The Transformed Wife is a blogger and a minor Twitter celebrity. In her profile she describes herself as
A wife, a mother, a grandma, and a keeper at home. Loves Jesus and is not afraid to speak Truth because it sets you free!
But I think she’s selling herself short here, because she seems to have forgotten that she is also a bold crusader against the evils of our age: feminism, witchcraft, and grouchiness.
Let’s roll the tape, or rather the tweets:
It’s just too bad God designed women to be so gullible.
Remember: Marriage and babies, good. Putting a hex on the Transformed Wife, very bad.
Apparently witchcraft and feminism are pretty much the same thing.
Uh oh, now she’s naming names!
Whatever you do, don’t dress like a slut, because that too is a sort of witchcraft.
This lady is doing it all wrong:
This tweet sounds a bit like a pitch for a fun rom-com — that is, if your version of fun involves burning in hell for all eternity:
And while you’re going about your non-witchy life, don’t be a grouch! Remember to smile or God will smite you or burn you in hell for all eternity or something.
And don’t worry about the end, which is near!
SMILE DAMMIT.
Follow me on Mastodon.
Send tips to dfutrelle at gmail dot com.
We Hunted the Mammoth relies on support from you, its readers, to survive. So please donate here if you can, or at David-Futrelle-1 on Venmo.
@Alan – I admire your commitment to research. 🙂
@Howard – Would you stop obsessing over one person here?! It’s creepy. Besides, she made it very clear she was talking about about what she liked in men. She didn’t say every woman should share her preferences. We’re not a monolith.
Granted.
So women never have intelligence, knowledge, or reason? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?
Art is like science ; the moment you ask *why* you do it you’re the short sighted villain. And in the end it alway end up serving a surprising role. If relativistic physic have been useful to create GPS and LSD consumption have helped PTSD sufferers, I would not be surprised by any use from any kind of stuff.
Said as someone who 100% don’t understand or care about what Stacey do. As long as there’s nothing unethical my time is better used to do my own unscrutable, seemingly useless goal than wonder about why she do thing whose interest escape me.
I think art existed before civilization, look at the paleolithic cave paintings for example.
Art can fulfill many need of humanity, for instance objects of veneration (icons etc.), put important questions of meaning and society, show possible futures (utopias and dystopias), promote a certain view, and may more.
But then ist the demarcatation question what is art and what is simple vulgar entertainment, and is there really a difference? What is the difference between art and objects which are just functional? Is mathematics Science or art, or should all Science be considered art?
Well of course the solution as always should be : “I know it when I see it”. 🙂
@EntitledHoward
I am so glad you are this upset!
I’m taking care of some logistics for an event and so can’t respond at length yet but here’s a few things.
If I like their bodies and they respond well to my training I might.
Yes, literally muscles are on the inside obviously so you are partially right. I know that’s not what you meant though so let me be clear, you asshole loser: outward appearance matters a great deal in my choice of partners. I am so overjoyed to know that upsets you!
It’s not “just” that but yes of course it did delightfully include that…I looked sexy as hell doing it too. I know you find it cruel that I remind you of that and I’m so overjoyed at your resulting misery! And I have an absolute right to every second of enjoyment I get from what I do!
You are awful. I hold you in complete contempt. I will think about that when I enjoy the beautiful fulfillment I experience from the hot men that I’ve chosen.
I wish you a miserable day!
@ talacaris
Yeah. In practice the parties call suitably qualified experts to comment on the relevant law. But the judge just treats them like any other expert witness. They can take their opinion evidence into account but aren’t bound by it. Not least because the experts may disagree. As you can imagine it’s not the most efficient system, and it’s an expensive way of litigating. Seems to work though.
But as you rightly say, there’s more of a push now to alternative dispute resolution. A lot of industries have set up their own expert tribunals. It’s obviously much easier to argue some oil case in front of a panel that actually know a bit about the petrochemical industry. Not just the terminology; but how it operates in practice.
There’s also schemes for different areas of law. Like for example someone set up an alternative body to resolve defamation cases somewhat cheaper than they normally are.
Obviously, as someone who does defamation, I think that’s an abomination and definitely a step too far.
<blockquote>Like for example someone set up an alternative body to resolve defamation cases somewhat cheaper than they normally are. Obviously, as someone who does defamation, I think that’s an abomination and definitely a step too far.” </blockquote>
Let me guess that this is between tabloids and celebrities. Because of the mutual dependency between them, I guess this can benefit both parties:Tabloids will get a quicker and cheper response what is acceptableand not, and the celebrities can have more time for what their careers really are.
@ telecaris
I would certainly not disagree with your underlying point. I think I’m just being a bit semantic. I see art as one of the factors that makes us ‘civilised’. But I mean that in the same way people have said the the first healed broken bone was a sign we were civilised.
But FWIW, this is one of my favourite works. Whilst I think Picasso was a bit of a knob; I am with him on his ‘we have leaned nothing’ stance.
