a ‘philosophy’ of ‘covers’ continued…in contrast to elon musk’s falcon heavy… what contemporary music takes on gender/sexual oppression like this, with direct reference to a heinous so called ‘scientific study’? in public, on broadway, in las vegas?!
The Kinsey Reports are two books on human sexual behavior, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953), written by Alfred Kinsey, Paul Gebhard, Wardell Pomeroy and others and published by Saunders. Kinsey was a zoologist at Indiana University and the founder of the Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction (more widely known as the Kinsey Institute).
Sexual Behavior in the Human Female was based on personal interviews with approximately 6,000 women. Kinsey analyzed data for the frequency with which women participate in various types of sexual activity and looked at how factors such as age, social-economic status and religious adherence influence sexual behavior. Comparisons are made of female and male sexual activities. Kinsey’s evidence suggested that women were less sexually active than men.
The publications were immediately controversial among the general public. The findings caused shock and outrage, both because they challenged conventional beliefs about sexuality and because they discussed subjects that had previously been taboo.
Kinsey’s methodology used to collect data has received criticism. It has been suggested that some data in the reports could not have been obtained without collaborations with child molesters. The Kinsey Institute denies this charge, though it acknowledges that men who have had sexual experiences with children were interviewed, with Kinsey balancing what he saw as the need for their anonymity to solicit “honest answers on such taboo subjects” against the likelihood that their crimes would continue. Additionally, concerns over the sample populations used were later addressed by the Kinsey Institute. The conclusion of the Kinsey Institute was that none of Kinsey’s original estimates were significantly affected by these data sources.
The Reasons Why White Women Vote Republican—and What to Do About It
White women do not—and likely will not—constitute the progressive base. But many more of them might vote Democratic in the coming elections.
meanwhile, we have the unveiling of the obama portraits:
The Hidden Political Message of Michelle Obama’s Portrait
Dresshttps://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/02/13/michelle-obama-portrait-message-dress-216971
Right. So what is the comparison here? Between Porter-Fitzgerald-Davis and the Kehinde Wiley and Amy Sherald portraits? I will not be able to make a case adequately, for or against, in these brief notes. But, it is immediately apparent that what we are faced with here is a terrible inversion that cuts in both, and perhaps, all, directions. In the former case, what have we but a highly sophisticated form of resistance to race/gender hegemonic forces enabled by wealthy blacks who, would no doubt have been invited, and excepted, an invitation to the Obama Whitehouse, but who, in their day, chose to use their popular platforms to speak out about a general oppressive condition without the aid of any state power behind them. While latterly, what have we, but a total inversion of their position? Two of the most powerful political people in global politics chose to literally clothe themselves in a political aesthetic of folk art and fashion of the ‘people’ to mark their ‘difference’ from all former ‘styles’ of presidential portraiture. But, when compared to B. Obama’s political record of conservative policies, including bailing out the banks, his massive increase of drone warfare and support of the uber surveillance state, etc. etc.; and michelle’s willingness to retire to her nationally motherly role as gardener, of the nations children, and cheerleader of exercise; what have we here, but camouflage? What have we here but blaxploitation by blacks, reciprocally? Why not dress the pres and the 1st lady in folkart to further their manipulation of power by pulling wool over eyes through ‘popularism’ and craft in which their thoroughgoing similarities to all portraiture before them is erased? Aren’t their portraits simply a great PR subterfuge to actually veil their complicity in the demise of American democracy, along with their complicity in white suprematism?
Isn’t this the standard path of assimilation? The great political achievement of the erasure of difference? In the very guise of difference?
a notebook of epic reflections by mark bartlett 