#interview with the vampire#iwtv#sam reid#jacob anderson#amc tvl
seen from Germany
seen from Singapore

seen from Yemen

seen from Kazakhstan
seen from Türkiye
seen from Kazakhstan
seen from Russia
seen from Australia
seen from United States

seen from Australia
seen from United States

seen from Kazakhstan

seen from Singapore
seen from Kazakhstan

seen from Canada
seen from China

seen from Brunei
seen from United States
seen from China
seen from China
In early patriarchy, women's ancient community tasks were turned into slave labor. Women produced the surplus products on which men based their secular power and control. In the next stage of economic development these slave tasks became the industrial occupations of the workers, while the ruling men (and their "wives") were exempt from labor. The ruling men reserved for themselves the "manly" occupations of war, hunting, sport, and priestly observances—while "workers" kept the world going. Women's forced labor, and later working-class labor, freed elite males to become lawyers, judges, doctors, artists, priests, and warriors—specialized, privileged occupations that all others are barred from. And whole bodies of law, religious doctrine, and custom are then assembled to forcibly maintain these men in these positions of power. Patriarchal law, often called "the Will of God," is in fact a wholly secular cynical legal system designed purposely to maintain male power through institutional control of female energy. Under patriarchal legal, religious, and economic-social systems, some men dominate others. But all men benefit from their organized domination of the community of women.
Which is no longer a community. Patriarchy breaks up the female collective by forcibly capturing and imprisoning each woman's female energy within the patrilocal family. Within this isolation cell, each woman's creative energy becomes servant energy, directed and owned by men. In the Hindu Code of Manu—typical of all patriarchal family law—the woman must never be free, from birth to death, of subjugation to a male relative. She passes from the guardianship of her father, to that of her husband, and finally to her oldest son. They control her education, her property, the total disposal of her mind and body, in life and in death. The ignobility of this male obsession with control is equalled only by its effectiveness. Under the Code of Manu, the Hindu woman becomes a nonperson. The breaking up of the powerful ancient women's collectives was the only way by which men could have broken women's strength and independence—but still keep a vaguely living body around to do the dirty work in bed and bathroom. What better way to turn the Great Goddess into a sex-serf than by isolating each individual woman, keeping her under total control within the male-dominated and defined family household—where she is never allowed freedom of movement, of thought, of desire—where her body, her mind, her labor, and her children are seen as property, wealth belonging to the man. Where the only thing she can do with her sex-serfdom is pass it on conscientiously to her daughters.
-Monica Sjöö and Barbara Mor. The Great Cosmic Mother: Rediscovering The Religion of the Earth.
The Chisel, Class Oppression and Blackpool ‘20 from the Deconstructive Surgery EP (May 15, 2020).
“I cannot accept the definition of collective good as articulated by a privileged minority in society, especially when that minority is in power.”
- Wole Soyinka
Payton Elias Welles (seen here in 1918 crouched in a farmer’s field) was one of the leaders of the resistance against Baby Gruenwald (and what was seen as the infant’s lifelong campaign of class oppression), and was responsible for 23 assassination attempts against the adorable immortal baby - many of them successful.
It is thought that the decline in the popularity of the straw boater (Welles’s hat of choice) was a direct result of the Gruenwald-loving public’s unfortunate identification of the hat with the vastly unpopular Welles.
Because the class oppression of women and children is couched in the phraseology of "cute" it is much harder to fight than open oppression. What child can answer back when some inane aunt falls all over him or some stranger decides to pat his behind and gurgle baby talk? What woman can afford to frown when a passing stranger violates her privacy at will? If she responds to his, "Baby you're looking good today!" with "No better than when I didn't know you," he will grumble, "What's eating that bitch?" Or worse. Very often the real nature of these seemingly friendly remarks emerges when the child or the woman does not smile as she should: "Dirty old scum bag. I wouldn't screw you even if you had a smile on your puss!" . . . "Nasty little brat. If I were your father I would spank you so hard you wouldn't know what hit you!" . . . The violence is amazing. Yet these men feel that the woman or the child is to blame for not being "friendly." Because it makes them uncomfortable to know that the woman or the child or the black or the workman is grumbling, the oppressed groups must also appear to like their oppression—smiling and simpering though they may feel like hell inside. The smile is the child/woman equivalent of the shuffle; it indicates acquiescence of the victim to his own oppression. In my own case, I had to train myself out of that phony smile, which is like a nervous tic on every teenage girl. And this meant that I smiled rarely, for in truth, when it came down to real smiling, I had less to smile about. My "dream" action for the women's liberation movement: a smile boycott, at which declaration all women would instantly abandon their "pleasing" smiles, hence-forth smiling only when something pleased them.
-Shulamith Firestone, The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution