What constitutes Misogyny?

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?

Postby Canadian_watcher » Thu Mar 17, 2011 2:23 pm

barracuda wrote:I think every conversation I've every had on this subject eventually wound up with someone saying, "Well, women do it too!" And then everyone walks away satisfied and no one is really guilty.


on the contrary, it can be a non-threatening jump off point from which to discuss the larger problem. I hear you though - it can be a problem. I think that, at least in this forum, we are able to admit that 'women do it too' and then *not* walk away. Rather we can see just what aspects of misogyny are perpetuated by both genders, and then back-engineer it to the wider culture.

maybe. ?
Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own.-- Jonathan Swift

When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him. -- Jonathan Swift
User avatar
Canadian_watcher
 
Posts: 3706
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 6:30 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?

Postby Nordic » Thu Mar 17, 2011 2:39 pm

barracuda wrote:I think every conversation I've every had on this subject eventually wound up with someone saying, "Well, women do it too!" And then everyone walks away satisfied and no one is really guilty.




Okay, accepted, but that's not why I brought it up.

Because it's not okay. For a woman to say an 11 year old girl deserved to get raped because of how she was dressed BLOWS MY MIND more than a man saying it.

It's like a disease that a woman picked up that, it seems, it would be impossible for her to pick up. Like when a man gets breast cancer.

One of the most disturbing things I ever remember learning about growing up was certain rape cases where you'd hear about women helping hold down the victim.

The other day I was flipping channels and watching the Bettie Page movie, and there was a scene where she leaves her husband, gets picked up by a guy, then driven out into the countryside to be sexually assaulted. One of the people in the car is a woman who is in on the crime. To me, this was one of the most disturbing things about that sequence, because, well, the reason the con worked is because a woman was in on it. It just seems so horrible.

It's just scary to me, I suppose, because I always saw women as being people who would try to protect you in these instances, people who would back you up. To me, women were always a place to go when the world got scary (you know, growing up). They seemed to have a higher moral standard than men, and were a lot less mean and violent.
"He who wounds the ecosphere literally wounds God" -- Philip K. Dick
Nordic
 
Posts: 14230
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA
Blog: View Blog (6)

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?

Postby charlie meadows » Thu Mar 17, 2011 2:42 pm

Nordic wrote:I can hear voices in my head and view them as God speaking to me. But they're just voices in my head.


That's because god is in your head.

Now back to another episode of Pornography For Depressives.
charlie meadows
 
Posts: 167
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 7:31 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?

Postby norton ash » Thu Mar 17, 2011 2:45 pm

Because it's not okay. For a woman to say an 11 year old girl deserved to get raped because of how she was dressed BLOWS MY MIND more than a man saying it.


Remember, that woman is wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross.
Zen horse
User avatar
norton ash
 
Posts: 4067
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:46 pm
Location: Canada
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?

Postby charlie meadows » Thu Mar 17, 2011 3:09 pm

Nordic wrote:It's just scary to me, I suppose, because I always saw women as being people who would try to protect you in these instances, people who would back you up. To me, women were always a place to go when the world got scary (you know, growing up). They seemed to have a higher moral standard than men, and were a lot less mean and violent.


"just"
"always"
"women"
"you"
"people"
"you"
"women"
"world"
"they"
"men"

meant as absolutes--likely the result of a series of double binds... Your judgment is flawed. You have fallen victim to your dichotomies. One day you will understand, and your perceptions will be less distorted by your experience.

Godspeed.
charlie meadows
 
Posts: 167
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 7:31 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?

Postby MacCruiskeen » Thu Mar 17, 2011 3:38 pm

What constitutes Misogyny?


Well, say, for example, the entire culture.



Barack Obama at the White House Correspondents Association Dinner, May 1, 2010 wrote:"The Jonas Brothers are here. (Applause.) They're out there somewhere. Sasha and Malia are huge fans. But, boys, don't get any ideas. (Laughter.) I have two words for you -- predator drones. (Laughter.) You will never see it coming. (Laughter.) You think I'm joking. (Laughter.)"


Just like she never saw it coming:

Image
But at least she survived (probably). Reportedly one in three of the human beings killed by drones in Pakistan are civilians. Female percentage unknown. (It's also unknown how many of them are huge fans of the Jonas Brothers.)

The Liberal Hero's own chattels, I mean Daddy's own girls, were aged 11 and 8 at the time:

Image

Those Two Dolls Named Sasha and Malia (sic)

Image
Ceci n'e est pas une pipe.
"Ich kann gar nicht so viel fressen, wie ich kotzen möchte." - Max Liebermann,, Berlin, 1933

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard Feynman, NYC, 1966

TESTDEMIC ➝ "CASE"DEMIC
User avatar
MacCruiskeen
 
Posts: 10558
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?

Postby Project Willow » Thu Mar 17, 2011 3:50 pm

Canadian_watcher wrote:Willow I'm not sure I understand your popped cherry comment - could you elaborate?


Although c2w expressed my general view, at this point, about 10 pages ago when she said, rather forcefully: "It's not about YOU!", and I'd agree with barracuda's more recent post, I think I can come up with another illustration that may be helpful.

So, let's take the masses out of this for second. Imagine a single woman with her hand up saying: "I've got a problem here! This behavior is hurtful and affecting me negatively!" In a one on one situation, I can see a lot of men reacting in a protective way, listening to the woman and devising strategies to end whatever hurtful thing is going on, especially if he weren't the source of the hurt. When it comes to gender politics, however, for many of these same men, all's fair in war. So what we're hearing in this thread is: "Well, from MY point of view, is that really a problem?" In a one on one this reaction would clearly be seen as dismissive, minimizing, inherently and fundamentally disrespectful. In gender politics however, that hurtful behavior may very well be coming from the men, the very people the women are trying to speak to, in speaking truth to power, so to speak. I'd suggest that on some level the men know that and for whatever reason they can't deal.

So there's the basic situation, where men are reacting in a fundamentally disrespectful way, exemplifying misogynistic behaviors in a thread about misogyny. What instigated my reaction was when they went one step further, and presented the idea that the woman, to use the one on one example again, is the source and cause of her own distress. Insult to injury, basically. Then 82 adds a bit about everyone treating each other with respect, which for me rose beyond the cherry of victim blaming, in terms of hypocrisy anyway.

Another part of my frustration lies in that I had these same discussions and conflicts thirty years ago, and I'm sad that some things, or perhaps a proportion of men, do not change.

Canadian_watcher wrote:Well.. I see it differently. I think that women do participate - in large, large numbers - in the misogyny of our culture. Whether they've been essentially 'brainwashed' into it is irrelevant since I'd argue we're all brainwashed into the culture from the start.


I completely disagree with you. If one of the aspects of an oppressive system is how it hides itself to those it oppresses, it is quite unfair to blame the oppressed group for any kind of blindness. It is obvious from discussions about sexism that many women fail to notice much of the various, daily, insidious and personal reminders of their status. That's one reason why feminist literature and women's studies are so powerful. I believe you have said so yourself.

I would like to apologize to PW for my name-calling. No excuses, I was (am) angry, but that was one toke over the line.

That is all.


I hadn't actually noticed the post. You might try 'b' words like bitch or bully, those really get me going! Thanks for the apology anyway. You're relatively new here and these discussions and issues have a very long history/herstory.
User avatar
Project Willow
 
Posts: 4798
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 9:37 pm
Location: Seattle
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?

Postby Luther Blissett » Thu Mar 17, 2011 4:14 pm

My one issue with this piece is that it seems to direct a lot of concealed hatred at gay men (plus it's rather sensational, as it's the Daily Mail). But, it's an interesting subject and analysis, since I dislike many parts of the fashion industry so much. Also, I have to love the last line (further misogyny, this time on the part of the author):

Fashion's ultimate insult to women: The latest way of demeaning real women is a male model dressed as a girl
By Amanda Platell
Last updated at 1:42 AM on 25th February 2011

For years now the debate has raged over size zero models, yet each year they became skinnier and less like women. No breasts, no curves, so desiccated by starvation they’d be unable to have a child even if they wanted to.

They became utterly defeminised.

