Dismembered spouse, Barbara Streisand and a Kick in the Dick
PREFACE
This is a controversial rambling, just thoughts on some interesting phenomena with regards to the evolution of societal norms, comparisons and oddities with regards to the distinct differences of understanding and mentality of people a couple millennia ago. I touch on cultural fundamentals, feminism, masculinity, information warfare and the protection of what makes society function, the protection of women from harm. It has some comic relief elements worked in to just soften the dark and morbid reality of recorded human history.
...
The Streisand Effect
In 2002 or 2003, I am not certain, a dude named Kenneth was being flown along the coast taking pictures from a helicopter. Flying past Barbara Streisand's luxury coastal home in Malibu California he took another pretty picture. This picture among hundreds was posted on a website where they were documenting and measuring coastal erosion with the intent to help make informed policy decisions. He was being flown by, out at sea and not directly over her property. It caused her much emotional distress. He was sued $50 million for violating her privacy. She believed it to be an invasion of her privacy, like Nancy Pelosi believed the January 6 invasion of Capitol was a violent insurrection. Imagine that. The lawsuit was chucked out by the courts and she was ordered to pay Kenneth $177,000 to cover his legal expenses. Before the lawsuit the image had been downloaded six times. Obviously it had gone viral after the lawsuit. Since the lawsuit, well... man, wow, certain scummy 4chan meme drenched websites were on fire. Everyone was talking about Barbara Streisand and sharing pictures and jokes of her house for weeks. It was ironic and hilarious. The purpose of the lawsuit was to remove the picture from the internet and the result was everyone was poking fun at her expensive mansion. The memes, I can't even...
Imagine the precedent set and lawsuits against google for satellite maps and street view had her case won.
In this situation there were a few weird coincidences. I will label it, the cause, the desire and the outcome. None of them were predictable because the collective social internet was so fresh it changed how everything worked.
The cause: Guy flies and takes pictures for research, probably does not even know it's her house.
The desire: She wants the picture removed and receive compensation for her emotional distress. Nothing less than $50 million will be sufficient.
The outcome: A new type of cause and affect is discovered with regards to a world where everyone has equal access to the masses. No longer are celebrities talking at us through small or large square windows in our theatres and homes. We get to talk back at them and about them and explore their weaknesses and failures. We get to embarrass and humiliate them if they do not behave like decent normal people should. We don't mind their ivory towers. Just don't pick on the average Joe anymore, the average Joe collectively has a voice more powerful than yours now. Like Leonardo DiCaprio preaching about global warming from his private jet. We don't care about you flier miles, just don't be a hypocrite.
Which got me thinking. As a peasant, proletariat, a plebeian, how do you make your voice heard in a time where there is no media? I am not talking about no social media, I mean ancient times, no media. No local newspaper where you can post a missing cat picture. No radio with which to advertise your business. Nothing. A time where the king has a dude who shouts decrees from a paper on a hill. Those type of times.
It bothered me, thankfully I have an extensive library of history available to study and find an answer to this interesting question. I found it in the book of Judges in a wild west of ancient savagery where kings would cut off the heads of men just to bed the latters wives. A time where woman were property. Yes, crazy wild times.
Let us set a precedent for this cultural phenomenon and work our way back to media, the virality of said media and the subsequent outrage generated by the news spread by the channels/mediums of media. An ancient example of problem, reaction, solution.
First let's discover an ancient outrage on a smaller more localised platform and then scale it up to something more spectacular.
