Mystr Sal goes ALL the Way
Longer than usual - can you take ALL the medicine?

Notes

• Nail Polish can Hurt!!!
  
  detail of hears why
  
  ARTIST INFORMATION FORM
  FRESH MEAT IN THE GALLERY 2008: RIOTS AND REVELATIONS
  Name: Cayann, Queen Sal of Lesbesquet
  Name for shipping purposes: MamaMade Farm
  Mailing address: not
  Phone number(s):gone
  Email (please print clearly): insf
  DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION:
  The following information is for funding purposes – and helps us understand who we’re reaching. Filling out the following information is optional and will be kept confidential and not be used in the exhibition in any way.
  5 3 1953
  
  Race/ethnicity: Everyone is African. My color: PINK
  
  Gender: MetaGendered, and Y can tell you it's fabulous
  Sexual orientation: North, South, East, West, Sky, Earth
  Where did you hear about Fresh Meat in the Gallery? Y blame MY Online Buddy
  ARTIST BIO: (:-))
  Big. Pink. Different
  Music is MY Medicine. Thinking is MY Sport. Nature is MY Faith.
  Ask or Tell ME Anything.
  Y'm Crazy. Not stupid.
  
  ARTIST STATEMENT:
  Spelling does not apply to ME.
  
  HOW DOES THIS WORK RELATE TO OUR ‘RIOTS AND REVELATIONS’ THEME:
  Worked with toxic chemicals like nail polish, and Y will not let it kill me or even make me sick.
  The frame is inside, freeing me from any external control.
  Most of what Y would write is evident in the piece.
  Made it special for you, since you called for art. There is more to this work than can be seen here. Not every one can see everything about this work. We who hang it on the wall can see a lot of the hidden stuff. Maybe not all, though.
  PIECE #9 = H'ears WhY
  Title (if any): Queen
  Year made: today
  Medium: mixed
  Dimensions: as big as a house. ha ha.





• American Footbinding
  detail of photo below ( from art business )
  

They do it becuse of the huge incomes, or so we were told.

sculpture by Maxx Sizeler that we didn't see at changing landscapes even though wearing foot deformers will change one's experience of every landscape.

• Any book written by a self proclaimed pornographer for adults about children having sex is child pornography. Even if it's about lesbian little girls, because lesbians are people too! :-)

• Eye shadow is attractive even on old hags.

FAQ is the same as fa-q is the same as fuck you

b-f is the same as butt-fuck

WE HAVE MOVED

to patriarchy...
see ya there...

Now; a musical interlude....

God's Joint

Rintrah believes:
"obviously marriage is tool of the matriarchy to secure obedience from husbands. That's obvious, isn't it? Why do you think women make the most fuss over weddings?"

He didn't believe me when Y said:
"Most often it is the mother and older women of a group who are charged with training girls for and submitting them to these procedures. Girls and women are valued primarily as vessels for the production and suckling of men's progeny..."

The Origin, Nature and Sanctity of Marriage :
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." Our Lord, in His answer to the Pharisees concerning divorce, refers to this passage in Genesis and confirms its special application to marriage. "Have ye not read," He said, ‘that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female? and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."'

Points to note:

1. Actually, man created god in man's image.
2. Men are unable to create human beings.
3. Given the biology of the embryo, we do not know if male and female have always existed on Earth.
4. God (man- see point 1) created marriage.

Hindu Social Practices
"Dowry (Dahej/Hunda) as we all know is paid in cash or kind by the bride's family to the groom' s family alongwith the giving away of the bride (Kanya-dana). The ritual of Kanya-dana is an essential aspect in Hindu marital rites: Kanya = daughter, dana = gift. A reason for the origin of dowry could perhaps be that the groom and his family had to take up the 'onerous' responsibility of supporting the bride for the rest of her life. "

The above does not sound like something women came up with, to me. Neither does this:

"Prehistoric - Marriage basically turns strangers into relatives, decreasing tribal tensions.

3,000 B.C. - Marriage first becomes the way the upper classes conclude business deals and peace treaties, cementing socio-political alliances. Ancient societies experiment with polygamy - and in the case of Egyptian royalty, incest among siblings - to forge strong bonds of civilization.