But by whom? Real women started to love their curves long before Christina Hendricks wowed the world in Mad Men with hers. And by all accounts men love them, too.

So who drove this obsession to strip women of their femininity?

It was an edict by the fashion mafia — buyers, trend-setters, photographers, but especially the designers. They decreed that to look good in their creations a model couldn’t look like a woman. She had to be flat-chested, devoid of hips, with collarbones you could hook a clothes hanger on. In fact, she has to look less like a woman and more like a boy.

Size zero turned out to be an apt term as the most feted designers, mostly brilliant gay men, effectively tried to squeeze women out of the fashion equation. And now they have.

Who could have predicted that the ultimate solution to the Size Zero Debate would be Zero Woman. Because that’s exactly what we have with London and New York Fashion Weeks, and Couture Week in Paris.

The new darling of the catwalk is a man. The Serbian-born model of female beauty is an androgynous lad of 19 from Melbourne.

With his long blond hair, huge almond-shaped eyes, Angelina Jolie lips and a body as flat as a surfboard, Andrej Pejic is the toast of women’s high fashion the world over.

A beautiful teenager with the face of a girl and the body of a boy — the perfect expression of beauty for these top fashion designers.

It’s the ultimate in woman hating, to create a half-man, half-woman creature because the girls are simply not up to the job. They’re too, let’s face it boys, womanly, even when they’ve been starved to within an inch of their lives.

What an act of abject misogyny.

This betrayal of women has been brewing in the fashion world for decades now. People point to the Sixties and Twiggy, the skinniest model in the entire universe, but she was a one-off, not a trend-setter.

Most women then would still have wanted the perfect hourglass figures of Ava Gardner or Jane Russell. And so would their men.

No, the obsession with models who looked like boys really took hold in September 2006 when a 22-year-old model collapsed at the Milan shows after stepping off the stage.

For months Uruguayan model Luisel Ramos had fasted and drunk virtually nothing to reach her target weight —she weighed less than 9st at 5ft 9in. She had the body mass index of a teenager ten years younger.

Another model, Brazilian Ana Carolina Reston, died shortly afterwards. The 21-year-old was 5ft 8in and weighed just over 6st when she died.

But like many models, to work and keep the body shape required by the designers and the bookers, Luisel had to fight nature with starvation, with slimming pills, with laxatives — anything and everything to stay skinny.

You would have thought that would have been a wake-up call for the fashion industry but no, the designers wanted them even thinner — as demonstrated this week when Samantha Cameron sat in the front row of the Erdem show at London Fashion Week, watching a pair of chopsticks walking down the catwalk.

Chloe Memisevic, the model, was so thin she did not have an ounce of fat on her body. Caved in cheekbones, arms — if you’ll forgive the analogy — that belonged to a concentration camp survivor.

I was at London Fashion Week and I saw some of the women for myself. In the flesh they look even more hideously gaunt, legs without a defining muscle on them, knees that knock together as they walk, chests devoid of any femininity save the occasional pert nipple.

How did we ever get to the stage where we allowed a small group of designers — however talented — to determine that this is what is beautiful in a woman?

So step by step the elite of mostly gay designers has been creating catwalk designs for pre-pubescent teenagers, and each year wanting models who looked less and less like women.

And the ridiculous thing is no woman can maintain a body mass index of around 18 — which is what a tall woman needs to look like a skeleton — without abusing their body.

The designers were wanting women to look more and more like young men. That, I am afraid, is the uncomfortable truth. So it was not a big step for them to start replacing women with teenage boys then, was it?

And so step forward Andrej Pejic. And in what must be the ultimate misogynist’s in-joke, his explosive arrival on the elite fashion scene was at Couture Week in Paris last month when he was chosen by Jean Paul Gaultier to wear his show-stopping, semi-see-through wedding dress.

The bride with no breasts and a lunchbox was more like the bride of Frankenstein. You’d have thought the one walk-on part a woman could have in a designer’s fantasy was as a blushing bride.

Don’t get me wrong. Andrej does not look like some Soho drag queen. Quite the contrary. The 19-year-old Australian is beautiful. He is clever too.