Genesis Chapter 34
1: Now Dinah the daughter of Leah, whom she had borne to Jacob, went out to see the daughters of the land. ---She wanted to make friends with other girls and was allowed to leave her families protection unescorted.--- 2: And when in Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of that country, saw her, he took her and lay with her, and violated her. ---In those days, princes were literally just the son of the chief in the settlement, they were nothing special and they were common and illiterate agrarian goat herders, just like Jacob. You could find a prince every 30 kilometres in those regions at the time. A dime a dozen.--- 5: And Jacob heard that he defiled Dinah his daughter. Now his sons were with his livestock in the field; so Jacob held his peace until they came. 7: And the sons of Jacob came in from the field when they heard it; and the men were grieved and very angry, because he had done a disgraceful thing in Israel by lying with Jacob's daughter, a thing which ought not be done. ---The modern definition of non consensual laying is rape. It is still a thing that ought not be done to this very day.--- 8: But Hamor spoke with them, saying, "The soul of my son Shechem longs for your daughter. Please give her to him as a wife."--- Now I see this guy as trying to appease the group of angry men, appealing to taking the responsibility of caring for the violated girl off her families hands as she is now become a liability. Her worth has been "degraded" by loss of virginity. Her brothers felt this violation was disrespectful, not only to their sister but also to their entire family. Imagine a guy rapes your sister and then pops in the next day and is like "Bro, she resisted, but I love her more than she could possibly understand. WTF."--- 9: And make marriages with us; give your daughters to us, and take our daughters to yourselves. 10: So you shall dwell with us, and the land shall be before you. Dwell and trade in it, and acquire possessions for yourselves in it.” 11: Then Shechem said to her (Dinah's) father and her brothers, “Let me find favor in your eyes, and whatever you say to me I will give. 12: Ask me ever so much dowry and gift, and I will give according to what you say to me; but give me the young woman as a wife.” 13: But the sons of Jacob answered Shechem and Hamor his father, and spoke deceitfully, because he had defiled Dinah their sister. ---The Israelite brothers must have read Sun Tzu, because they were at a huge numerical disadvantage. This might be why these Hivite gents were so confident in confronting them directly. They probably had a whole entourage of armed men with them during these negotiations. It's just the way men meet in barbaric times. With more and bigger spears.--- 14: And they said to them, “We cannot do this thing, to give our sister to one who is uncircumcised, for that would be a reproach to us. ---They opted to have a literal dick measuring contest. The first in recorded history.--- 15: But on this condition we will consent to you: If you will become as we are, if every male of you is circumcised, 16: then we will give our daughters to you, and we will take your daughters to us; and we will dwell with you, and we will become one people. 17: But if you will not heed us and be circumcised, then we will take our daughter and be gone.” ---Now Abraham had himself circumcised as an adult being the first dude to undertake the procedure. He made it obligatory that his male descendants should all be circumcised a few days after birth. To the modern observer this "command" from god to slice off a piece of your dick seems stupid. But is it? Thought experiment. Let's say Bob lives in dangerous times with dangerous men in a desert where there are no modern ablution facilities. John rocks up at a Bob's tent and claims he is family of Bob travelling far and asks for hospitality and to be hosted for the night. Bob is like hmm, "He speaks my language, he has a similar complexion to me, but his bandit buddies might be hiding behind a hill waiting for his signal when me and my family are fast asleep." So Bob gives him lots of nice wine to drink and they break bread together. Later John needs to take a piss, Bob tells him that he also wants to take a leak, Bob walks with John behind a bush. John pulls up his robe whips out his dick and Bob can then decide how he is going to handle the situation from there. Seeing John's uncircumcised appendage Bob is safe to assume that him and his family are in danger. Also think of how vulnerable John is with his pants down draining the main vein, it might be Bob's opportune and only moment to strike first and unexpectedly. Bet you never heard an explanation like that in favour of having a cut foreskin. A secret sign of sign of familiarity. As a pragmatist I have interpreted all God's commandments following common sense and useful logic to explain them.--- 18: And their words pleased Hamor and Shechem, Hamor’s son. 19: So the young man did not delay to do the thing, because he delighted in Jacob’s daughter. ---He was like LFG bring that knife I'm ready. I can imagine Shia LaBeouf playing this part in the NETFLIX original series.
