in what they buy you. A good example of this, is if you learn some new pole tricks, or maybe change a tried and tested routine on the stage. Someone in the audience is bound to point this out.
"Oh you did the spin before going upside down this time."
"Eh?! You noticed that?!"
"I love that new trick you did on that pole on the far side."
"Really? Thanks."
There are a couple of men that come in who I have named 'The Dance Critics'. They should come in with scorecards because they sit up the front and critique the stage shows. (The front row is known as Gynaecology Row in the stripper argot) I think I might make them big score cards just for fun. Numbers 1 – 10 in bold black ink on white A4 paper.
'Oh you were a little bit unsure about that new move weren't you? But your shoulder mount is improving.''
'What?!?!'
I usually receive rather odd or thoughtful gifts from punters, some are baffling and some have proved to be great. I sat with a regular customer one day and said 'why do I get these odd gifts?' His reply was, 'because we can see who you are.' So here are some of the odd gifts I and others have been given over the years.
Very Spiritual Water
I have mainly worked in East End strip pubs so there are a lot of Asian men who come in on their own and some of them will befriend us and become regulars. There was a Pakistani guy, who owned a leather shop in London and had a factory back home, who became our quasi-stylist for a while. He would tell us which of his jackets or coats would suit us and then make them and sell them to us at cost. Pretty soon a lot of sexy strippers were sporting leather jackets of all styles so this could have been a canny sales technique on his part.
I had an Indian customer who I would see fairly regularly. He was always very polite and earnest, would have a chat, a few private dances and then go. He was interesting and told me a lot about the hippy side of his homeland and the various spiritual pilgrimages he would do. He recommended drinking 'very spiritual water' from the source of the Ganges. The pure H2O goodness from the Himalayan snowmelt, and the thawing of the Gangotri Glacier, that was supposed to sooth the soul.
After Christmas one year he went back to India for a few months to visit family and soak up that famous spiritual atmosphere so I didn't see him for a while. When he returned he brought me this famous 'very spiritual water'. He walked into the dark cavernous pub with a couple of shopping bags looking pendulous and heavy and set them down by me. He then pulled out a bag of 'very spiritual water', which was a sealed plastic bag full of water. It was ornately decorated in reds, golds, oranges and yellows and looked very Indian. I was surprised and flattered that he'd made the effort to carry these heavy bags of water half way across the world in order to assist my spiritual well-being. I took the water home and drank it as recommended and no, I didn't get ill, but maybe my spirit was cleansed. Who knows?
I have more of these than I can possibly fit into my house. My bookshelves are bowing under the weight of book after book piled on top of each other but, like shoes, they are so pretty I can't bear to part with them. Some of the books I get from customers are just really odd and about things such as corporate management. What puzzling motivation inspired that purchase? I am certainly not someone who easily fits into the corporate world; I am one of those arty hippy types. Other books have been really interesting. Sex and Punishment by Eric Berkowitz was a good read and I do recommend it. Now when I see the book-buying customers I tell them what I'd like to read next. I find it quite amusing that whilst I'm stripping, apparently being objectified, there are men sitting there thinking, 'nice arse, I wonder what books she likes to read?'
Well of course! Shoes are a must but I usually approach this in a practical way. Shoes are a necessity. Stripper shoes get scuffed and easily wrecked on the poles and stage so you are reluctant to spend lots of money on them. A tube of superglue is an essential item in your workbag as is a black marker pen to colour in all the scrapes on those cheap plastic shoes. There is a particular regular who will always oblige me with shoes. I tell him what needs replacing, my size and what colour I'd like and as if by magic they arrive!
'Well, I was in the jewellery shop and bought my wife a pair of earrings so I thought I'd better buy you a pair too', said a regular who then handed me a small neat box, wrapped with a silver ribbon. I smiled and thanked him, pulling the bow open and taking out the long amber earrings.
Why did he think he needed to buy me a gift as well as his wife, it's not like we were ever going to cross paths? Was he overcome with a moment of guilt for the stripper he liked to visit, when buying his wife a gift? I was puzzled by this sense of obligation. It's not as if I was his mistress but they're nice earrings, I get complimented on them.
The giving of documentary DVDs is along the same line as books. Usually after you've been talking to a regular customer about a particular topic. Some guys have no one else to talk to like that and do appreciate conversation. Some are also very intelligent, just unlucky in love and lacking in confidence. So you usually have a few customers that are a nice relief because you can actually have a conversation beyond 'Where you from? What's your name? No what's your real name?' These men are also the ones who buy you books and documentary DVDs are a natural complement to this. Most recently I was given a documentary featuring author Jared Diamond. This is because I recommended his books to a customer who's now a fan.
