THOMPSON, blog.
THOMPSON, blog. - Marvel at the mental contortions of our self-imagined betters.

Slide THOMPSON, blog Poking the pathology since 2007
  • thompson, blog
  • Reheated
  • X
  • Email
Browsing Category
Anthropology
Anthropology Media Policing Pronouns Or Else

Into Himself

May 13, 2024 120 Comments

Time for a spot of downtrodden-minority news:

The 26-year-old suspect has been charged with assault. She remains in custody until her next court appearance.

The Vancouver Police Department, quoted above, are referring, rather coyly, to this chap here:

A trans-identified male has been arrested after assaulting a breastfeeding mother in Vancouver, British Columbia. Nathaniel Francis Beekmeyer, 26, was charged on Friday, with media and local police referring to him as a “woman.”

The assault occurred on Thursday, May 9, at approximately 2:15PM, when the mother, her husband, their baby boy, and one other family member were sitting in their vehicle on Commercial Drive. A strange man opened the door of the car and attempted to grab the mother and her nursing four-month-old infant from the back of the car. 

Happily, passers-by assisted the alarmed mother, and Mr Beekmeyer, who was shirtless at the time, was overpowered and arrested shortly afterwards, before being charged with assault. Unlike the police and several news outlets, including the Vancouver Sun and the CBC, witnesses to the crime were quite comfortable using the words he and man when referring to Mr Beekmeyer.

A YouTube channel belonging to Beekmeyer has now been identified where he has uploaded several disturbing videos in which he refers to himself as a “dead girl,” discusses reincarnation, his mission to transform men into women, and declares in a video titled “Oestrogen is the Strongest Euphioriant [sic]” that the female hormone provides “the greatest high.” 

Apparently, it’s the kind of euphoria that results in one attacking random women and their four-month-old babies. Until a crowd of passers-by pin one to the ground.

Almost all of Beekmeyer’s videos are shot in a decrepit room with disturbing scribbling on the walls. In some of the videos, he is completely silent, and simply sits in front of the camera with distorted music playing in the background. 

If the above isn’t sufficiently Silence of the Lambs, there is more.

“Let’s take some oestrogen. This is pure oestrogen,” Beekmeyer says in one video. “First of all, we open the vial. Now we take a whole bunch. How much do we take? Well, how much is this? Hmm? I love it. That was about 15 milligrams. So seven days’ worth of oestrogen. Yeah, I was trying to take a lot because I love feeling euphoric,” he says. 

He’s going to his happy place. Where the good vibes are:

“Oestrogen is the greatest high. Women get it all the time. Men should get it all the time too,” Beekmeyer continues. “Oh my god, it turns me on because I turn myself on by acting all super cute after. It’s such a heaven doing drugs, you know… Even if you’re a serial killer like me, you’re gonna have to start to realise that a female form is not weak. It’s strong.”

He continues: “Now I’m thinking, how can I kill you? I could have killed you in a different video… Yeah, I’m a serial killer. Do you hate women? I hate women. They don’t take enough oestrogen.” 

So nothing of concern there.

Readers with an interest in self-expression and interior décor will find much to ponder in the video below:

🚨A man in Vancouver, Canada, was charged yesterday after assaulting a mother while she was breastfeeding her baby.

Nathaniel “Millie” Beekmeyer, 26, identifies as transgender and made videos about taking estrogen so he could masturbate to himself. pic.twitter.com/W03mw5gpN8

— REDUXX (@ReduxxMag) May 11, 2024

When not sharing his thoughts on how “super cute” he is, and therefore how sexually aroused he is, Mr Beekmeyer declares himself a saviour who will “fix the world.” Specifically, by transforming men into women. However – and this is perhaps something of a catch – “all women have to be destroyed.”

Mr Beekmeyer adds, “I’m a beautiful person.”

For reference purposes.

Still, at least the public were spared getting what might laughingly be referred to as the wrong idea, thanks to the police and media misleading said public about the identity of a dangerously deranged criminal.

Though it occurs to me that, for the passers-by who intervened and overpowered Mr Beekmeyer, it must have been quite strange to see subsequent reports in which this shirtless man was referred to by the police and the media as a woman. As if their own, first-hand perceptions, from mere inches away, were somehow wildly and implausibly inaccurate.

