You’re hot then you’re cold

WOMEN IN TURMOIL

As a matter of interest, to say nothing of its being a significant area of sociological research, I conducted survey of the bitches posted between Tuesday, October 23 and Friday, October 26, i.e., those which appear on page one. ( For some reason no bitches were posted for Thursday, October 25.) The results, broken down into TOPIC and SCORE were significant.

Abnormal Psychology, ID Admission to Clubs and Municipal Politics: 1 each

Pets and Customer Relations: 2 each

Traffic: 3

Women in Turmoil: 5

“Women in Turmoil” was the clear winner, but what can be deduced from the topic’s victory? I believe that several conclusions can be supported by the statistical evidence. The first is that “Bitch” is an overwhelmingly female site. Its focus is on the female and her problems, the various causes of her turmoil. In contrast, male contributions tend to focus on impersonal matters such as traffic, public transport or, on occasion, sex in its more grossly physical aspects. “Pets” and “Customer Relations” can also be seen as being typically female topics since both, for the most part, are areas of female rather than male involvement and concern.

The second conclusion one can draw is the cause of such turmoil. Why, in other words, are the women in turmoil? The answer is unambiguous. Women are in turmoil because of their rocky relations with men. For one reason or another – usually some variant or other of the “men- are-pigs” mantra – men are at the root of womens’ turmoil. One could argue, of course, that male bitches about females being um, bitches or just stupid, are the male equivalent of the female men-are-pigs mantra but the past week’s crop has not been strong in this category.

Finally, the third conclusion relates to the degree to which women in turmoil define themselves in terms of their relations with men. This is perhaps the most striking of the conclusions since males very rarely define themselves to the same extent on the basis of their relations to women. Does this mean that the feminist “revolution” has not percolated down to the grass-roots female? Is she still, psychologically speaking, in servitude to the male? I leave you with that question, perhaps as a possible topic for further research.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

RSVPS

: Mad Dog Molly (10/29, 4:52PM)

I suppose your contrast from “bling to paste” might be interpreted as a literalist construction in the context of “The Necklace” (whatever that might be) but I thought my metaphorical construction of “selling our promise for paste” had a deeper connotation, i.e., the failure of the feminist “revolution” when confronted by the “natural state” of the female in general. Frankly, I prefer my construction.

I am glad you are not angry with me Mad Dog but my reference to the possibility of your being so was a little bit of Montrealman’s puckish habit of getting a reaction. The idea was to force you to defend your “natural state,” i.e., that of anger which, as we all know, is the default position of the majority of females. As the noted philosopher Allan Bloom (“The Closing of the American Mind,” 1987) once remarked, “There’s a lot of angry women out there.” Indeed, indeed there are.

: Boru 1014 (10:47PM)

Well Boru, I was speaking in general terms and not referring specifically to you. You may well not define yourself in terms of your relations with men – although a few of your posts have indicated otherwise. However, many on this site appear to do so. In any case, Montrealman always dwells at higher theoretical levels Boru, more specifically at the level of philosophical reflection with detours into psychology and sociology.

Of course, should you feel so inclined, you might want to divulge the details of your case. Drawing on my considerable background in a range of theoretical studies coupled with a sharp and probing intelligence, I would happily conduct an analysis of your difficulties and – this is important – at no charge to you! Write back soon.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

RSVPS

: Boru 1014 (10/30, 4:44PM)

Boru, please don’t think that I think that you’re a “waste of skin.” I was just having a bit of fun, as usual. Although it is an interesting question, the correlation – if any – between intelligence and correct spelling. Probably very little. I mean, look at Mad Dog Molly – she seems to be a pretty good speller.

: Mad Dog Molly (5:15PM)

Fifteen years of post-graduate study? Hmm, let me think. No, I only have eight or nine depending on how one weights post-Baccalaureate degrees. Who could it be and how did he confuse “bored” with “board?” Was this just a rhetorical point of yours or do you have someone in mind? Can you substantiate the charge? Can you give dates and times?

(5:37PM)

A “natural submission to text/language?” A very interesting assertion Mad Dog, but what can it possibly mean? Does one submit to the fact – if it is a fact – that text and language actually mean something – they denote or point to an extra-linguistic reality – and so one who possesses a modicum of intellectual integrity “submits” to such meaning? Or are text/language “open-ended” post-modern constructs which can mean anything, or perhaps nothing, depending on the whim of the speaker/writer? I think we might have a juicy bit of philosophy to chew on here Mad Dog. Write back with your thoughts.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

RSVP

: Mad Dog Molly (10/30, 8:37PM)

A very puzzling post, Mad Dog. What, exactly, is that “obvious stick” with which you claim I was trying to “provoke” you? I’m in the dark on both counts. And why do you feel that I “underestimated” you? I would have said the opposite on the basis of that “juicy bit of philosophy that we could chew on.” And the “natural submissive” reference came from “She Sang?” You must try and give full citation (and credit) for your obscure references.

Mad Dog, I’m beginning to think that I overestimated you. You appear to have what is called a “butterfly mind.” Do you know what a butterfly mind is, Mad Dog? It’s a mind which flutters here, then flutters there, without rhyme nor reason. It’s not a good mental condition Bad Dog, not good at all.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

RSVP

: SheSang etc. (10/31, 11:38AM)

Well, as a matter of fact, I have read Lacan and and Derrida and, like the French post-modernists generally and the French psycholinguistic theorists in particular, I find them profoundly vacuous if, that is, something CAN be “profoundly vacuous.”

However, I could be wrong. I admit the possibility.Consequently I stand ready to receive your instruction in French psycholinguistic theory so that my understanding will be complete. Do not let me down. In particular, please expand fully on your views of Lacan and particularly Derrida, your favourite. I await your reflective post with considerable anticipation.
I will, of course, do a cross-examination.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

RSVP

: Mad Dog Molly (10/31, 1:10PM)

Mad Dog’s Butterfly Mind

“… but just because you cannot see the rhyme nor reason behind my intuitive leaps does not mean they do not exist.”

Well Mad Dog, what can one say? One could say, I suppose, that since your “intuitive leaps” possess neither rhyme nor reason then it is not surprising that I could not see them. You might say, in this context, that visibility is dependent on rationality. No rationality, no visibility.

On the other hand, I suppose, one might say that the existence of your “intuitive leaps” is not contingent on my seeing them, where “seeing” is to be understood in its broader intellectual sense of understanding them. This, no doubt, is true but then the requirement is you demonstrate that others, in addition to yourself, “see” them. Otherwise, you descend into solipsism, into your personal fantasy land. We must distinguish Mad Dog – if we are to maintain a foothold on reality however defined – between actual objective existence and subjective fantasy. I’m sure you will agree with that minimal condition,Mad Dog.

Perhaps if you would explain this I might then manage to emerge from “lumbering along in my rut.”

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!