Chocolate men and feeders
I can't imagine we look undernourished, we are dancers not models, our job is a workout. There are quite a few voluptuous strippers around but some men feel the compulsion to feed us. At a Soho strip club I worked in we were frequently visited by 'the chocolate men'. There were two of them who would eagerly arrive with supermarket bags full of chocolate and sit themselves down on Gynaecology Row. They were always eager and wide-eyed despite years of seeing the same things again and again. They looked pretty dodgy, and like they lived on Pot Noodles and rollies, so I always assumed they'd been shoplifting on their way to the club. I couldn't imagine them buying all that chocolate; surely they'd been out on a week long thieving spree before coming to see us.
They were awkward and geeky, and it was clear why they were single, but they were harmless. They didn't tip in actual real money but they eagerly handed out boxes of chocolate. Sometimes a little too eagerly so you found yourself conflicted between 'what a shame, he's a bit simple/come near me again and I'll fucking knock you out'. Charmless as well as harmless.
They would only stay for the first hour or two of the evening as there would come a point where the charity of the strippers and the management would wear off and they would have to go. The strippers would point out that 'we want to be rich not fat' and the manager would need them to buy more than one beer only. So off they'd scuttle, probably on their way to rob Tesco.
When you work in a strip pub you get used to all kinds of eccentrics. Everyone is fairly relaxed about them and just leaves them be. In fact it's probably one of the only places they can just sit and have beer, have a pretty girl say hi and be left in peace. One odd character is someone we call 'red wine and poetry man'. I have no idea what his real name is, no one does, but he buys whole bottles of red wine, sits at the bar with an A4 pad and writes poetry. As the night progresses he gets more and more drunk, the poetry gets worse and worse and he ends up crying. It's strange but he does it again and again.
Of course he'll give his verses to the dancers as tokens of affection. In the changing room one night a Brazilian girl showed me what he had written for her. I read it through with disappointment, it was an Oasis song and he was hoping she wouldn't realise, as English was not her first language. We both laughed and said 'oh dear, oh well'.
So to say the customers all look at us only as mere sex objects doesn't quite fit if someone has taken the time to think about a gift for you. It also ignores the fact that people are often wrapped up in their own world and their loneliness, so are looking for any kind of connection. 'Feminist' groups shrieking 'objectification' ignore the humanity in these situations. And if someone does look at me and simply think 'phwoarrr nice tits' rather than 'goodness I wonder what she thinks about art/ history/politics/theatre etc? Well, who gives a shit? I certainly don't have time to contemplate everyone's inner workings, and I do have nice tits.
Posted on June 21, 2013 Author Edie LamortCategories Humour, Sex, UKTags feminism, morality, moron, morons, object, objectification, sex, sexuality, stripping, striptease, uk, uk feminista13 Comments on Gifts For Strippers
The Guardian And The "Sexualisation" Panic
According to Wikipedia, a moral panic is defined as: "…an intense feeling expressed in a population about an issue that appears to threaten the social order."
Most societies experience panics on a regular basis, but Britain, thanks to the trashy level of our press, perhaps experiences more than most countries. Moral panics have a simple purpose: to convince a citizenry that something must be done. And that something is almost invariably bad, when viewed in hindsight.
A good moral panic needs a simple message so that commentators can easily push it into the public mind: a good panic needs good branding. Thirty years ago, a moral panic was in full swing under the label "Video Nasties". For those who don't remember, a Video Nasty was a term coined by the media for what we now call a horror video. Led by morality campaigner Mary Whitehouse, the media and politicians set out to convince the public that, unless something is done, British society would be engulfed by a tsunami of torture, rape and murder. Something was done: the Video Recordings Act (1984) imposed on Britain the most draconian system of video censorship in the democratic world. The Video Nasties panic may have been subsequently exposed as a fuss over nothing, but the censorship system, run by the BBFC, still operates today.
