Folk music and the sexual mores of the Right

[sabotabby]

Two completely unrelated topics, by the way.

zingerella and I went to see Eric Bogle last night. For those of you who are asking, "Who's that?" -- you probably have heard his songs. He wrote two of my favourite anti-war songs, "The Band Played Waltzing Matilda" and "The Green Fields of France." Apparently a lot of folks (including some who write for newspapers) think that he's dead. Anyway, he's not, and fantastic show.

After the show, we got to talking about a 400+ comment flamewar on Making Light (check it out!), which is vastly amusing and includes a few well-deserved disemvowellings. If you don't have time to read such hilarity, it involves the murder of the Nielsen Haydens' downstairs neighbour and mentions, in passing, the blog entries of a group of conservative girls who were slumming at the strip club where said neighbour worked. The girls, and their friends, none of whom have heard of Making Light and who are under the impression that TNH was trolling for more traffic by linking to their oh-so-popular blogs, descended en masse to decry the hypocrisy of liberals, etc., resulting in a fine moment of Inigo Montoya-esque "I do not think that word means what you think it means."

Of particular note is this comment by Anarch about a brand of right-wing bourgeoisie with whom I have had very little real-life contact. By coincidence (okay, because I go searching for these things), I stumbled upon christianitysex. The majority of posters seem to believe in strict abstinence for everyone but themselves -- or rather, they claim to believe in abstinence for themselves, but then go into massive guilty contortions when they find themselves unable to actually live up to their own standards. The degree to which they openly struggle with their own repression is quite illuminating. These are primarily the old-school fundie types -- and I do see where they're coming from, even though I think it's sad and pathetic. What I find more befuddling, though, are the "Sth Prk Rpblcns" that show up in the Making Light thread and occasionally on conservatism. Is this really common -- people who want to control other people's sexuality (by aligning themselves with the Religious Right, by opposing reproductive freedom, etc.) but simultaneously flaunt their own? Or celebrate their own individualistic liberty (smoking pot, hanging out in strip clubs) while setting up structures that reduce the liberty of others?

Also, is it true that Young Republicans throw really good parties? Because I've heard from a firsthand witness that the Progressive Conservatives don't.

Discuss!

P.S. Dear CBC: I don't like the ELF any more than you do, but could you please restrict the term "violence" to describing acts of force against living creatures? Property destruction is not violence. It's property destruction. Kthxbye.

Comments

[lovableatheist.livejournal.com]

what the hell are "Sth Prk Rpblcns"?

[lovableatheist.livejournal.com]

actually, I know it means "South Park Republican", but what does that mean?

[sabotabby]

Blame Andrew Sullivan, apparently.

I've banned the term from use in my own LJ, hence the self-disemvowelling.

[99catsaway.livejournal.com]

Fascinating link-- I read the whole thing.

[sabotabby]

Andrew Sullivan fascinates me anyway.

[terry-terrible.livejournal.com]

Are you serious? He's pretty pathetic in my book. Or is he fanscinating to you in how pathetic he is?

[sabotabby]

Fascinatingly pathetic. He really hates himself. It's fun watching him pretend he doesn't.

[teapolitik.livejournal.com]

What do you have against the ELF?

[sabotabby]

Burning SUVs puts unnecessary amounts of CO₂ into the air.

[teapolitik.livejournal.com]

And not burning them doesn't?

[teapolitik.livejournal.com]

And I don't think that tactic is essential to ELF.

[sabotabby]

No, but part of the problem is that there is no ELF as outsiders tend to envision it. So a teenage yahoo burning down an SUV (not that I have any love for SUVs or cars in general) in ELF's name tends to hold equal political weight to more constructive actions, if there are any.

I vastly prefer Judi Bari-era Earth First! But I'm a workerist.

[bike4fish.livejournal.com]

I doubt there is an ELF. If there is, and it actually is involved in the actions attributed to it, it either is a bunch of idiots or else is composed of agents provocateurs.

A case in point in the lodge fire at the Vail ski area a few years ago. Vail was planning an expansion that would have had arguably serious impact on lynx habitat, and was receiving a lot of opposition from local environmentalists and environmental groups. Shortly before regulatory decisions were made, someone burned down a lodge belonging to the ski area, and someone claimed that it had been done by ELF. After the fire, police started investigating people who were known environmentalists, and essentially silenced the opposition, and the expansion was approved.

I doubt there could have been a more effective action to silence the opposition, and seeing that such an action would have the consequences it did should have been readily apparent to whomever lit the fire. Which leads one to the conclusion that the fire was either set by an idiot, or by someone who stood to profit by it.