As for your point about pure aesthetics versus function, that does crop up a lot in law.
Copyright attracts a much higher level of IP protection than design rights. So generally a copyrightable work is one that’s got a bit of artistic creativity behind it, but if it’s actually form follows function then you can only get design rights. (Incidentally, that’s why action figure companies prefer non human figures. They’re works of art; but copies of recognisable human actors are mere sculptures and only get design rights)
So if you want to copyright a chair for example; make it more arty than comfy. And on that note a little quiz question for you. Did the courts say this lamp attracted copyright or design rights?
@ Contrapangloss
I just want to say that your Primer is excellent work. I was thinking of typing up something similar, but it would have been a pale imitation. Though… at this point, reading Howard’s latest, I am no longer feeling like reaching out in good faith.
@Alan
Working on an outfit here so just a short note but what you said about copyright is interesting because here in the USA one thing I have to deal with is (as my lawyer explained) to get copyright protection I have to have “a tangible work in fixed form”. I get performers rights too but I think they explained those are different. The main thing I have to remember is to write out what I plan because that is copyrighted no matter what.
@talacaris : which leave the open question of how to define a civilization. Or art, for that matter. I think neither are really exclusive to human, it’s more that non human expression of either tend to feel simpler to us, either by anthropomorphism or because humans love useless complexity.
Apparently wikipedia think that writing is a condition to civilization, in which case art predate it by quite a bit. Apart from that, most of the condition seem compatible with anthills being civilization.
I think the lamp should get copyright. The overly long arc is not the most obvious design choice, and can be considered artistic.
@everyone
Goddess I SOOOOO love this definition of art discussion and will reply when I can but I’m dealing with plans for some time with my guys.
I saw there was an answer for the lamp included. Not what I expected. The base just looks like a rectangular block to me, which seems just like a basic form and I’m surprised that can be copyrighted. My view of the lamp is that characteric form is the overly long arc.
For what civilization is, my take is that when people are settled and there are workers outside of the primary sector of the economy, (so yes except for “people” this would be true for anthills).
@ staceyartypantstwiceremoved (see what I did there)
And there’s a topic. I would love to discuss this further. But in the interim…
It’s axiomatic in IP law that you can’t copyright an idea; only an expression of that idea.
Now, where that boundary lies isn’t always straightforward.
But this is a big issue in conceptual art (and I think I could make a strong case that what you do is conceptual art). With conceptual art, the idea is the art.
So how do you protect that? The answer is, you can’t really. Which is why there’s such glut of lazy advertising executives ripping off great concept art for adverts.
But it’s like you can’t protect a dance move, or even a routine…
I mean if I were to design a floor lamp that reached quite a distance horizontally, I would surely have done it articulated.
But I am not a designer so.
@ telecaris
This is the actual test; such as it is. But yeah, it is highly subjective and to an extent arbitrary.
The US courts disallow copyright for ‘useful articles’.
But there’s a whole genre of furniture copyright cases.
It’s a bit like the ‘recognised stature’ test for artworks to attract certain types of IP protection in US law. Recognised by whom?
Is it correct that this refers to the form of the article.I mean a printed or embroidered pattern on a shirt can still have copyright? Also for dinnerware, some plates for instance have very specific patterns painted, and I would be surprised if they don’t have copyright.
@ talacaris
Yes; that’s the case. So you can’t copyright a t-shirt itself; that’s just functional clothing (although you might get into ‘passing off’ issues if you make it look like a particular brand); but you can copyright a design on a shirt. And a lot of designs on shirts are themselves copyrighted works or trademarks anyway. Like film mechanising related clothing, or band name shirts.
See here for some related examples.
https://www.boredpanda.com/people-caught-copying-plagiarism-stealing-art-knockoffs
On copyright:
One of my mates has the best job in the world. His firm does all Marvel’s IP; and his particular job is working out what artworks to have on the set. But it’s not just sourcing the rights to works; it’s thinking ‘What sort of stuff would this particular supervillain be into?”
If you get the IP wrong though it gets very expensive right quick.
http://www.dvdexotica.com/2015/02/the-devils-advocate-uncensored-recalled.html
@epitome of incomprehensibility
Seems like she is obsessing over me. Look at everything she says just to me. She is just mad because I called her out. Maybe that makes others here mad too.
That means you are not stuck up. Good for you. I appreciate that.
This has been covered, but my own two cents I’d like to add here (and to this discussion of copyright law) is that art is just a thing people do. Fish fly, birds dance, bugs sing, and humans make art. To copyright art feels in general wrong to me, as does pigeonholing art into a “You can only do it if you make money by doing it” bracket.
All art has inherent value, because there is no such thing as a civilization without art. Stacey’s art adds to the human condition in the same way my poetry & short stories do (Arguably more as she’s more comfortable sharing her work).
Though. This is a poem I wrote a few years ago after one too many “Nice Guys” whined to me.