The "Sexualisation" panic has been in full swing for five years or so, and is reaching a point of saturation; it is regularly repeated throughout the media, and has been adopted by politicians not just from the religious right, but also from the left. As I blogged a couple of years ago, Sexualisation is an almost meaningless and certainly unmeasurable concept. It was largely brought into the public consciousness in 2010 by an evidence-free government report which was (bizarrely) carried out by a Christian organisation. It has become an umbrella idea that encapsulates various morality causes including (but not limited to) censoring music videos, censoring pornography, removing bare breasts from the Sun newspaper, banning "lad's mags", shaming parents into dressing their children more "modestly"; in fact, it is used to attack any kind of sexual expression, or even innocent nudity. Those leading the panic – including the pro-censorship "feminist" group, Object, politicians, and Christian morality campaigners – have learned from Mary Whitehouse's "Video Nasty" success, and are turning up the level of hysteria until the government is pressured into taking action.
The scary thing about Sexualisation (as opposed to Video Nasties) is that it is undefined and undefinable. Thus, when we reach the something must be done moment, that something will be sweeping and draconian. Given that Sexualisation is a "disease" that allegedly affects men, women, breasts, children, shops, TV, video, the Internet and even (shock horror!) high streets, the only valid response to it must be a cross-society attack on all sexual expression. Perhaps we need a Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice? That might work.
I've expressed my sadness before that the normally liberal-ish Guardian becomes conservative and censorious when sex is on the agenda. This week, The Guardian entered full moral panic mode by inviting "the public" to submit "sexualised imagery from the high street". The question is, how does the Guardian decide what "sexualised imagery" is? I've walked down my high street today, and have seen the following:
Women in mini-skirts. Yes! Women are revealing not just their ankles, but their knees and their thighs!
Women revealing cleavage!! Low-cut tops are surely the devil's work, designed to "objectify" breasts and thus cause men (who as we know, have literally no impulse control) to rape people.
A teenage girl in shorts and fishnets: because the perverts who see Sexualisation everywhere are particularly (and disturbingly) obsessed with the way children and teens dress.
Builders with no tops on: False alarm – topless men are actually OK, because the neo-Whitehouse crowd (in common with all morality campaigners) only want to cover female flesh. Men, of course, can dress however they like.
But I could find no recent explosion of "sexualised imagery". Of course, there are porn mags, but there have always been porn mags; in fact, porn magazine sales have collapsed under the pressure of competition from DVD and the Internet. The term Sexualisation implies that things are changing for the worse. But unless I'm missing something big, they aren't. Indeed, the debate has moved away from "harm" to the far broader measure of "causing offence" – and the reason for this is simple: the pro-censorship movement can provide no evidence of harm.
So why not submit your own images? Since the Guardian has joined the "anything that offends anybody must be bad" brigade, photograph things that might offend somebody and send them in. Seen gay men holding hands? Muslim women showing hair from under their hijab? Mixed-races couples kissing? All those things represent Sexualisation, and are offensive, right? To somebody?
As we are led headlong into a new wave of censorship, it's saddening to see Mary Whitehouse's Mediawatch-UK organisation joined in its endless morality campaigning by "feminists"; and the Daily Mail joined in its "cover up women" fetish by the Guardian. These are conservative times indeed.
Posted on June 19, 2013 June 19, 2013 Author Jerry BarnettCategories Sex, UKTags censorship, feminism, homophobia, london, mary whitehouse, moral panic, morality, moron, morons, object, objectification, porn, sex, sexualisation, sexuality, striptease, the guardian, uk, uk feminista9 Comments on The Guardian And The "Sexualisation" Panic
Conservative Feminism and the Right to Offend
This week, the fight to censor British media and art – even more than is done already – took a bizarre new turn, as pro-censorship "feminist" groups Object and UK Feminista launched an attack against Lads' Mags. This attack can trace its roots to American morality campaigners in the 1980s, and it's worth exploring a little history.
From the 1960s all the way through to the 90s, the British media scene was haunted by a pro-censorship figure; a devout Christian who believed her faith entailed the right to stop any British person from seeing anything that she personally found offensive. Mary Whitehouse was widely mocked throughout her campaigning life, which coincided with the greatest upswing of liberal attitudes in modern British history. She railed against the "permissive society", in which her Christian morals came under assault from every side: the second-wave feminists were declaring the rights of women to enjoy sex without censure; abortion and homosexuality were legalised; TV and the theatre risked showing nudity, and society failed to collapse. There was plenty of work for a morality campaigner to do, but Whitehouse undertook it with a ferocious energy that gained her admirers, even among her enemies.