--- He was more honourable than all the household of his father. ---I think this simply means the bravest. Being circumcised as a little kid is easier when you have no say in the matter. You require more mental fortitude as a grown man to voluntarily submit to this procedure. Like playing Russian roulette with a fully loaded revolver.---
20: And Hamor and Shechem his son came to the gate of their city, and spoke with the men of their city, saying: 21: “These men are at peace with us. Therefore let them dwell in the land and trade in it. For indeed the land is large enough for them. Let us take their daughters to us as wives, and let us give them our daughters. 22: Only on this condition will the men consent to dwell with us, to be one people: if every male among us is circumcised as they are circumcised. 23: Will not their livestock, their property, and every animal of theirs be ours? Only let us consent to them, and they will dwell with us.” --- They really had to make it sound like a good deal.
24: And all who went out of the gate of his city heeded Hamor and Shechem his son; every male was circumcised, all who went out of the gate of his city.
25: Now it came to pass on the third day, when they were in pain, that two of the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah’s brothers, each took his sword and came boldly upon the city and killed all the males. 26: And they killed Hamor and Shechem his son with the edge of the sword, and took Dinah from Shechem’s house, and went out. ---I must admit that this is as awesome as 300 or some Herculean feat. These okes were Alpha Chads.--- 27: The sons of Jacob came upon the slain, and plundered the city, because their sister had been defiled. ---So they sent their sister as a gift to show good faith albeit deceitfully I doubt she was wise to their plan. They knew that the guy cannot have sex with her because time has to pass for his wound to heal.--- 28: They took their sheep, their oxen, and their donkeys, what was in the city and what was in the field, 29: and all their wealth. All their little ones and their wives they took captive; and they plundered even all that was in the houses. ---The small tribe of Israelites probably had a baby boom as a people because of the influx of women gained through this specific conquest.---
30: Then Jacob said to Simeon and Levi, “You have troubled me by making me obnoxious among the inhabitants of the land, among the Canaanites and the Perizzites; and since I am few in number, they will gather themselves together against me and kill me. I shall be destroyed, my household and I.”
31: But they said, “Should he treat our sister like a harlot?” --- To all the feminists who say "How dare you deny a girl the freedom to go where she wants a chase her dreams. Girls can do anything! Girl power!" No, they just end up in some sleazeball's harem. Girls can only do "anything" in Western Civilisation because men have agreed on a very specific set of moral principles which are Christian in nature. Biblical record teaches us why we have freedom, how to facilitate and maintain these freedoms. If you are a feminist you should find a good man and thank him for disciplining his base desires and holds you up with esteem and respect. Feminists are destroying the pedestal men built to support them. But I digress once again.
So now we know why ancient women were under men's protection as their most valuable possession. Women could not acquire and retain agency by themselves for themselves by reason of their physical vulnerability in a wilderness of savages. Not rocket science, just common sense. When cows are money women are not entrepreneurs. There are technological and societal advances required before womens gain of agency and independence is possible.
We have just witnessed how a small group of men conspired and through cunning devised a strategy wherewith they managed to avenge a wrong committed against them. Tooth for teeth and eye for eyes. Violence begets escalation of violence. It might be the first time a nation went to war over a woman's honour. It's not the last time nations went to war over a woman either.
About 600 hundred years later, circa 1100 BC.