[sabotabby]

To play devil's advocate, though (and assuming the fire was not set by someone who stood to profit but by someone who opposed the expansion), the choice to quell resistance is in the hands of the State, not the resister. One can't blame someone for trying.

But given the context of widespread opposition, it sounds like a politically stupid move if it wasn't set by someone connected to the resort.

[bikesexual.livejournal.com]

And not burning them, letting them drive around for years, is better?

[sabotabby]

I didn't say that.

[teapolitik.livejournal.com]

But how much more (or less) carbon dioxide is released by burning them than by not burning them?

[sabotabby]

Why don't people just take baseball bats to them? It's ridiculously easy to break a car if you know how they work, since they pretty much break on their own anyway. Especially SUVs.

Or...I don't know, do something a bit less individualized and symbolic and that won't result in the owner just buying another brand new vehicle.

[bikesexual.livejournal.com]

But busting their windows is a cheaper problem for them to solve.

The only way to hurt the rich is financially.

[sabotabby]

Nor did I advise busting the windows. ;)

[teapolitik.livejournal.com]

Why don't people just take baseball bats to them?

I can't know for sure the motives behind the particular tactic, but my first guess is that folks banging the shit out of big vehicles on an open lot is probably a lot more likely to result in arrests or worse, than if folks set a fire and get moving.

It's ridiculously easy to break a car if you know how they work,

Yes. But it is noisy and you can only do one at a time.

Or...I don't know, do something a bit less individualized and symbolic and that won't result in the owner just buying another brand new vehicle.

Well, as far as I know they generally target sales lots, rather than individually owned vehicles (meaning a major loss to the company rather than a small loss to one consumer). But the vast majority of activism is symbolic, nearly all of it. The symbolism can have value, depending on what you do to follow through.

As far as individualization... if that's a fair critique, we can pretty much count out the possibility of any kind of direct action of that magnitude. How do you expect people to organize actions like this and survive infiltration and counterintelligence, without acting in decentralized affinity groups?

What would you propose as an alternative strategy for ELF, that would not be individualized or symbolic, and would be, at the very least, as effective?

[sabotabby]

See my comment to bikesexual, with the caveat that I wouldn't join ELF so I'm hardly in a position to advise them on tactics. I suspect that my goals differ significantly from theirs, or at least from the goals articulated by some members.

I'm not opposed to people doing destructive or illegal activities (as I'm sure you know!), but I need to be convinced that these actions are strategically intelligent and that the people doing them have an understanding of why they're doing it. ELF is hard to criticize in that respect because of their structure -- an ELF action can be (and this is the context of what they were talking about on CBC this morning) a kid setting fire to a car in a parking lot and writing "ELF" nearby. I don't think that kind of thing has convinced a single person to start taking public transit.

I don't see how direct action can't take place outside of the context of the affinity group -- not to denigrate affinity groups -- wildcat strikes being the most obvious example. In terms of environmental activism, large scale blockades have worked. Direct action by affinity groups works too, given a common understanding and community support, which doesn't exist in ELF's case.

Do you think that ELF's strategies have been effective? It seems to me as though the State is exaggerating their significance and impact.

[bikesexual.livejournal.com]

So what do you suggest we do?
Asking, or even protesting, isn't going to do anything to stop.

[sabotabby]

I wouldn't advise any sort of illegal direct action on teh intarwebs, especially in an unlocked post. (ELF, if they do exist, can use their imaginations.)

The problem with a lot of these actions -- legal or otherwise -- is that they're still largely symbolic. When Julia Butterfly hung out in a tree, she didn't stop clearcutting. The forest was clearcut, but her particular tree and a few others were saved. That's not very useful. Contrast that sort of action with, say, Chico Mendes' campaigns in the Amazon, which was all about making workers realize that they had a stake in protecting the environment and in using resources sustainably. It's a harder, longer, and less dramatic fight, but it's ultimately more significant and effective.

Focusing on one yuppie's SUV might be cathartic, but even if it's destroyed, it doesn't change the car-centred outlook of North Americans or the poor urban design of North American cities that forces those outside of the downtown core to drive.

Anyway, as I said earlier, I very much admire the efforts of Judi Bari and of groups that have addressed issues of environmental sustainability rather than establishing a human vs. nature dichotomy, which often becomes an even more pernicious worker vs. environment dynamic. Look at how many environmentalist groups have been infiltrated by the far-right, for example, or that have adopted anti-immigrant stances. I wouldn't advise ELF on what they should do because I wouldn't join ELF in the first place, but they could start by asking themselves what it is that they actually hope to accomplish.