And as noted by Genevieve Gluck, author of the piece quoted above,

This is not the first time a law enforcement agency in Vancouver has given incorrect information on a suspect’s identity due to their transgender status… The Metro Vancouver Transit Police claimed they “didn’t know” if the primary suspect in a SkyTrain sexual assault was male or female despite having recovered semen during the investigation. 

But hey. This is where we are now. Feel the progress.

Update, via the comments:

As noted previously, you have to wonder whether the absurdity above will continue indefinitely, a sort of routine surrealism, or whether it will it just peter out, like any fad, and then be remembered with some embarrassment. As if it were on a par with wearing flares.

And if it does become unfashionable, I wonder how the players below will feel:

Readers will note that both the Telegraph and the court refer to Mr Dolatowski as if he were in fact a woman – not a mentally ill, paedophilic man. I’m sure the parents of the molested children were thrilled by the consequent air of unrealism and unhappy farce.

It must be quite surreal, and presumably upsetting, to hear lawyers and officials pretending that a 6’5” man – the 6’5” man who recently molested your child in a supermarket toilet – is somehow, magically, a woman. One would hope that lawyers, judges, and the other occupants of a courtroom – and possibly, at a stretch, even journalists – were interested in reality, in establishing facts. Not affirming some unhinged and misleading fantasy. 

I wonder how those journalists, lawyers, and court officials will retrospectively process their very public participation in our current, ongoing clown show. In which, as above, the child molester is flattered and indulged, his pretence affirmed, while his victims are repeatedly insulted. Will they still like to think of themselves as beings of high probity?

Continue reading
Reading time: 5 min
Written by: David
Anthropology Free-For-All Parenting

Not Entirely Arbitrary

May 8, 2024 101 Comments

Lifted from the comments, a difference of worldview:

From subsequent rumblings in the linked threads,

This is why it’s so important to always be aware of your privilege!!

Some replies bemoan patriotism and a sense of affinity with one’s country, while others denounce “supremacist systems and the myth of meritocracy.” At which point, readers may object that being born in a relatively congenial part of the world is not a “privilege,” or by implication a basis for guilt, or a Gotcha! to be exploited by others. Any more than being born somewhere less congenial is a sin, a thing for which to atone.

Readers may also note how an alleged randomness, in which differences in outcome can only be explained by pillage and oppression, and in which nothing has ever been earned, can, for some, be ideologically convenient. And a habit of mind.

“I think they know they ‘got lucky’ but don’t really care,” chides one of the subsequent commenters. “Everything is luck and random chance,” insists another. Note the implication that the comfort and agreeableness of a society is merely a matter of chance, of luck. As if the preceding cultivation of values and behaviour played no part whatsoever. As if culture and civilisation didn’t matter.

You can of course say that a newborn played no part in preceding events and cannot take credit for them. But those preceding events were in large part a product of collective effort, of a preference for one kind of society over another, and of people, including one’s ancestors, behaving accordingly. The “relative safety” of the country in which one is born is not some arbitrary, unrelated thing. It doesn’t arise simply by “random chance.” A person doesn’t just happen to be born into a context that their parents also just happened to be born into.

I could not have been born to Mr and Mrs Jeong in South Korea, any more than I could have been born to a Yemeni peasant couple, or a Californian billionaire. Much as I – the person talking to you now – could not have been born in 1652. The newborn me was a result of a particular lineage, of choices made by specific individuals and the genes of those individuals – who can of course say the same thing about themselves. To imply that anyone’s birth is a random thing, as if it could have happened anywhere, at any time, as if the particulars were immaterial, is, it seems to me, a little odd. Indeed, arse-backwards. And I doubt that many parents see the birth of their child as some random occurrence, unmoored from any context or preceding events. I’d imagine it wouldn’t seem random at all.

Or, as Mr Burkett puts in in the thread linked above,

The fact that your individual consciousness feels randomly situated from the point of view of that consciousness is a demonstration of the limits of consciousness, not an actual description of what’s happening. That your subjective feeling is of having appeared randomly does not suggest, well, anything about the world, and the fact is that you didn’t. 

Unless you imagine a queue of souls waiting to spawn in some small but arbitrary body on a continent chosen by the spin of a wheel. Or cosmic bingo balls.