The son of an economist father and lawyer mother, he eventually aims to go into law himself. But he is still a fake. One of his admirers recently commented that he was beloved in the fashion industry because he is ‘so at home in his own skin’.

Nonsense. He’s at home in a woman’s skin.

The truth is, it doesn’t have to be like this. As Andrej was having his Brazilian wax in preparation for his catwalk appearances, the designer Roland Mouret was quietly opening a huge salon at 8 Carlos Place in Mayfair.

It owes its existence to a dress he designed some years ago — the Galaxy. He has been a phenomenal success because he understood that women have curves they can’t do much about and men by and large like them, especially when they can be transformed from a muffin-top waistline into Marilyn Monroe.

And this as Mad Men shoots another series, mainly off the bosom of Hendricks, and Debenhams reports a 225 per cent sales increase in clothes that give women hourglass figures.

Even the original stick insect Victoria Beckham has jumped on the real woman bandwagon and designed her entire range around feminine curves.

It is not all hopeless. I went to the designer Amanda Wakeley’s show and was moved almost to tears (very uncool I’m told) by the most sublimely beautiful clothes unashamedly designed for women.

They nipped in waists, complemented curves and celebrated cleavage. Andrej would have looked a right twit in them.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... z1GtCnd63m
The Rich and the Corporate remain in their hundred-year fever visions of Bolsheviks taking their stuff - JackRiddler
User avatar
Luther Blissett
 
Posts: 4993
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:31 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?

Postby Plutonia » Thu Mar 17, 2011 5:10 pm

wintler2 wrote:
82_28 wrote:Almost as if our culture, this western culture, this judeo-christian culture, this technocratic culture was built TO decline by keeping us divided.


Wrong end of the telescope: capitalism was built BY keeping us divided.
Plutonia wrote:"...capitalist markets are revolutionary, but their revolutionary nihilism makes them all the more effective both as contagions of democratic desire and as means by which its social conflicts are mediated and temporized. Capitalism does not just spread the gospel of equality; it also makes it socially workable, within limits. But only by means of a cultural revolution that transforms all traditional moral understandings, especially in the region of personal life and the relation of the public and the private. However effective this may be in servicing the exigencies of the democratic psyche, though, it threatens the cohesiveness of society. Thus the paradoxical productivity of capitalism: the more creative it is of democratic wealth and culture, the more it disintegrates social order. Capitalism serves to postpone antagonisms within “civil society,” the envies and jealousies of democratic men and women, but only by intensifying antagonism between itself and social order as a whole.
It mediates conflicts on the inter-personal level, but only by aggravating the collision between “society” itself and its “sacred” order
...

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cac ... LZ3fyCj3Ow

Not sure i get this, does it mean consumption lulls away the outrage of interpersonal violence?

[

Not consumption per se. It's Rene Girard's Memetic Theory - people are inherently imitative and our desire orients towards what is desired by others, resulting in contagious rivalries and ultimately, potentially devastatingly, escalating violence.

Rigid, hierarchical, social orders prevent widespread outbreaks of violence by limiting competition to local spheres of class, race, gender or whatever. Capitalism, you could say, is a profoundly opportunistic system (lol) and as such tends to open up and intermingle competitive spheres so that limits to violence are undermined. Democratic social arrangements are structured to direct competition towards limited fields, like running for office or receiving awards or playing football.

One of the "tells" of mimetic rivalry, is that the competitors tend to come more and more to resemble each other - but without the ability to see that that is what is happening. It's projection or transference. So one says "You always do X to me" to which the other responds "No! It's you who does X!" Familiar to all, I'm sure. But if those two rivals are working for, say, the Obama campaign, they are going to put aside their feud with each other in order to win in the larger field of competition of Dems vs. Reps, or Libs vs Neo-Cons, white vs black, Xtian vs Muslim, peace vs war, rich vs poor and so on.

Ergo: "Capitalism serves to postpone antagonisms within “civil society,” the envies and jealousies of democratic men and women, but only by intensifying antagonism between itself and social order as a whole."