500 B.C. - Short-lived experiment in democracy in ancient Greece actually worsens the status of women. Love is honored - but among men only. In marriage, inheritance is more important than emotional bonds: A woman whose father dies without male heirs can be forced to marry her nearest male relative, even if she has to divorce her husband first.

Circa A.D. 550 - Emperor Justinian tries to enact a requirement for a wedding license, but the unpopular measure is revoked. (He, meanwhile, managed to get a law passed that allowed him to marry a "penitent" former actress, Theodora ).

A.D. 800 - Holy Roman Emperor Charlemagne outlaws polygamy. Germanic warlords, even baptized Christians, still acquire wives for strategic reasons.900 - The Roman Catholic Church tries to require people to obtain the church's blessing of sexual unions, but is reluctant to thereby create millions of "illegitimate" children whose parents don't obey the edict. The church, however, wins a battle by denying royalty the right to divorce on a whim.

1000 - Catholic clergy are no longer allowed to marry. Upper-class marriages are often arranged before the couple has met. Aristocrats believe love is incompatible with marriage and can flourish only in adultery.

1200 - Common folk in Europe now need a marriage license to wed. Ordinary people can't choose whom to marry, either. The lord of one manor decrees in 1344 that all his unmarried tenants - including the widowed - must marry spouses of his choosing. Elsewhere, peasants wishing to pick a partner must pay a fee.

1500-1600 - Protestant moralists elevate the status of marriage over the Catholic gold standard of celibacy, but enact even stricter controls over annulments.1769 - The American colonies, basing their regulations on English common law, decree: "The very being and legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated into that of her husband under whose wing and protection she performs everything."

1800 - Marriage for love, not for property or prestige, is gaining wider acceptance. But women are still completely subjected to male authority.1874 - The South Carolina Supreme Court rules that men no longer may beat their wives.1891 - England's Parliament passes a law that men cannot imprison their wives (or deny them freedom of movement from the home).

1900 - By now, every state in America has passed legislation modeled after New York's Married Women's Property Act of 1848, granting married women some control over their property and earnings.1920s - The Roaring Twenties bring about the biggest sexual revolution in marriage to-date and divorce rates triple. The Supreme Court upholds people's right to marry someone of a different religion.

1965 - In Griswold v. Connecticut, the U.S. Supreme Court overturns one of the last state laws prohibiting the prescription or use of contraceptives by married couples. Seven years later, the right to use contraceptives is extended to unmarried people.

1967 - Interracial marriage is decriminalized in all states when the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down Virginia's anti-miscegenation statutes.1968 - The Supreme Court upholds the rights of children of unmarried parents.

1969 - California adopts the nation's first "no-fault" divorce law, allowing divorce by mutual consent.

1970s - Most states overturn rules designating a husband "head and master" with unilateral control of property owned jointly with his wife."

Source: Stephanie Coontz, "Marriage, A History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage"; National Women's History Project.

Found At: azcentral - and Y would be surprised if the book cited above does not have lots and lots of trusted reliable sources.

What's A Gyrl To Do?

Creation is one thing.
The other thing is destruction.

“I devour this Age of Man!”

by Thalia Took

The Monstrous Regiment Of Women

"...it is the (collective) father who structures laws and conventions to enforce the perpetuation of his authority over all underlings - beginning with women and girls. Thus we see the bound foot, the amputated vulva, and the lobotomy among so many other such patriarchal operations. Most often it is the mother and older women of a group who are charged with training girls for and submitting them to these procedures. Girls and women are valued primarily as vessels for the production and suckling of men's progeny..." Lesbesquet

Here we see just a few enforcers at work. Their tools: lies, myths, fantasies. Their hopes: by recruiting other women and girls for the use of god, he will suck them up into heaven during the rupture. Of course, they believe what they say, and no doubt have trusted reliable sources to cite if asked.

Why are my junkyard dogs at my heels the way they are? Is it my refusal to become a total woman who has been taken in hand, in the ass, or (as contraculture so elegantly expresses it) to "let him use your cunt"? Patriarchy can not stand hard and fast as it has been without the collaboration of women. So, Y, in the names of my Mothers and Sisters take responsibility for the current existance of patriarchy, as well as its relentless disintigration.