Update, via the comments:

Ian adds,

How the hell do they think civilisations come about?

In one of the threads or sub-threads on X, Geoffrey Miller and others point out that civilisations are built by, among other things, lineage, ancestry, and no small effort over vast stretches of time. Often with a view to posterity and giving one’s offspring a better life. This prompts someone to reply, rather sniffily, “It’s only by chance you were born to said ancestors.”

As if one could have entirely different ancestors who are entirely unconnected to the ancestors one does actually have. As if, while having entirely different ancestors, you could somehow be exactly the same person you are now, and not someone else. A hypothetical being. The assertion – that a specific person being born in a functional society was some random, meaningless occurrence and somehow unfair – is often deployed by people whose goals are rather questionable.

One commenter, a “pansexual she/her,” insists that civilisations are built by “stealing and oppressing other people.” Other, more edifying variables are not deemed interesting. I’m guessing that our “pansexual she/her,” the one who doesn’t think that lineage and genetic continuity play a role of any importance, isn’t herself a parent. And therefore hasn’t had the strange pleasure of seeing her children develop the features and attributes of various relatives. A sister, an uncle, a grandfather.

Regarding which, commenter Uma Thurman’s Feet adds,

The biggest change in my life was when I realised I love my kids and I wish we had had more. 

Which is sort of why the Rawlsian tosh mouthed above, and mouthed so triumphantly, with such self-satisfaction, is ultimately unconvincing. Not only is it glib and arse-backwards, it also rather jars with the imperatives and experience of parenting.

Update 2:

As seen above, a common use of this conceit is to dissolve normal boundaries and bonds. To undermine and demoralise. By people who want you to believe that your children aren’t really yours, that your attributes and intelligence aren’t really yours, and that your earnings and belongings, your territory, aren’t really yours – that’s it’s all somehow random, and unfair, and should therefore be taken away.

Presumably, by the kinds of people who choose to believe such things. Selflessly, of course.

Given the replies quoted above, and many others that could have been included, it doesn’t seem unfair to suppose that the objective is to diminish the target’s sense of meaning and territory, to make them feel undeserving, disidentified, and to leave them emotionally vulnerable to policies that may diminish them further. Hence the conceit’s popularity among those driven by spite.

As the cornerstone of a worldview, it’s also quite literally stupefying. As noted in the comments:

If one society is preferable to another, or if one individual does better in life than another, and if it’s all just “luck and random chance,” then presumably there are no lessons to be learned. Nothing to emulate or to try, nothing to avoid. No experience to pass on, or wisdom, possibly wisdom earned at some cost.

Bad medicine.

Consider this an open thread.

Continue reading
Reading time: 5 min
Written by: David
Anthropology Free-For-All Travel

I Detect A Lack Of Forethought

April 25, 2024 34 Comments

From Oklahoma City, the thrills and spills of public transport:

Oklahoma City Police arrested an Embark passenger for attacking a bus driver while he was driving this past weekend, which sent the bus directly into the side of a building. The passenger was trying to get the bus to stop at a railroad track. pic.twitter.com/X9oxY61II4

— Catch Up (@CatchUpFeed) April 25, 2024

Today’s words, since you ask, are bogglingly selfish morony.

Update, via the comments:

As noted here before, many times, when it comes to the criminal underclass, we are but objects in their world.

Given its obviousness, you’d think the whole selfish morony thing might crop up occasionally in editorials and opinion pieces on the subject of crime. Instead, however, we tend to see quite different intentions.

Consider this an open thread.

Continue reading
Reading time: 1 min
Written by: David
Anthropology Free-For-All Parenting

Surnaming

April 23, 2024 142 Comments

A while ago, following this display of progressive parenting, I wrote,

And yes, the family does live in Brooklyn. And no, they don’t share a surname. And yes, the adults have availed themselves of professional counselling services. 

A quip that resulted in some rumblings on the topic of marriage and shared surnames, or the lack thereof. In the comments, Steve E noted,

[Not sharing a surname] creates complications for the most mundane of things, too. Pick up a pizza, whose name is it in? Loyalty account at retail store, whose name is it in? My wife kept her own surname because – feminism, the patriarchy, etc. – she now says if she’d known what a pain-in-the-ass it would be, she wouldn’t have done it. When she signs up for things now, she gives my surname. 

