Chamblee54

PG didn’t mean to start any trouble. It just sort of happened. Pictures are from Gwinnett County.
Before we get to the main event, there is a detour. PG was trying to get to Futility Closet An idler’s miscellany of compendious amusements. When he typed those fun loving initials FU in the browser window, what should appear but funnypaperz, the google home of Christian cartoonist Joe King. There is a video on his site, to the effect that many American food companies use a flavor enhancer. This chemical is made by senomyx , and is alleged to contain stem cells. A google search showed a few Christian websites that said the same thing. PG sent an email to senomyx, asking “Do you use stem cells in your research and or products?”
Yesterday, there was a post at Futility Closet, Inspiration. Here it is.
The author William James told the story of Mrs. Amos Pinchot, who in a dream thought she had discovered the meaning of life. Sleepily she wrote down what she believed to be a profound poetic statement. Fully awake, she saw she had merely written: Hogamus, higamus Man is polygamous Higamus, hogamus Woman monogamous. – Malcolm Potts and Roger Valentine Short, Ever since Adam and Eve: The Evolution of Human Sexuality
PG thought the rhyme in this post was amusing. He posted it on Facebook, with a link to the entire post. There was a reaction.
Err, just to put it out there — I find this sexist and problematic. // Kinda goes along with the whole, “women wanna trap men into marriage,” and “men are essentially sexual while women are essentially pure,” and reminds me of the victorian-era “women as keepers of the home and hearth.” I’m not trying to attack or anything, just want to comment and express my thoughts. // so, I hope it doesn’t read as attack, is what I’m saying. I am really terrible at this…. // Oh, wow. I just thought it was a jab at Newt “Porky the Pig’s Standin” Gingrich– didn’t even realize until I followed the link it wasn’t a political jab. // you read my mind! I second this!Sexist it is indeed. // I will add though that in species similar to us, males are frequently biologically driven to mate frequently and widely and females to be more selective (whether by choosing one male and living in a harem, or by seeking “the best male” to tie down), for the future of the offspring. While pair-bonding does occur in many species, full (long-term) monogamy is a relatively rare concept, so, this occurs on a much less stringent scale. (And of course that biology is not equal to destiny) // Not really sure what the point or intent is… // I call all fact, quotations and laws political and sullied by frame of reference. I’ll take my harem of all gender mates because I’ve reproduced and I take care of my own shit and now I want to get laid. If you say marriage or monogamy, you exit the harem. In “typical female” form I am selective for std safety // Misogyny! Gender essentialism! Anti-feminism! This shit has no place in a community who has, since it’s inception, been dedicated to fighting patriarchy. If you are posting this kind of shit, you are perpetuating patriarchy in this community. Check yourself. // but with a dose of love and understanding that we all need help with our deprogramming, as well. //Thus, our community. // To clarify my second post, it was more about the base subject. I don’t find the consideration that we are potentially predisposed for specific patterns of behavior problematic in and of itself. I do agree that adding a value component like notions of chastity versus sexuality, and inherent double standards, sexist. Being common or unique isn’t the problem (following the same biological patterns as our animal brethren or being more distant in our actions), however labeling either option as proper or improper and enforcing it, is problematic. // Your gender essentialism is actually deeply problematic and incredibly hurtful and alienating to large portions of the queer community. Justifying gross and inaccurate summarizations of women’s behaviors and preferences by comparing them to “females of other species” is not only dehumanizing, it is cissexist and gender essentialist. There is no excuse for this kind of misogyny. Don’t defend it. Instead, spend some time educating yourself about how your social programming around this subject is really fucked up and destructive to other people. Some of these very smart Atlanta folks might even be willing to help you figure it out if you’re having trouble. // “Writers commonly quote the experience of William James who, while under anaesthetic dreamt he found the secret of the universe. What he was left with was the doggerel ‘Higamus Hogumus women are monogamous – Hogumus Higamus, men are polygamous.’” but then we also have: // “The author William James told the story of Mrs. Amos Pinchot, who in a dream thought she had discovered the meaning of life. Sleepily she wrote down what she believed to be a profound poetic statement. Fully awake, she saw she had merely written: Hogamus, higamus Man is polygamous Higamus, hogamus Woman monogamous.” // So either way, we could ask Luther his intentions in posting it, // but I don’t think we should shoot the messenger. As a believer in nonviolent communication, I wish we could learn to dialog without put downs, labeling & name calling. // Yo there is a difference between name-calling and naming oppressive behavior.
There was a bit of poetry. There was a community that likes to discuss certain issues. It might have been better to post the entire link, rather than just the poem. When you write down things that come to you in your sleep, you are likely to read strange things when you awake.
The source book, Ever since Adam and Eve: The Evolution of Human Sexuality , got several revues at Amazon. If you want to read the positive ones, click on the link. This one is more fun. Is this what Price meant by “Party like it’s 1999? “The worst example of poor scholarship imaginable., February 19, 1999 By A Customer … This book is worse than bad. It pretends to have facts yet it provides no evidence for some of the most preposterous lies I have ever seen put to print. It is difficult to imagine how the authors convinced Cambridge University Press to publish such unsubstantiated babble. The book is badly organized as well, and adds nothing to the current literature on this subject. You would be better off buying virtually ANY other title on this subject.