Judges 19
1: And it came to pass in those days, when there was no king in Israel, that there was a certain Levite staying in the remote mountains of Ephraim. He took for himself a concubine from Bethlehem in Judah. ---A concubine is a woman under the legal protection of a man who performs the same duties as a wife but does not receive the same status and social recognition as a wife. She cohabits and even bears children. Sounds rough and unpleasant. Almost like a type of slave. A concubine is rarely given in marriage and more frequently exchanged like a good. I believe that the man was legally obligated to support and protect her but anyone can imagine that this is not the ideal outcome for a woman of any culture born in any age. It must have sucked.--- 2: But his concubine played the harlot against him, and went away from him to her father’s house at Bethlehem in Judah, and was there four whole months. ---Here it helps to have some perspective on where the Overton window was lying when this episode of history was recorded and happened. To a lesser extent it was similar just a century or two ago. Have you watched Roland Emmerich's movie The Patriot starring Mel Gibson and Heath Ledger. Do you remember the scene where they had to tie Gabriel Martin (Heath) up when he spent the night over at his sweethearts house. This was because her father had to be able to guarantee the chastity of his daughter on the day of her wedding. No unmarried girl could freely travel alone about the countryside without being under supervision and when she was permitted to court a suitor, a chaperone was required to escort the couple. This was to ensure that no accusation of unseemly behaviour could be made without angering the man who is responsible for her protection. If a girl was raped there were massacres. Some cultures even had intrusive forms of testing the bride to be for proof of virginity, sometimes before and sometimes after the marriage bed. If a woman was a product in a transaction or given as a bride she was required to be a virgin unless she was sold as a whore, meaning for a cheap price. The father, brothers and later the husband carried responsibility for her chaste and loyal behaviour. This does not mean that men behaved with honour. Most were self righteous pigs. But many were good husbands and fathers.--- 3: Then her husband arose and went after her, to speak kindly to her and bring her back, having his servant and a couple of donkeys with him. So she brought him into her father’s house; and when the father of the young woman saw him, he was glad to meet him. 4: Now his father-in-law, the young woman’s father, detained him; and he stayed with him three days. So they ate and drank and lodged there. ---She was not having indiscriminate affairs with random men. She just missed her family and ran away. She would not have been labelled a harlot if she was travelling with her husbands blessing and an escort for protection, she ran away and he could not protect her or be witness to her behaviour. Almost like being guilty by association but more like being guilty for lack of evidence. She becomes Schrodinger's cat. Faithful? Unfaithful? You could not know even with the box open.--- 5: Then it came to pass on the fourth day that they arose early in the morning, and he stood to depart; but the young woman’s father said to his son-in-law, “Refresh your heart with a morsel of bread, and afterward go your way.” 6: So they sat down, and the two of them ate and drank together. Then the young woman’s father said to the man, “Please be content to stay all night, and let your heart be merry.” 7: And when the man stood to depart, his father-in-law urged him; so he lodged there again. 8: Then he arose early in the morning on the fifth day to depart, but the young woman’s father said, “Please refresh your heart.” So they delayed until afternoon; and both of them ate. 9: And when the man stood to depart—he and his concubine and his servant—his father-in-law, the young woman’s father, said to him, “Look, the day is now drawing toward evening; please spend the night. See, the day is coming to an end; lodge here, that your heart may be merry. Tomorrow go your way early, so that you may get home.” 10: However, the man was not willing to spend that night; so he rose and departed, and came opposite Jebus (that is, Jerusalem). With him were the two saddled donkeys; his concubine was also with him. 11: They were near Jebus, and the day was far spent; and the servant said to his master, “Come, please, and let us turn aside into this city of the Jebusites and lodge in it.” 12: But his master said to him, “We will not turn aside here into a city of foreigners, who are not of the children of Israel; we will go on to Gibeah.”---The city of Jerusalem would would not be conquered by king David for another 100 years. This guy did not want to trust foreigners who did not respect his culture and customs with the security of his party. It seems wise. He opted to stay with people who were kin.--- 13: So he said to his servant, “Come, let us draw near to one of these places, and spend the night in Gibeah or in Ramah.” 14: And they passed by and went their way; and the sun went down on them near Gibeah, which belongs to Benjamin. 15: They turned aside there to go in to lodge in Gibeah. And when he went in, he sat down in the open square of the city, for no one would take them into his house to spend the night. ---He arrived late during the day as well making it difficult to arrange lodging at the last minute.--- 16: Just then an old man came in from his work in the field at evening, who also was from the mountains of Ephraim; he was staying in Gibeah, whereas the men of the place were Benjamites. 17: And when he raised his eyes, he saw the traveller in the open square of the city; and the old man said, “Where are you going, and where do you come from?” 18: So he said to him, “We are passing from Bethlehem in Judah toward the remote mountains of Ephraim; I am from there. I went to Bethlehem in Judah; now I am going to the house of the Lord. But there is no one who will take me into his house, 19: although we have both straw and fodder for our donkeys, and bread and wine for myself, for your female servant, and for the young man who is with your servant; there is no lack of anything.”