And Ray added,

If father tries to board an airplane with a nine-year-old girl who doesn’t share his surname, the airline will hit the big red panic button. 

As I said at the time, I don’t have strong feelings on the subject, but it occurs to me that not taking your husband’s surname, ostensibly as some Assertion Of Progress And Enlightenment – while retaining what is presumably your father’s surname – does create complications.

For instance, having different surnames can confuse people as to whether you’re married or not, and if so, to whom. And any children with hyphenated surnames – a fashionable statement of the aforementioned Progress And Enlightenment – will then face the issue of what to do when they get married, especially if it’s to someone whose own name is also modishly hyphenated. Do they ditch some of the accumulated names – and if so, which ones? Or do they go for multiply hyphenated surnames, which would very quickly become a bit much?

Say, if Derek Williams and Sarah Anderson get married but retain their own surnames, and their children’s surnames are hyphenated as Anderson-Williams, they may enjoy a sheen of modernity, and perhaps connotations of aristocracy and status. But what happens when little Annie Anderson-Williams grows up and wants to marry James Houghton-Clompington? Do we get a brood of Anderson-Williams-Houghton-Clompingtons?

I’m exaggerating for comic effect, of course. But only slightly.

As a new, supposedly more equitable tradition – at least outside of the Spanish-speaking world – it seems scarcely less prone to complication and trade-offs. When hyphenated offspring come to name their own children – and if they follow the same rules as their hyphenated parents – the whole thing rapidly becomes unworkable, and, at risk of causing offence, names will have to be cut. Lest each child sound like a law firm.

Though I suppose one could take it as a kind of unintended symbolism, a measure of modern progressivism. In that, the problem it allegedly addresses doesn’t seem to be much of a problem for most of those it supposedly oppresses, and the solution offered is somewhat short-sighted and soon results in something close to absurdity.

In the original thread, pst314 added,

I have heard of some writers, and others in careers where name recognition matters, keeping their names when they marry. But that’s a special case. 

Also, among gay couples. Though gay couples tend not to result in children, thereby sidestepping the issue of escalating hyphenation and a society-wide overhaul of stationery, due to the need to enlarge the ‘print name’ and ‘signature’ boxes on every official form.

What brought to mind the above was this:

1) A family is a unit and should all share the same name, however that’s decided. You could choose the mother’s name or you could choose a random name, I guess, but they need to share a common name.

2) There’s a strong case that you really want to throw dads a bone with respect… https://t.co/xjCFIctVop

— wanye (@wanyeburkett) April 22, 2024

And subsequently, this:

Anytime I hear somebody say within earshot of a new father anything that sounds even remotely like, “he doesn’t really look like him, more takes after his mom” I’m filled with the sense that we have lost touch with some very basic and important loadbearing structures.

— wanye (@wanyeburkett) April 22, 2024

According to Finnegans Take, above, “equality requires sacrifice,” and it’s “honestly insane” that the husband and father’s surname is commonly the one taken. A convention that is, we’re told, “obviously misogynistic” and “obviously a practice to move away from.” “I’m proud to say my child will be taking her mother’s name,” he adds. Which, while aired in overheated terms, at least avoids the Looming Hyphenation Crisis.

Though I’m not sure why pride should be a factor, or why perpetuating the mother’s surname – but not the father’s – should be construed as any more equal, or somehow more fair.

Update, via the comments:

In the Atlantic article that prompted the exchange embedded above, its author, Michael Waters, notes,

About 97 percent of married couples passed down only the father’s last name to their first kid. That proportion seems to have remained remarkably consistent.

This is announced almost mournfully, and the term “habitual and unconscious” is deployed, much like the claim by Finnegans Take that the matter “gets basically zero attention,” as if people getting married never, ever consider the issue at all. Rather than the possibility that many people do consider the matter, but may simply arrive at conclusions that suit themselves and their families, rather than pleasing an Atlantic columnist whose “constellation of personal obsessions” include “queer history,” and who, inevitably, lives in Brooklyn.

This is followed by the sombre news:

A large swath of American society has simply failed to conceive of a reality beyond patrilineal surnames.

Failed, you hear. Failed. How disappointing you people are.