Although she was a figure of fun for most people, Whitehouse left her mark on British society: we became, and remain, the most censored country in Europe, other than Catholic Ireland and Poland. Her lobbying organisation, Mediawatch-UK, outlived her, and actively campaigns against "permissiveness" to this day.
But in the 1980s, the pro-censorship cause gained surprising new supporters. The feminist movement, once as far removed from Whitehouse as could be possible, split, and a new conservative wing of feminism emerged. The new, pro-censorship feminism was as moralistic as the 1960s feminists had been libertarian, as determined to cover up all female flesh as the previous generation had been to flaunt it – whether as a political statement, or just because…
Now, post-Whitehouse, media morality campaigns are spearheaded, not by conservative Christians, but by conservative feminists (though it must be suspected that many Christian morality campaigners have sought camouflage in the puritanical feminist movement).
This week's salvo from the morality crusaders works as follows: they declare that any public display of sexuality – nudity, semi-nudity, or anything they deem to be sexual – "demeans" women. All female flesh must be covered up, in order to "protect" women.
The tactic they employ is to declare that any shop that sells potentially "offensive" material – lads' mags in this case – constitutes sexual harassment, and thus an attack on civil rights, against any female employee in the shop. Women are, according to this doctrine, weaker and more delicate than men, and thus must be protected. This message is, of course, an anti-feminist one. But amidst the hysteria, many middle-class "feminists" seem not to have noticed, and are embracing this deeply patriarchal concept.
The tactic means that any woman who feels "harassed" or "offended" by having to even share a building with "sexualised" material can sue her employer. This isn't an original idea; it was invented by a US lawyer, Catharine Mackinnon, who was one of America's leading conservative feminist morality campaigners in the 1980s. This "civil rights" approach to attacking sexual expression turns censorship from something the state does, into something anybody can do. Any woman who feels she is offended, or "demeaned", by a smiling photo of a semi-naked woman can claim that her rights have been violated, and sue for damages.
The Mackinnon attempt failed; to allow such challenges would fundamentally undermine free speech, and this is clearly protected under the first amendment of the US Constitution. What Object and UK Feminista are not making clear is what should be obvious to anyone: if a person can sue for finding something "demeaning", then anything can, and will, be censored. Offence is taken, not given, and almost everything offends somebody. Religious groups will find lads' mags offensive. And Page 3 of the Sun. And gay publications. Some atheists will find religious material offensive, and surely a Christian bookshop worker could sue for having to sell The God Delusion? Fundamentalist Christians could find Muslim or Jewish publications offensive, and vice-versa. White and black supremacists may object to imagery showing mixed-race couples.
Art galleries will be sued for showing any kind of sexual or other controversial object – for example, erotic Roman sculptures currently on display at the British Museum. All expression will come under attack. The possibilities are endless.
Am I just guessing? No; the Mackinnon law, which failed to gain traction in the US, was adopted in Canada in 1992. The result: "controversial" material – and in particular feminist and gay publications – was seized. Gay bookshops were raided. The Canadian state revelled in its new powers of censorship. All the censors had to do, if they wanted to ban something, was to find one person who found that thing offensive.
Are Object and UK Feminista just well-meaning but naive? Unlikely. These groups know better than anyone the history of what they are trying to do, and the chilling effects this tactic would have on free expression. What is really disheartening is the rush of "feminist" supporters to back these morality groups in the mistaken belief that feminism is about begging "The Patriarchy" to protect weak, sensitive, helpless women from anything they might find demeaning (which has, it seems, come to mean "icky"). What is tragic is the widespread belief that the very sexual freedoms won by the 1960s feminists are themselves a threat to women's rights.
I have a fundamental problem with people who are prepared to be easily offended. About anything. In fact, I find them offensive. Object and UK Feminista will find themselves as easily censored as anybody else if their "civil rights" approach to censorship succeeds; I suspect they don't care. They are the modern-day successors to Mary Whitehouse, and if they succeed in banning all "offensive" material, they will have finished the job she began in 1963, when she set out to attack – more than anything else – the sexual liberation of women.
[PS – As I'm so often informed that I, being a mere man, have no right to comment on feminist issues, here are a couple of other good articles on the Lads Mag campaign, written by women.]