We brought you into this world,

and we will take you out.

Ms. Perceptions

Recently after seeing this blog, someone suggested to me that Y just "like to fight" . Y do not like to fight. Y do not look to fight. For one thing, fighting hurts. But fighting does not hurt me as much as if someone tries to screw me or you, and then Y do nothing, or even worse - cooperate.

Bias / By Us / Buy Us

Or, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

No doubt many of those who participate in wikipedia - even some of those in the control zone - are well-meaning indeed. However, ignorance and show-boating are bliss for those who practice them. The wikipedia page about countering systemic bias cited previously in Band Of Brothers, 'looks' good.

Why it matters and what to do
Many editors contribute to Wikipedia because they see Wikipedia as progressing towards, though never reaching, an ideal state as a repository of human knowledge. The more idealistic may see Wikipedia as a vast discussion on what is true and what is not from a "neutral point of view" or "God's Eye View". The idea of a systemic bias is thus far more troubling than even widespread intentional vandalism. Vandalism can be readily identified and corrected. The existence of systemic bias means that not only are large segments of the world not participating in the discussion, but that there is a deep-rooted problem in the relationship of Wikipedia, its contributors and the world at large.

Maybe you can figure out the point of this paragraph, but Y can't. Especially since my contribution was called inappropriate because it did not have a neutral point of view. Y was directed to this:

All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source. For guidance on how to make an article conform to the neutral point of view, see the NPOV tutorial. - And Y challenge anyone to show how the current patriarchy article conforms in any way to this criteria.

So, while my attempted edit fit in as a contribution to "a repository of human knowledge" and also as an idealistic "representation of the truth" it was disallowed. But since Y am not a vandal, guess Y fall into the vortex of permanent systemic bias deletion.

The systemic bias of the English Wikipedia is permanent.

...Emphasis: mine. Truth: theirs...

As long as the demographic of English speaking Wikipedians is not exactly identical to the world demographic, the vision of the world presented on the English Wikipedia will always be askew. Thus the only way systemic bias would disappear would be if the population of the world all spoke English at the same level of fluency and had equal access and inclination to use the English Wikipedia. However, the effects of systemic bias may be mitigated through conscious effort. This is the goal of the Countering systemic bias project.

...conciousness and effort...good ideas, but is mitigation a good goal? No better goal is needed if you insist that bias is permanent. Maybe some kind of bias is inevitable, but it doesn't have to be white man bias, does it?

Above this quote is a giant list of things one could do to 'mitigate' the bias. This is the final suggestion:
Change the demographic of Wikipedia. Encourage friends and acquaintances that you know have interests that are not well-represented on Wikipedia to edit. If you are at a university, contact a professor in minority or women's studies, explain the problem, and ask if they would be willing to encourage students to write for Wikipedia. Contact minority or immigrant groups in your area to see if they would be interested in encouraging their members to contribute. The worst they could say is, "No". But keep in mind that immigrant groups often have a vastly different point of view than the majority of people in the countries they immigrated from, which introduces its own systemic bias.

For one thing, although white men with incomes and time and computers are the majority inside wikipedia, they certainly are not the majority On Earth. There are estimated to be 101 males to 100 females on earth at this time. Since not all of these males are white, white males do not make up the majority, even though they like to classify everyone else as a minority. Source: math and common sense.

For a second and more dangerous thing,

"But keep in mind that immigrant groups often have a vastly different point of view than the majority of people in the countries they immigrated from, which introduces its own systemic bias."

This sentence effectively negates all the 'good intentions' of the entire article because it is implicit permission to do nothing to mitigate the bias since when you do, you are only introducing a new bias. Plus, conveniently: It is the fault of immigrants. Lordy.

And, as a practical matter, if one were recruited in an attempt to change the demographics of the wikipedia community and then challenged the permanent white male bias of wikipedia by exposing relationships among patriarchy, sperm-worship, trusted sources and neutrality, one would be tag-teamed by the guardians of male supremecy. Source: Lesbesquet.