[ltmurnau.livejournal.com]

A very old Poli Sci joke we used to tell was that you went to a Young Liberal party to get drunk, a Young Conservative party to get laid, and a Young NDP party to come away with ten pounds of assorted policy briefs. I guess it's all different now.

[frandroid.livejournal.com]

Sounds still right to me!

[sabotabby]

Heh.

[one-serious-cat.livejournal.com]

What I find more befuddling, though, are the "Sth Prk Rpblcns" that show up in the Making Light thread and occasionally on [info]conservatism. Is this really common -- people who want to control other people's sexuality (by aligning themselves with the Religious Right, by opposing reproductive freedom, etc.) but simultaneously flaunt their own? Or celebrate their own individualistic liberty (smoking pot, hanging out in strip clubs) while setting up structures that reduce the liberty of others?

My guess is that they give themselves permission not to think it through, and achieve this by changing the subject in their own minds. One of the reasons I obsess over the writing of Anthony Daniels (Theodore Dalrymple), is that he's in very great danger of serving the same function for social conservatism that C.S. Lewis does for intolerant Christianity (i.e. as a sort of talismanic figure). One of his favorite tactics is to mention a mildly famous sexual liberal of the middle or upper classes, and their unwillingness to take an entirely laissez faire attitude toward their own adolescent children, drawing the conclusion that their reluctance or outright refusal to disapprove of teenage sex or out-of-wedlock births among the lower classes makes Marie Antoinettes out of them. This reasoning is obviously flawed, but who cares? So, one applies a double standard, yes, but it's only apparently unfair, and would do the poorest in society the most good, if only the 'liberals' and 'radical feminists' would get out of the way.

The ones who really puzzle me are the 'libertarian-conservatives' who think it's fine to have all the sex and side effects one can afford, and so make no arguments for a stricter sexual morality on principle, and reject proposed legal and institutional restrictions on dating and birth control, but who also see no reason for government funding for abortion, welfare, child care and health insurance: that would mean subsidizing other people's choices, making them less free (or something). Cathy Young, for example.

[sabotabby]

I'm going to have to check out Anthony Daniels -- he sounds like a peach.

I suspect that libertarians want to regulate the morals of other people as much as any other political philosophy. Maybe they think that the free market will eliminate the need for abortion, since pregnant women would just be able to sell off their unwanted offspring.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_ex_cowboy/]

http://www.livejournal.com/community/christianitysex/104745.html

"I see no problem with people having consentual sex with animals or relatives"

erm... hmm...

[sabotabby]

Oh, I think a lot of the Ralph Klein-type conservatives in Western Canada would agree. I even think belt0033 once said that fucking a dog was better than fucking a man, as long as it was a female dog. I could have imagined that, though.

Also, ewww!

[http://users.livejournal.com/_ex_cowboy/]

apparently "puppy dog eyes" means something entirely new. otherwise i'm curious as to how an animal can consent to sex with a human. but maybe you have to be a georgian farm boy to understand...

[sabotabby]

Heheh. Is it just Georgia, I wonder? I've only ever known one Georgian (well, American Georgian, anyway), and while he did slather his torso in honey and had a small dog lick it off -- as a high school English presentation, no less -- I am fairly certain he didn't have a mule for a girlfriend. Or a boyfriend. Of course, he was from Atlanta and neither a farm boy nor a conservative.

I wonder what ever happened to that guy.

[rohmie.livejournal.com]

On an unrelated note, I think I have discovered the pulpy orange goodness that we enjoyed at the Bourgeois Pig Cafe in Chicago. It's the "Grove Made / High Pulp" selection of Simply Orange. Unfortunately, I think they are also owned by the Coca Cola Company. The Bourgeois Pig may have squeezed their own; or, true to their namesake, they may have had some bottles of these in the back.

[sabotabby]

That would be sad. Have you had this Simply Orange stuff? Is it exactly the same as the Best Orange Juice Ever?

[rohmie.livejournal.com]

I'm drinking some now. I Googled the name for a link to send you and in the process ran across a site claiming it was a Coca Cola product. Mind you, the site did not look like the official Coke site, but it clearly pretended to. Maybe it is some distributor sloppily hawking his wares.

[rohmie.livejournal.com]

This is the site but it turns out it's legit. The 2 after the www make me think it was fake.

http://www2.coca-cola.com/presscenter/imagebrands.html

But if you go to http://www.coca-cola.com and go to brands, there it is.

Le *sigh*.

Again, The Bourgeois Pig may have squeezed their own or patronized a smaller, local business. (Yes, I know they don't grow oranges in Chicago, but a lot of local dairies carry non-local o.j. under their label.) In any case, they taste suspiciously similar.