Georgia Lewis: Losing lads' mags and the slippery slope of censorship
Gemma Ahearne: Dangerous Dolls: 'Object' and Lose The Lads' Mags
Posted on May 31, 2013 June 1, 2013 Author Jerry BarnettCategories Religion, Sex, UKTags censorship, feminism, free speech, mary whitehouse, morality, moron, morons, object, objectification, porn, religion, sex, sexual harassment, sexuality, uk, uk feminista27 Comments on Conservative Feminism and the Right to Offend
Tuppy Owens: I Was Censored By Feminists
Tuppy Owens
Since the 1960s, Tuppy Owens has been a sexual libertarian: she has campaigned tirelessly for sexual freedom and set up groups that fight for sexual rights for disabled people. As a woman fighting for the sexual rights of women (as well as men) to enjoy sexual pleasure without guilt, she might once have been embraced by the feminist movement; yet since the late 1970s, she has been repeatedly attacked by anti-sex feminists. Here, she describes some of her experiences.
My name is Tuppy Owens and I am a woman. I started the Outsiders Club in 1979 for disabled men and women to gain confidence and find partners. Feminists immediately started attacking me, accusing me of encouraging disabled men to be "as disgusting as other men". I can remember them sitting in the front row at conferences I spoke at, hurling abuse. I chose to ignore them.
For 25 years of my life, I published the Sex Maniac's Diary, a jovial pocket book featuring sex positions of the day, kinks of the week, and international listings for sexy hotels, swing clubs, fetish clubs and places to enjoy commercial sex. Many people bought it as a joke Christmas present but in reality the information was very seriously researched and presented.
There were obviously more commercial establishments for men than for women (as there still are), but feminists therefore decided the little diary was "sexist", and slowly printers refused to print it and criticism abounded – its charm and innocence were lost. I was very upset, but there was nothing I could do, anti-sex feminism was "in".
Rather reluctantly, I was persuaded by its organisers to join Feminists Against Censorship. I didn't really go along with their way of working and had nothing in common with the members. One of them asked me, while scrounging a lift in my car, "do you still fuck men?" "Yes", I replied, why not?". "Well, men just do what they want." I thought about this and told her, "Yes, men do what they want and women do what we want. That's what makes sex so great." "Oh" she said, and sat silently.
Feminists Against Censorship decided to produce a book. I suggested they call it "Tales from the Clitoris" but it ended up with the rather vulgar title, "Tales from the Clit". I was to be given a chapter, to write about Outsiders and my work with disabled people.
I wrote it from the heart. Midway through, I expressed my concern with what was happening a great deal at the time (late 80's, early 90's) when women felt their genitals were rather like a trophy which would be shared only in very special circumstances. I watched women swagger around as if they held this precious object between their legs, not to be shared. "Where had the generosity gone? How sad it was for disabled men who would never live up to the required standards, and never get to taste their delicious pussies and share their pleasures."
Or something like that. Well, this paragraph was censored out, and I declared "I've been censored by Feminists Against Censorship!".
Sadly, things have got much worse now. Feminists have joined forces with religious groups to get rid of all the wonderful striptease joints in London and elsewhere. Why can't they listen to the women who are strippers before campaigning to close their places of work? Why are they allowed to get away with this? Probably because the feminists have kicked the balls out of the politicians, council members and journalists who might, in the past, have stopped them behaving so outrageously.
Feminism makes me not wish to identify as a woman, or a human being for that matter. I think I'll opt for just being a mammal.
Posted on May 21, 2013 May 21, 2013 Author Jerry BarnettCategories Activism, Sex, UKTags censorship, feminism, london, morality, moron, morons, object, objectification, outsiders, religion, sex, sex maniac's diary, sexuality, strip clubs, striptease, tuppy owens, uk17 Comments on Tuppy Owens: I Was Censored By Feminists
Posing As Progressives
Gail Dines: The New Mary Whitehouse
It's been one of those weeks when I fall out with some of my, usually friendly, followers. When you're a leftish political blogger, there are safe things to write about, and things you shouldn't mention. Social equality, fairness, child poverty, saving the NHS, racism against non-whites, attacks on women's rights, climate change, corporate power; these are all things that I know I can tackle without dissent from others on the left. There will be, of course, attacks from the right, but those are bread-and-butter. We can all unite and enjoy rebutting those. Career tip: if you want to become a Labour parliamentary candidate, and you write the occasional column, but don't want to ruffle feathers? Stick to these subjects (no names mentioned).
Then, there are the subjects that confuse many on the left – so they generally don't mention them, for example: racism by non-whites, domestic violence against men, use of the word "cunt". And of perhaps most of all, sex. Sex, being the subject that raises the most primal feelings in us – whether negative or positive – divides all parts of the political spectrum. The left has a series of simple check-boxes to guide it through this minefield: Gay rights? Approved. Abortion rights? OK. Rights for sexual fetishists? Erm… Union rights for sex workers? Sounds of left-wing heads exploding.