We’re also told that “the rate at which parents are choosing not to marry has risen dramatically over the past 50 years.” With one quoted sociologist adding, “I think you can say with a very high degree of confidence that unmarried parents are less likely to pass down the father’s last name.”

So there’s that, I guess.

As suggested by Wanye Burkett, above, the mother of the child is generally rather obvious. The identity of the father, however, his connection with the child, is sometimes less so. As a result, some nod of affirmation – or papering over the cracks – may be in order. And given current rates of fatherlessness, and the typically suboptimal consequences, publicly affirming a connection of child and father, or step-father, or adoptive father, doesn’t strike me as an obviously bad thing.

Or, as Mr Burkett puts it,

There’s a strong case that you really want to throw dads a bone with respect to familial buy-in. The mother gives birth and the father, who doesn’t even need to be there, may wonder if he was there for the conception, too. Surname adoption is a strong assurance and offer of solidarity. 

Again, this is not a subject on which I have strong feelings. I don’t spend my evenings being vexed by it. But it seems to me that the custom isn’t “obviously” without a function, or that it’s “obviously a practice to move away from,” or that its existence is “insane.”

As a footnote of sorts, it may also be tricky to deviate from such a tradition without the risk of that deviation being construed as rather pointed, perhaps even insulting. Not unlike the young, progressive woman, featured here recently, who, at her wedding, didn’t want her father to walk her down the aisle. Because that would look too patriarchal and old-fashioned, and insufficiently progressive. While still expecting him to pay for everything, obviously.

Also, open thread. Share ye links and bicker.

Continue reading
Reading time: 6 min
Written by: David
Anthropology Politics Travel

The Unspanked Speak Of Points

April 16, 2024 87 Comments

Regarding the obstruction by activists of the Golden Gate Bridge, a not unfair observation:

My toddler’s new thing when I tell him to stop doing something is to respond, “I’m just <literally the thing I’m telling him to stop doing>, so I’ll be like, “get down off that chair” and he’ll say, “I just wanted to be on the chair.” These people are literally toddlers. https://t.co/JrJMgoQ1ZI

— wanye (@wanyeburkett) April 15, 2024

And,

Reminder: these people arrive at thought-terminating cliches because their views are extraordinarily stupid and cannot be defended on their own terms. “I should get to shut down the economy any time I’m mad enough about something” sounds so retarded that they have no choice but…

— wanye (@wanyeburkett) April 15, 2024

Note the lofty defence offered by our pronoun-stipulating champion of the obstruction – that “protests are meant to be disruptive. It’s the whole point.”

A protest, then, is not meant to persuade the general public, or to get them on-side, or to make others sympathetic with whatever this week’s cause may be. But simply to be disruptive. To gratuitously frustrate, and aggravate, large numbers of law-abiding people. To exert power. By doing random harm. That’s “the whole point.” A vision doubtless attractive to those with antisocial inclinations.

And those inclinations aren’t being indulged and given rein reluctantly or under duress. The screwing-over of others is sought out and chosen, over and over again. This is recreational sociopathy.

We’ve been here before, of course:

It’s interesting just how often “social justice” posturing entails something that looks an awful lot like spite or petty malice, or an attempt to harass and dominate, or some other obnoxious behaviour. Behaviour that, without a “social justice” pretext, might get you called a wanker or a bitch. A coincidence, I’m sure.

It is, I think, worth pondering why it is that these supposed displays of righteousness routinely take the form of obnoxious or bullying or sociopathic behaviour, whereby random people are screwed over and dominated, and often reduced to pleading. Pleading just to get home, or to children, or to work, or to get to the doctor’s surgery. Even ambulances and fire engines can be obstructed, indefinitely, with both impunity and moral indifference. Among our self-imagined betters, it seems to be the go-to approach for practically any purported cause. Which is terribly convenient. Almost as if the supposed activism were more of a pretext, an excuse, a license to indulge pre-existing urges. 

And what kind of person would have urges like that?

As is the custom among the activist-wanker caste, much of the behaviour we’ve seen, and will doubtless see again, amounts to a moral non-sequitur. Rather like saying, “I’m troubled by the plight of the Javan rhinoceros, so I’m going to start spitting at the elderly and keying random cars, and then boast about it on Twitter, while waiting for likes.” 