Back when I was an ardent feminist myself, of the deep-ecology variety (which re-appropriated the rejected idea of women having a special connection to Nature) I celebrated "womens' culture" (as distinct from mens') and took for myself the motto Deleo of Distinctus est Vis which means "the erasure of difference is violence" which I now understand to be literally true.

So, recently I've been asking myself - why would men resist the entrance of women into their field of competition, which of course, they have and do and will?

And has anyone but me noticed that Stephen Morgan hasn't posted since Jeff's prohibition against questioning misogynistic orthodoxy?

And, I agree with MaryC, that a toxic intolerance has crept into our community here.




`
Last edited by Plutonia on Thu Mar 17, 2011 5:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
[the British] government always kept a kind of standing army of news writers who without any regard to truth, or to what should be like truth, invented & put into the papers whatever might serve the minister

T Jefferson,
User avatar
Plutonia
 
Posts: 1267
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 2:07 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?

Postby MacCruiskeen » Thu Mar 17, 2011 5:24 pm

I just want to recommend Stan Goff's website "Feral Scholar" as a source of some very good writing on all the topics addressed in this thread:

Articles labeled "gender"

- Goff doesn't just post there himself. The posts and comments by "DeAnander" (and others) are also very much worth reading.
"Ich kann gar nicht so viel fressen, wie ich kotzen möchte." - Max Liebermann,, Berlin, 1933

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard Feynman, NYC, 1966

TESTDEMIC ➝ "CASE"DEMIC
User avatar
MacCruiskeen
 
Posts: 10558
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?

Postby Laodicean » Thu Mar 17, 2011 5:44 pm

Your judgment is flawed. You have fallen victim to your dichotomies. One day you will understand, and your perceptions will be less distorted by your experience.


:roll:

User avatar
Laodicean
 
Posts: 3506
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 9:39 pm
Blog: View Blog (16)

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?

Postby barracuda » Thu Mar 17, 2011 5:58 pm

Plutonia wrote:And has anyone but me noticed that Stephen Morgan hasn't posted since Jeff's prohibition against questioning misogynistic orthodoxy?


I believe Stephen has communicated to Jeff that he feels he can no longer post here in good conscience with the new guideline in place.
The most dangerous traps are the ones you set for yourself. - Phillip Marlowe
User avatar
barracuda
 
Posts: 12890
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:58 pm
Location: Niles, California
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?

Postby Canadian_watcher » Thu Mar 17, 2011 8:21 pm

Project Willow wrote: ... In gender politics however, that hurtful behavior may very well be coming from the men, the very people the women are trying to speak to, in speaking truth to power, so to speak. I'd suggest that on some level the men know that and for whatever reason they can't deal.


yes, I see this. I do think that this phenomenon happens, and has most definitely happened in this thread at times.

Project Willow wrote:So there's the basic situation, where men are reacting in a fundamentally disrespectful way, exemplifying misogynistic behaviors in a thread about misogyny. What instigated my reaction was when they went one step further, and presented the idea that the woman, to use the one on one example again, is the source and cause of her own distress. Insult to injury, basically. Then 82 adds a bit about everyone treating each other with respect, which for me rose beyond the cherry of victim blaming, in terms of hypocrisy anyway.


It has been interesting to watch the twisting.. the avoiding of facing the actual problem of misogyny, hasn't it? Lots of "well men have it hard, too!" and "well women hate women, too" and this sort of thing. I agree with you that it demonstrates the problem and it can be offensive. In one way though, I see it as a pathway. It was frustrating a while back in the thread when several people tried to lead Nordic (sorry buddy!) down that pathway in regards to our suggestion to him that he learn about feminism for the sake of his daughter. We tried to get him past the knee-jerk responses, but he wouldn't go there.

Project Willow wrote:
Canadian_watcher wrote:Well.. I see it differently. I think that women do participate - in large, large numbers - in the misogyny of our culture. Whether they've been essentially 'brainwashed' into it is irrelevant since I'd argue we're all brainwashed into the culture from the start.


I completely disagree with you. If one of the aspects of an oppressive system is how it hides itself to those it oppresses, it is quite unfair to blame the oppressed group for any kind of blindness. It is obvious from discussions about sexism that many women fail to notice much of the various, daily, insidious and personal reminders of their status. That's one reason why feminist literature and women's studies are so powerful. I believe you have said so yourself.