Now let's turn things around for a moment. If you were a social conservative ideologue, in Britain, in 2013, how would you go about popularising your ideas? This would be easy enough in America: you say that public nudity is immoral. Because the Bible says so. You say that Muslims are bad because… well, they're not Christians are they? But things aren't so easy for the British reactionary. The British have largely abandoned religion – at least, the type you actively believe in. So what would you do? You'd do what clever reactionaries do: adopt progressive camouflage.
Both sexual morality groups and racist bigots have successfully adopted this approach, and in doing so, have blended into the liberal mainstream. The last well-known sexual morality group was Mary Whitehouse's National Viewers' and Listeners' Association (now known as Mediawatch UK). This made some headway in the 80s, before being laughed off-stage in the more relaxed 90s. Taking note of this, the new moralists took a leaf from an American lawyer called Catharine MacKinnon. MacKinnon came from impeccable right-wing stock – her father was a right-wing Republican Senator. In the 1980s, MacKinnon (with her sidekick Andrea Dworkin) took a sexual conservative message, wrapped it in superficially feminist language, and succeeded in fundamentally splitting the feminist movement in two – a divide that has existed ever since. The MacDworkinites did more damage to feminism than any misogynistic man ever could.
The MacDworkinites are going from strength to strength. MacKinnon's natural successors are Gail Dines – a deeply reactionary anti-sex activist who campaigns for media censorship and a ban on sex work using feminist and Marxist language, and a number of conservative groups, self-labelling as "feminist". The best known MacDworkinite groups in the UK are Object and UK Feminista – who will be familiar to regular readers of this blog. The latest to appear on the scene is the current campaign against the topless photo on Page 3 of the Sun.
It's amazing what a small shift in vocabulary can do. Because the MacDworkinites refer to themselves as "feminist", then anyone who opposes them must be against feminism, right? It's sad that sections of the left are so easily fooled, but indeed, the strategy has worked impeccably. Are these groups actually a conservative offshoot of feminism, or conservatives who have infiltrated feminism from the outside? It doesn't matter – that's a simple matter of classification. You can call them anti-sex feminists or anti-sex "feminists" – either way, they are reactionary. The early second-wave feminists implored women to abandon their bras. These new groups beg women to put their bras back on.
The same methodology has worked wonders in demonising Muslims in secular Europe. Far-right pundits like Pat Condell attack Muslims – not from a religious perspective, but from an atheist one. Muslims are, (they say) "less civilised" than we, secular European are. They chop off heads and run kebab shops in London (of course, the Muslims cutting off heads aren't the same ones selling kebabs to drunk Brits – but who's counting?)
Such gullibility on the left saddens me. Both left and right have become riddled with conservatism, and well-meaning people have swallowed this reactionary propaganda. Meanwhile, Object's attacks on women sex workers continue – supported blindly by middle-class women who think sex work is common and icky. And atheist fascists like Condell convince atheists that attacking minorities is OK – if it's done in the name of Enlightenment.
The alternative is what I've labelled Social Libertarianism: social democracy combined with an unshakeable commitment to free expression, free speech, freedom of religion and sexual freedom, and an equally tenacious opposition to all forms of censorship. It's not new – it's what the left used to stand for.
Posted on March 15, 2013 March 15, 2013 Author Jerry BarnettCategories Far Right, Sex, Social Libertarianism, UKTags catharine mackinnon, censorship, far right, fascism, feminism, feminist, gail dines, Islamophobia, lies, macdworkinite, mary whitehouse, morality, moron, morons, object, objectification, porn, racism, racist, uk, uk feminista27 Comments on Posing As Progressives


text:
<?php

/*
 *
 * @author TNChalise <teknarayanchalise@lftechnology.com>
 * @since 2014.12.18
 *
 */

/**
 * Description of v1
 *
 * @author TNChalise <teknarayanchalise@lftechnology.com>
 * @created_on : 18 Dec, 2014, 8:42:19 PM
 * @package

 */

namespace app\modules\api\modules\v1;

class VersionOne extends \yii\base\Module
{

    public $controllerNamespace = 'app\modules\api\modules\v1\controllers';

    public function init()
    {
        parent::init();
    }

}