Skip to main content

Attendants, and abuse

When I heard Wednesday that Sen. Charles Schumer had called a flight attendant a "bitch" under his breath, my response was to figuratively shrug my shoulders. I couldn't even muster so much as a literal shrug. It's not that I thought it appropriate for Schumer to call the flight attendant a "bitch" for asking him to simply comply with federal law like everyone else on the plane and turn off his cellphone; nor did I think it was a particularly pleasant comment for his female colleague and seat mate, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, to overhear. Still, I felt rather "meh" about it.
[. . .]
I was mulling all of this on my lunch break today, when I walked by a homeless man blitzed out of his mind who flashed me a lecherous grin. When I didn't respond in kind, he hurled a choice word at me, and I bet you can guess just what it was: "Bitch," he snarled. Then he added, "I'll piss on you." Well, okay, then. That right there is why I'm desensitized to the word -- if I wasn't, I would be crying in a bathroom stall right now instead of writing this post. In fact, if I hadn't been anesthetized to the word "bitch" quite a long time ago, I'd hardly be able to leave my house alone. (Tracy Clark-Flory, “Feminist silence on Schumer,” Salon, 17 Dec. 2009)

People who have daily contact with other people, eye-to-eye contact, interactions, are the most important of people -- they do the daily attendance, therapy, which can tilt a whole nation closer to the good. Crazily, they tend to be set up sometimes as lessers who exist to pleasure the powerful -- to please, and suffer further abuse. Please figure out what is working away at you here. Take a time out. And return to defend no group more strongly, than these most important of people.

Link: Feminist silence on Schumer (Salon)
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Discussion over the fate of Jolenta, at the Gene Wolfe facebook appreciation site

Patrick McEvoy-Halston November 28 at 10:36 AM Why does Severian make almost no effort to develop sustained empathy for Jolenta -- no interest in her roots, what made her who she was -- even as she features so much in the first part of the narrative? Her fate at the end is one sustained gross happenstance after another... Severian has repeated sex with her while she lay half drugged, an act he argues later he imagines she wanted -- even as he admits it could appear to some, bald "rape" -- but which certainly followed his  discussion of her as someone whom he could hate so much it invited his desire to destroy her; Severian abandons her to Dr. Talus, who had threatened to kill her if she insisted on clinging to him; Baldanders robs her of her money; she's sucked at by blood bats, and, finally, left at death revealed discombobulated of all beauty... a hunk of junk, like that the Saltus citizens keep heaped away from their village for it ruining their preferred sense ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Salon discussion of "Almost Famous" gang-rape scene

Patrick McEvoy-Halston: The "Almost Famous'" gang-rape scene? Isn't this the film that features the deflowering of a virgin -- out of boredom -- by a pack of predator-vixons, who otherwise thought so little of him they were quite willing to pee in his near vicinity? Maybe we'll come to conclude that "[t]he scene only works because people were stupid about [boy by girl] [. . .] rape at the time" (Amy Benfer). Sawmonkey: Lucky boy Pull that stick a few more inches out of your chute, Patrick. This was one of the best flicks of the decade. (sawmonkey, response to post, “Films of the decade: ‘Amost Famous’, R.J. Culter, Salon, 13 Dec. 2009) Patrick McEvoy-Halston: @sawmonkey It made an impression on me too. Great charm. Great friends. But it is one of the things you (or at least I) notice on the review, there is the SUGGESTION, with him being so (rightly) upset with the girls feeling so free to pee right before him, that sex with him is just further presump...
3 comments
Read more

The Conjuring

The Conjuring 
I don't know if contemporary filmmakers are aware of it, but if they decide to set their films in the '70s, some of the affordments of that time are going to make them have to work harder to simply get a good scare from us. Who would you expect to have a more tenacious hold on that house, for example? The ghosts from Salem, or us from 2013, who've just been shown a New England home just a notch or two downscaled from being a Jeffersonian estate, that a single-income truck driver with some savings can afford? Seriously, though it's easy to credit that the father — Roger Perron—would get his family out of that house as fast as he could when trouble really stirs, we'd be more apt to still be wagering our losses—one dead dog, a wife accumulating bruises, some good scares to our kids—against what we might yet have full claim to. The losses will get their nursing—even the heavy traumas, maybe—if out of this we've still got a house—really,...
2 comments
Read more