by April
It’s been a long time since I’ve posted about Bloody Marys! I’ve been broke, but thanks to tax returns, I recently sampled the Bloody Mary at Cuzzy’s in the Warehouse District.
The drink was very salty, with an extra-thick salt-and-pepper rim. It was garnished with a small pickle spear and an olive. It was simple, but the saltiness gave it a strong enough flavor that extra garnishments weren’t necessary. I added tobasco, and it made it spicy enough for me. It was perfectly thick and a little randomly chunky.
The beer back was negligible, and I didn’t finish it. Sometimes beer in the morning is just kinda gross.
Overall grade: B+
by April
I wonder what would happen if we abolished marriage and replaced it with “family units.” Any 2 or more persons can enter into a single family unit. Two men, two women, a man and a woman, an adult and child, two adults and one or more children, three generations of people.
It sounds like it could get complicated quickly. What if we added tax benefits? For every person registered with a family unit, they would get a tax deduction or break or… whatever. Whatever the benefits to being married currently are. Including, of course, hospital visitation rights and other things.
If someone wanted to leave a family unit, and join another one, for example, they could “divorce” their current family unit– leaving the stigma of what is currently known as “divorce” behind. A family unit could dissolve because everyone started to head their own family units, or a family unit could dissolve because of irreconcilable differences. Two family units could merge after a wedding, too, rather than separating.
This would resolve the issue that anti-gay marriage people have with the “meaning of marriage” being something about a family unit, anyway, because no one can deny that nowhere near all of our current families has a mom, a dad, and 3 biological children. It would automatically allow for polygamous relationships to be legally recognized.
What are some of the inherent flaws of this sort of proposal? I’m sure a lot of people would be annoyed with the idea of getting rid of the concept of marriage = man + woman, but seeing as how one man and woman can still be considered a legal unit, they aren’t being prevented from anything by being “traditional.” And perhaps currently married folks would be “grandfathered in” to the change and not be required to re-register or obtain a “family unit license (?)” unless they wanted to register additional people with their unit.
Hmm.
Update: Looks like this is already being considered in other forms. The difference is just how many people can be included in a “union” or “unit.”
Hey people its Danny again. Its been a few weeks since my last post so let’s get to it.
I’ll warn you now this post mentions rape. Tread carefully.
Okay recently I’ve been milling over two posts by Pelle Billing about male disposability. Well one thing that I’ve noticed about male disposability is that it can and sometimes does lead to the belief that a man’s life is worth less than a woman’s and from there can lead to the impression that violence against woman is somehow worse than violence against a man.
Case in point I was watching an old western movie called “Five Savage Men”. Basically five bandits rob a stagecoach that is carrying a load of gold. When they catch up to it the men are killed immediately and after resisting one of the two women was killed (one of the five bandits was actually on the coach meaning it was an inside job). The other woman was taken hostage. I noticed that as the men on the coach were killed I really didn’t feel any concern for their fate. However when the one woman was killed I suddenly cared about the fact that they killed a woman.
After taking the other woman to their camp and after attempting to escape she was chased down and gang raped by the five bandits. Again I felt the expected concern for such a situation. Well like with the killing I began to wonder how I can see a crime be committed against a man and a woman but somehow think that the crime against the woman is somehow worse.
At first I was thinking that desensitization was the answer. On the whole when it comes to seeing murder on tv/movies I frankly I see men killed more often than women.* So maybe the reason I felt more when seeing a woman killed than a man was because I had just gotten used to seeing men killed left and right. Well that really doesn’t fly because of two reasons. One even though they aren’t killed quite as often as men there are still A LOT of women killed in movies and television. The second reason that thought fails me is that when looking at a crime in that happens to women more often than men I still feel more concern for the female victim.
Let’s talk rape for a bit. After being taken to the bandit camp the second woman was gang raped. Now there is no question that when it comes to movies and tv the majority of rape victims are women. Now going by the thought of seeing it so often that it no longer strikes a cord it would stand to reason that seeing a woman raped on tv or in a movie would not illicit much of a response like my reaction to seeing men murdered. But that is not the case. Even comparing that rape scene to say the one in American History X it feels odd to react that way.
For the scene in “Five Savage Men” imagine a camera laying on the ground the five guys doing pushups with their faces going up and down into the camera. The scene ended with showing her unconscious and tied to the ground to five stakes (one on each wrist and ankle and one with her hair tied around it). In American History X two guys are holding him face first against the wall while the rapist penetrates him and you could see everything except the actual penetration itself (I mean as in the four men in this scene were actually naked and the rapist was at least forcefully grinding against his victim giving the allusion of sex). That scene ends with the victim lying on the ground crying with a pool of his blood washing down the drain (it happened in a prison shower). But even with the differing depictions I had more of a response to the scene of the woman being raped.
So I’m left wondering why whether the crime is more likely to happen to a man or woman I’m still inclined to have more of a response to the woman victim.
Any ideas?
* – No I am not trying to say/insinuate/imply or whatever that women are not killed that often in entertainment but frankly men are killed more often. If you look at most of your shows and movies that involve death you’ll see it. In fact the movie that made me think of this is a western. I dare you try to say that women are killed more often that men in westerns.
I just wanted to link to an interesting post I stumbled across in some of my internet technical wondering:
The post itself is worthwhile, its also inspired me to research contemporary and historical GLBT figures outside of the humanities and arts. Any recommendations?
N
by April
Only, I’m going to talk about the ones I did like.
In this commercial, you have a group of women meeting for their book club. The host’s husband comes downstairs and says goodbye, as he’s off to do something more fun than a girly book club, until he sees that the ladies have Bud Light! So in order to get some Bud Light (these commercials act as though these people can never just go get their own), husband sticks around and pretends to be into the book club. Oh, look at how much he’s willing to sacrifice — acting like a girl! — to get some Bud Light! Must be great beer… Not to mention, he’s got a one-track mind, like all men. Beer, and ladies! Those are the desires that drive him, he just can’t help it.
That’s the obvious, run-of-the-mill sexism. What I liked was that the women were not portrayed as superficial airheads, and they were drinking beer. Not beer that was blatantly advertised as “girly,” not beer that over-emphasized it’s lack of carbs or calories, but just beer.
Beer companies never advertise to women! Ever! It’s as though they believe that women are naturally born to loathe anything that doesn’t taste like a strawberry filled with high fructose corn syrup.
Anyway. This pleased me.
And the next:
Once again, Bud Light FTW! I have exactly the same thing to say about this one as the last. There’s the constant reinforcement that men are reckless, one-track-minded idiots, but there’s a non-condescending, non-degrading portrayal of the women in the ad. The woman is the one who is trying to get them off the island, and succeeding in her specialized knowledge of electronics, and she’s not portrayed as un-feminine (to be un-feminine, of course, would mean that she is unattractive and unpleasant).
Well, thanks, Bud Light, for noticing that not only are women not stupid, and not only do we not exist simply as an object of drunk men’s desires, but that we also like beer!
…And next year, can you please try to show men being at least halfway human, as well?