I agree with everything you've just written, however I maintain that women do willfully play in to the patriarchy's hands. That, to me, is a betrayal and insofar as they choose to prop up the patriarchy with the full understanding that they are doing so, they are capable of misogyny. Maybe this is what I need to learn more about - the ways in which some women do or don't see the oppression. As you say, the system hides itself well.

Most importantly though, I agree that this discussion keeps getting sidetracked in to how women are responsible for their own oppression and it is tiresome. Thanks for your persistence in moving it back again.
Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own.-- Jonathan Swift

When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him. -- Jonathan Swift
User avatar
Canadian_watcher
 
Posts: 3706
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 6:30 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?

Postby Searcher08 » Thu Mar 17, 2011 10:36 pm

barracuda wrote:
Plutonia wrote:And has anyone but me noticed that Stephen Morgan hasn't posted since Jeff's prohibition against questioning misogynistic orthodoxy?


I believe Stephen has communicated to Jeff that he feels he can no longer post here in good conscience with the new guideline in place.


Is that no longer post in this thread, or in R.I.?

Because I think it is a real shame and a big loss if someone of his intelligence is 'constructively dismissed' for having views that are not popular, but which he has put a great deal of effort and consideration into.

Similarly, I find the atmosphere here pretty toxic at times recently - the RI discourse seems to have shifted from being a place for discussion to a place where acceptability of certain beliefs is more important than questioning.
It reminds me of the injunction
"I want you to be more spontaneous with me!" ...
where every response that follows is treated with
"You are only suggesting that because I said so!, see you never listen!!"

Double binds. Some people think they drive people... crazy.

Besides, who needs to think with subjectivism? I'm right when it feels right.

It reminds me of a shift to Roman Law, where only codified things are permitted as opposed to Common Law, where certain things are forbidden.

I don't have much respect for ideologues of any hue... everything then becomes about whether something is acceptable to a particular worldview - and if one has a different one, there is no actual toleration of difference, instead a sort of cognitive monoculture creeps in. As I mentioned before.

It is the sort of thinking that I heard happening in a public sector IT department this week, where a new computer system was prohibited from being called a Wiki, because it could be associated with Julian Assange and thereby "cause offence" due to the nature of sexual allegations against him. It was to be referred to as a 'departmental collaboration and participation space'.
User avatar
Searcher08
 
Posts: 5887
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:21 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What constitutes Misogyny?

Postby Plutonia » Thu Mar 17, 2011 11:12 pm

barracuda wrote:I believe Stephen has communicated to Jeff that he feels he can no longer post here in good conscience with the new guideline in place.


RIP Stephen Morgan, then.

This can be an elegy to mark his passing, that is if norton don't mind? :smallviolin:

norton ash wrote:Duke: I am going to provoke you, provoke you now!
Bitsy: You will not. You are a brute and a fool!
Duke: I have a factoid here, a provocative factoid.
Bitsy: It only proves that you are missing the point!

Duke pisses on the statue of Athena.

Bitsy: Like that, you pig, you lose more dignity than I! Pig-dog!
Duke: Admit I have a point.
Bitsy: No! You miss the point!
Duke: I have a point!
Bitsy: Your brain is bad from eating your own shit!
Duke: That's really unfair. Behold... a SQUIRREL!

Duke, leaping, exits stage left

ENTER Scruffy and Bobo stage right. They join Bitsy to sing 'Duke is a Bad Dog.'

ENTER Rollo, running in circles.

Rollo: Duke has bitten the letter carrier! The letter carrier! The sheriff's men are on their way! Bitsy, you have made him MAD.

Bitsy: Oh, for fuck's sake.

to be continued



Also

Searcher08 wrote:... 'departmental collaboration and participation space'.

:ohno:
[the British] government always kept a kind of standing army of news writers who without any regard to truth, or to what should be like truth, invented & put into the papers whatever might serve the minister

T Jefferson,
User avatar
Plutonia
 
Posts: 1267
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 2:07 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 162 guests