Hence the need to consider other, less edifying motives.

Update, via the comments, where other illustrations come to mind:

In the video, note the planning, the efforts to maximise the imposition and its somewhat menacing implications. Someone sat down and thought, “How can we really aggravate hundreds of random people, ordinary families, about whom we know nothing, and make them feel unsafe in their own homes?” And then, other, like-minded people agreed, presumably with enthusiasm.

The Mao-lings who obstruct and intimidate random motorists, or who harass random restaurant customers, scaring their children, or who scream amplified profanities at random people trying to sleep, while shining lights into their bedrooms – they don’t do these things because they care about civil rights, or policing, or whatever this week’s Issue Of Great Concern happens to be. They do it because menacing other people – and spoiling someone’s day, or night, arbitrarily – is gratifying. If, that is, you’re a certain kind of person.

They are, as it were, pleasuring themselves.

Update 2:

In the comments, pst314 adds,

They would feel differently about protests that disrupted their lives… Ignore pleas of “I have to get to work” or “to the doctor” or “catch a plane” and see how they react and how the press covers it.

Alas, being incorrigible narcissists, I suspect that reciprocation isn’t a restraining factor, or a common feature of their thinking. See, for instance, this rather glorious illustration:

“A judge has refused to delay the trial of Just Stop Oil protesters charged with storming a West End performance of Les Misérables after one of the defendants said she was flying to India.”

No, really. It turns out that Ms Lydia Gribbin, one of the five protestors, had assumed that only other people’s lifestyles should be curtailed, that only other people’s plans can be thwarted with impunity. 

And from which, this bears repeating:

It helps to bear in mind that such ostentatious pieties are very often a kind of camouflage for quite vain and obnoxious people. People whose own hypocrisies and dishonesties, however glaring, do not appear to embarrass them, or alter their behaviour. Consequently, they’re difficult to shame.

They’re the kind of unspanked little tossers who gleefully vandalise petrol stations, rendering them unusable, while applauding themselves, and who conflate “not being heard” with not being obeyed. The kind of preening dolts who film themselves pouring oil onto busy roads, an act morally analogous to sabotaging the brakes of random cars and motorbikes.

One more time. This is who they are.

Continue reading
Reading time: 4 min
Written by: David
Page 11 of 222« First...«10111213»203040...Last »

Blog Preservation Fund




Subscribestar Amazon UK
Support this Blog
Donate via QR Code

RECENT POSTS

  • Friday Ephemera (777)
  • No Escape From Now
  • And Chest-Puffing Ensued
  • Lie Like We do, Children
  • Friday Ephemera (776)

Recent Comments

  • pst314 on Friday Ephemera (777) Jul 26, 20:17
  • pst314 on Friday Ephemera (777) Jul 26, 20:16
  • PTCS on And Chest-Puffing Ensued Jul 26, 17:12
  • WTP on Friday Ephemera (777) Jul 26, 16:57
  • HGG on Friday Ephemera (777) Jul 26, 15:50
  • David on Friday Ephemera (777) Jul 26, 14:47
  • WTP on Friday Ephemera (777) Jul 26, 14:38
  • David on Friday Ephemera (777) Jul 26, 14:25
  • WTP on Friday Ephemera (777) Jul 26, 14:01
  • WTP on Friday Ephemera (777) Jul 26, 13:57