20: And the old man said, “Peace be with you! However, let all your needs be my responsibility; only do not spend the night in the open square.” ---The old man knew how lawless his city was and did not want to leave the Levite vulnerable in the town square, unfortunately the strangers presence in the city was already noted.--- 21: So he brought him into his house, and gave fodder to the donkeys. And they washed their feet, and ate and drank. 22: As they were enjoying themselves, suddenly certain men of the city, perverted men, surrounded the house and beat on the door. They spoke to the master of the house, the old man, saying, “Bring out the man who came to your house, that we may know him carnally!” 23: But the man, the master of the house, went out to them and said to them, “No, my brethren! I beg you, do not act so wickedly! Seeing this man has come into my house, do not commit this outrage. ---He is asking them nicely without physical authority to respect his private property.--- 24: Look, here is my virgin daughter and the man’s concubine; let me bring them out now. Humble them, and do with them as you please; but to this man do not do such a vile thing!” ---How sad that a woman's honour is traded for a mans personal safety. This history is definitely not a heroes epic.--- 25: But the men would not heed him. So the man took his concubine and brought her out to them. And they knew her and abused her all night until morning; and when the day began to break, they let her go. ---Many modern day scholars of the humanist persuasion pull up their noses at Biblical texts precisely because of these types of occurrences recorded in it. When a historian is willing to record for posterity their failures as well as their victories it only garners trust that the history is true and unmolested by those who would wish to hide and twist the truth to suit their narrative or motives. The aftershock of this event was and is still significant and warrants explanation to the descendants of these people to help them understand their current reality at the time of learning it 2800-2000 years ago. The Bible is not a toy, it is also not a fairy tale. It is the most comprehensive exposition of the human condition currently available for study.--- 26: Then the woman came as the day was dawning, and fell down at the door of the man’s house where her master was, till it was light. 27: When her master arose in the morning, and opened the doors of the house and went out to go his way, there was his concubine, fallen at the door of the house with her hands on the threshold. 28: And he said to her, “Get up and let us be going.” But there was no answer. So the man lifted her onto the donkey; and the man got up and went to his place. ---The modern reader of this might feel a crime of murder and rape was committed. I assure you that this is not the crime. The crime here is that private property was vandalised and destroyed. I pity the woman with my modern Western mind. But as a student of history I have to face the fact that the man was the victim in his day and age. The emotions and pain of this event is not described and could not be described in it's full detail. We do not know if a distraught and scared man was lying inside the house crying, being shushed and detained by his host? I doubt that this was the case, I can only speculate. We only have the information which was deemed sufficient and necessary to be carved onto a slab of stone or scribed onto papyrus. Historians of ages past were not as privileged as I to be able to write and babble thousands of words without the laborious cost which written or carved words claimed from the ancient and even more recent thinkers. Modern critics of ancient texts are not sufficiently recognising these costs. We learn more important lessons from histories scandals than we do from it's triumph's.--- 29: When he entered his house he took a knife, laid hold of his concubine, and divided her into twelve pieces, limb by limb, and sent her throughout all the territory of Israel. 30: And so it was that all who saw it said, “No such deed has been done or seen from the day that the children of Israel came up from the land of Egypt until this day. Consider it, confer, and speak up!” --- Wait what? This guy gone did what? He chopped his wife into 12 pieces? If there was a king which there was not he could have made a plea for justice. If there was a court he could have made a claim. If he had a gun he could have shot them all in a righteous fury. He wanted justice but justice did not have a door for him to knock on. His own people whom he chose to trust above the foreigner abused his trust. It is here where I solemnly confer that it's better to not have expectations of valour from people you don't know, don't trust if you can help it. No one is coming to save you. I'm sorry? I forgot to explain why he couriered his concubines corpse all across the country you say. He did it because he did not have a mobile phone, facebook, twitter, newspapers, radio, or cable TV from where he could broadcast the injustice and pain he and his deceased concubine was subjected to. He knew to get his situation trending on the network of human conversation he had to create sensation. A Streisand effect but intentionally. A rallying cry, like Peanut the squirrel, just a bit more gruesome.---