“But I can’t be without her”
Listen here, sir
I know of what you speak
My heart is similarly weak
Once upon a time
I wished her heart was mine
Her eyes were burning stars
Hair, iridescent golden bars
Perfectly human in every way
Her words were far from trite
Her touch, fit to ignite
A necklace of beads
I mistook for need
Truly I was in her sway
The midnight black of her nails
Thoroughly my mind ails
These words and more
I spoke to woo her
Her reply was
“I do not long for you.”
Her boundary was stark
A golden pattern in the dark
“I see, I won’t cause you trouble”
But like an expanding bubble
My heart would not be compelled
Yet my oath was given and sealed
And still I was aflame
A scourging current
The heart did not relent
That weak heart longed
But she didn’t deserve to be wronged
My insides alight
Casting pieces of my soul bright
Better I burn bringing my heart align
Than she burn as my sign
That, then is my claim
Sir, though you burn
Honor her spurn
If it is her you love
Then respect what she speaks of
Anyway, Howard, I don’t see Stacey the way you do. Clearly.
I don’t know why, but I feel the need to mention that I do have fairly exacting standards for my male partners. Men tend to be cruel and controlling underneath even if they put up a facade of amiability, so I need to get something out of it. Height I don’t care about, but I certainly look for effort put into personal grooming and clothing choices (Honestly I spend thirty minutes a day planning my outfits so fair is fair and I’d generally rather look like part of a matched set than an unearthly beauty palling around with a sweatshirt golem).
Yeah, I agree. You’re ugly on the inside, dude.
None of these things are necessary in a partner. Intelligence doesn’t really exist, knowledge is something anyone can acquire & its presence or absence doesn’t make someone a suitable or unsuitable partner, and “reason” is a buzzword. All humans reason, it’s just what we do.
This is why you are ugly inside. You’ve decided, apropos of nothing, that women do not have vibrant internal lives – only men do. Your facade of amiability was only ever skin-deep. As John said two threads ago, “you are more transparent than you think you are”.
Die mad, Howard. Or just die. I’m sure there’s kittens and puppies that could use the oxygen you selfishly hoard in your lungs.
@Howard
I imagine others have already said similar things, but I’m going to say this anyway:
The reason it’s accurate to call your behavior entitled is you’re telling Stacey her standards and desires are unacceptable, and that she should be willing to have sexual/romantic relationships with people she isn’t into and in ways she doesn’t like. When you complain at length about how she doesn’t give ‘decent men’ a chance, you are saying what she wants isn’t acceptable and she should thus change it.
Stacey, on the other hand, does no such thing. Nowhere will you find her saying that all men who meet her standards should be in the kind of relationship with her she wants whether they like it or not. She respects her potential partners’ autonomy, and that is why she isn’t entitled.
@talacaris: And the long arc of the lamp comes in discrete (telescoping?) sections, which most lamps don’t have. Either one curve, or an adjustable gooseneck.
@Alan: One of my friends works (tangentially) on Hello Kitty’s copyright enforcement. She may be cute and cuddly, but her lawyers are fierce.
@IgnoreSandra: good poem!
I have been attracted to all sorts of men: all ages, colors, sizes, shapes, professions, even AFAB. They have worn everything from tuxedos to old jeans and T’s. They have been famous and not. I have lusted in my heart (and a bit lower down).
The things they have in common are that they are not entitled, and don’t whine.
You could put a gorgeous rich god-hunk of a man in front of me, and if he acts like he’s entitled to my (or anyone’s) attention, I will be turned off.
Guys with entitlement issues are NOT “decent men”. They are assholes.
Beauty is skin deep, but ugly goes all the way to the bone.
Okay. I wasn’t going to say anything in the other thread because I’ve been accused of being a mean piling on person before. See me tagging myself as a grumpy people earlier?
But Howard, fuck you. Different people are attracted to different things. You can’t change it. Trying to change it is rapey as hell.
You were whinging in the other thread about being short. Well, you know what? I like short men. It’s more common for women to prefer men. But a lot (although not all) of the men I’ve been attracted to are short. However, I’m not attracted to the men who are angry at the world for being short and bitter towards the women who aren’t into short men.
But you know what? I’m 41 and on the chubby side and I don’t wear makeup. I bet you anything your hypocritical ass wouldn’t give me a second look. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying I want you to be into. See above paragraph. I’m just pointing out that Nice Guys like you who want women to look past whatever physical traits they are and aren’t into would never stoop to doing the same. You all just dream of the conventionally hot woman falling for your dazzling personalities. All you fucks who whine about not having model looking women falling all over you would never date a non “hot” woman just because she’s nice or smart or whatever.
Double fucking standards. And you all have the nerve to whine about women being shallow.
I mean, come on. Why is it that you’re so desperate for Stacey to give you a chance? You don’t even know her. It’s because she said she was conventionally attractive, right?