[sabotabby]

Oh well, I've never seen the stuff in Canada. So at least I'm not truly missing out if it's good.

[frandroid.livejournal.com]

I don't see how it would have been a fake site with the www2 if the second-level domain name (coca-cola) is the legit thing...

[rohmie.livejournal.com]

As I clarified in this post on the Jeff Gannon scandal, conservatives excuse sex for money:

You see, for conservatives, commerce is a mitigating - if not sanctifying - factor. That's why they want to privatize everything. Everything goes better with business. Just as evil social programs like Social Security are redeemed by privatization, turning tricks is not so bad if it is also turning a buck. Fat cats who think money can buy everything are fond of saying, "Every man has his price". Well, in Gannon's case it is $200 an hour and $1200 a weekend.

I discovered this conservative ideological principle in the process of reading the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, who owns The Washington Times (Ronald Reagan's favorite daily) and who also once bailed out Jerry Falwell's failing Liberty University. Moon says, "The country that represents Satan's harvest is America, the kingdom of extreme individuality, of free sex." Now, of course, Moon may mean overtly expressed sexuality rather than the fact that commerce is being neglected; but in another quote, he calls American women "worse than prostitutes," which begs the question of how they are worse than prostitutes? What do American women do that prostitutes won't? And, naturally, the answer is that they give it away for free. In this light, conservative acceptance of Guckert's hustling makes much more sense. Moralists frown on fun and smile on work; and in Guckert’s case, it is technically work.

Commerce sanctifies sexuality. It's a strip club where the underage dancers have to service their boss to get the job, so it's okay.

[sabotabby]

Yep, pretty much. I still think there's a psychological something at work, though, because they feel ridiculously guilty about it, even the neo-con atheists.

[smhwpf.livejournal.com]

Eric Bogle is alive??!

I guess it must be something to do with the fact that his best-known songs are about WWI - and not only that, but they both mention a date in the first verse - 1916, and 1915 respectively. So I guess I associate those dates in my mind with Eric Bogle. Hence the assumption of deadness. I wonder if that might be what's going on with others who make this mistake. Anyway, cool!

I think probably a majority of Christians (self not included, though I used to), certainly a majority of Evangelicals, stick to a fairly clear "no sex before marriage" view (with "marriage" referring to a man and a woman), but within that I find there are a range of attitudes. At the best, there's the acknowledgement of universal sinfulness and need for forgiveness (starting with oneself), that sexual sins are far from being the worse sins, and that one should not judge a person as being worse because they commit some particular sort of sexual sin, without condoning the sin. Motes and beams and all that. At the worst, there is the ugly sort of judgementalism and condemnatory attitudes that alas seem to be becoming increasingly prevalent in both the Evangelical and RC churches (at least at the top in the latter case). Somewhere inbetween are attitudes like the ones you describe in christianitysex along the lines of "yes we're sinners but at least we're trying and repenting of it after we do it (again and again and again...) unlike those wicked heathens." I must admit I've never come across that "we can do it because we're priveleged but it's very bad for poor people" attitude, but then I've led a very sheltered existence.

Of course the problem with even the best versions of the no-sex-before-marriage line is that it leads to wads of unnecessary guilt, repression, anxiety and even despair.

[sabotabby]

He had an utterly hilarious story about Tony Blair giving a wee Northern Irish lass a plaque with "Green Fields of France" on it (made even more hilarious by the fact that he said it was his favourite anti-war poem and...well, sounds like he didn't quite get its message) and the paper reporting it as being by "Eric Bogle, who died in WWI." His aunt Ivy wrote letters correcting both the Times and Blair. The latter letter said something to the effect of: "Next time, get it right. Dickhead."

I wonder how healthy it is to stick to the "no sex before marriage" thing. It seems as though pre-Victorian eras didn't have such a rigid definition of what "sex" entailed, which no doubt made it easier, but even so, I'm not sure how it works without the Catholic option of confession and forgiveness.

[lopukhov.livejournal.com]

Check out my ethnography, the indented block text on page 23. That's not family-value like, that sounds like me when I watch Harry Potter 3+, except I'd have enough decency to not date-rape Daniel Radcliffe. Sheesh.

[sabotabby]

Hahaha!

Why you'd want to date-rape Daniel Radcliffe when Alan Rickman's in those movies, I have no idea.

[lopukhov.livejournal.com]

True, but we're talking underaged people here...

Geez, I really hope the Anti Paedophilia League isn't reading this, minus the ethnography part. That, they should read