Judges 21
1: So all the children of Israel came out, from Dan to Beersheba, as well as from the land of Gilead, and the congregation gathered together as one man before the Lord at Mizpah. 2: And the leaders of all the people, all the tribes of Israel, presented themselves in the assembly of the people of God, four hundred thousand foot soldiers who drew the sword. 3 (Now the children of Benjamin heard that the children of Israel had gone up to Mizpah.) Then the children of Israel said, “Tell us, how did this wicked deed happen?” 4: So the Levite, the husband of the woman who was murdered, answered and said, “My concubine and I went into Gibeah, which belongs to Benjamin, to spend the night. 5: And the men of Gibeah rose against me, and surrounded the house at night because of me. They intended to kill me, but instead they ravished my concubine so that she died. 6: So I took hold of my concubine, cut her in pieces, and sent her throughout all the territory of the inheritance of Israel, because they committed lewdness and outrage in Israel. 7: Look! All of you are children of Israel; give your advice and counsel here and now!”
8: So all the people arose as one man, saying, “None of us will go to his tent, nor will any turn back to his house; 9: but now this is the thing which we will do to Gibeah: We will go up against it by lot. 10: We will take ten men out of every hundred throughout all the tribes of Israel, a hundred out of every thousand, and a thousand out of every ten thousand, to make provisions for the people, that when they come to Gibeah in Benjamin, they may repay all the vileness that they have done in Israel.” 11: So all the men of Israel were gathered against the city, united together as one man.
12: Then the tribes of Israel sent men through all the tribe of Benjamin, saying, “What is this wickedness that has occurred among you? 13: Now therefore, deliver up the men, the perverted men who are in Gibeah, that we may put them to death and remove the evil from Israel!” But the children of Benjamin would not listen to the voice of their brethren, the children of Israel. 14: Instead, the children of Benjamin gathered together from their cities to Gibeah, to go to battle against the children of Israel. 15: And from their cities at that time the children of Benjamin numbered twenty-six thousand men who drew the sword, besides the inhabitants of Gibeah, who numbered seven hundred select men. 16: Among all this people were seven hundred select men who were left-handed; every one could sling a stone at a hair’s breadth and not miss. 17: Now besides Benjamin, the men of Israel numbered four hundred thousand men who drew the sword; all of these were men of war. ---A civil war in which 65100 men were slain broke out among distantly related brethren. The idea I am trying to convey is that if a man has no speech he cannot campaign for his desired cause. Sensation and virality propels speech into the public arena of popular discourse and is discussed until the prevailing message is precise and clear. If there is no shock factor your speech falls on the ground before your feet. If your speech aligns with the general narrative everyone agrees and nods but the impact of your speech is marginal.
I am glad that we are in a new age where human beings are not so atrociously violated by men with power as it was in ancient times. No wait, it's still a problem. Women are still abused and brothers are still violating each others property and different groups with different interests are still bombing the shit out of each other.
What gives me hope is this.
The internet has dropped the barriers of audible speech and enabled everyone equal access to generate Streisand effects of their own making. Purposely and accidentally.
We are the new mainstream media. Podcasters, influencers, youtubers, and bloggers. We get to decide and form narratives and we get to put our ideas in the arena to battle for acceptance and prominence. The world is now our oyster just as much as it was Barbara Streisand's in the golden age of Hollywood before the internet was there to humble her. Time will tell if we are collectively better custodians of this responsibility than celebrities, corporations and governments. The responsibility of forming the narrative. Not centrally, but decentralised. Let good ideas form and old ideas rest.
Can we be a voice of reason and bring peace and order to a chaotic clown world through the power of speech and ideas? I can only hope.
Echdel