SEARCH

Archives

Archive by year

Interesting Sites

Blogroll

Categories

  • Academia
  • Agonies of the Left
  • AI
  • And Then It Caught Fire
  • Anthropology
  • Architecture
  • Armed Forces
  • Arse-Chafing Tedium
  • Art
  • ASMR
  • Auto-Erotic Radicalism
  • Basking
  • Bees
  • Behold My Anus
  • Behold My Massive Breasts
  • Behold My Massive Lobes
  • Beware the Brown Rain
  • Big Hooped Earrings
  • Bionic Lingerie
  • Blogs
  • Books
  • Bra Drama
  • Bra Hygiene
  • Cannabis
  • Classic Sentences
  • Collective Toilet Management
  • Comics
  • Culture
  • Current Affairs
  • Dating Decisions
  • Dental Hygiene's Racial Subtext
  • Department of Irony
  • Dickensian Woes
  • Did You Not See My Earrings?
  • Emotional Support Guinea Pigs
  • Emotional Support Water Bottles
  • Engineering
  • Ephemera
  • Erotic Pottery
  • Farmyard Erotica
  • Feats
  • Feminist Comedy
  • Feminist Dating
  • Feminist Fun Times
  • Feminist Poetry Slam
  • Feminist Pornography
  • Feminist Snow Ploughing
  • Feminist Witchcraft
  • Film
  • Food and Drink
  • Free-For-All
  • Games
  • Gardening's Racial Subtext
  • Gentrification
  • Giant Vaginas
  • Great Hustles of Our Time
  • Greatest Hits
  • Hair
  • His Pretty Nails
  • History
  • Housekeeping
  • Hubris Meets Nemesis
  • Ideas
  • If You Build It
  • Imagination Must Be Punished
  • Inadequate Towels
  • Indignant Replies
  • Interviews
  • Intimate Waxing
  • Juxtapositions
  • Media
  • Mischief
  • Modern Savagery
  • Music
  • Niche Pornography
  • Not Often Seen
  • Oppressive Towels
  • Parenting
  • Policing
  • Political Nipples
  • Politics
  • Postmodernism
  • Pregnancy
  • Presidential Genitals
  • Problematic Acceptance
  • Problematic Baby Bouncing
  • Problematic Bookshelves
  • Problematic Bra Marketing
  • Problematic Checkout Assistants
  • Problematic Civility
  • Problematic Cleaning
  • Problematic Competence
  • Problematic Crosswords
  • Problematic Cycling
  • Problematic Drama
  • Problematic Fairness
  • Problematic Fitness
  • Problematic Furniture
  • Problematic Height
  • Problematic Monkeys
  • Problematic Motion
  • Problematic Neighbourliness
  • Problematic Ownership
  • Problematic Pallor
  • Problematic Parties
  • Problematic Pasta
  • Problematic Plumbers
  • Problematic Punctuality
  • Problematic Questions
  • Problematic Reproduction
  • Problematic Shoes
  • Problematic Taxidermy
  • Problematic Toilets
  • Problematic Walking
  • Problematic Wedding Photos
  • Pronouns Or Else
  • Psychodrama
  • Radical Bowel Movements
  • Radical Bra Abandonment
  • Radical Ceramics
  • Radical Dirt Relocation
  • Reheated
  • Religion
  • Reversed GIFs
  • Science
  • Shakedowns
  • Some Fraction Of A Sausage
  • Sports
  • Stalking Mishaps
  • Student Narcolepsy
  • Suburban Polygamist Ninjas
  • Suburbia
  • Technology
  • Television
  • The Deep Wisdom of Celebrities
  • The Genitals Of Tomorrow
  • The Gods, They Mock Us
  • The Great Outdoors
  • The Politics of Buttocks
  • The Thrill of Décor
  • The Thrill Of Endless Noise
  • The Thrill of Friction
  • The Thrill of Garbage
  • The Thrill Of Glitter
  • The Thrill of Hand Dryers
  • The Thrill of Medicine
  • The Thrill Of Powdered Cheese
  • The Thrill Of Seating
  • The Thrill Of Shopping
  • The Thrill Of Toes
  • The Thrill Of Unemployment
  • The Thrill of Wind
  • The Thrill Of Woke Retailing
  • The Thrill Of Women's Shoes
  • The Thrill of Yarn
  • The Year That Was
  • Those Lying Bastards
  • Those Poor Darling Armed Robbers
  • Those Poor Darling Burglars
  • Those Poor Darling Carjackers
  • Those Poor Darling Fare Dodgers
  • Those Poor Darling Looters
  • Those Poor Darling Muggers
  • Those Poor Darling Paedophiles
  • Those Poor Darling Sex Offenders
  • Those Poor Darling Shoplifters
  • Those Poor Darling Stabby Types
  • Those Poor Darling Thieves
  • Tomorrow’s Products Today
  • Toys
  • Travel
  • Tree Licking
  • TV
  • Uncategorized
  • Unreturnable Crutches
  • Wigs
  • You Can't Afford My Radical Life

Meta

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org

In which we marvel at the mental contortions of our self-imagined betters.