Our heads are full of chickens and that is no coincidence, seeing that A: they tend to be anyway and B: we attended a local poultry show over the weekend in Northeast Valley.
It's difficult to explain the appeal of rows and rows of freshly shampooed and variously jööjed fowl. Many were bored. Some enjoyed the attention. Few could say what they'd otherwise be doing.
While we tend to effortlessly attract feral, unfortunate and stray friends of almost every other feathered persuasion, our Japanese Quails are the closest we've ever come to keeping actual domestic poultry.
It feels a bit weird, going out and actively acquiring chickens when they've never come to us of their own accord but we found a lot of noisy, beady-eyed inspiration at the regional show, so it may yet happen.
You may not relish chickens, but the world would be a very different place without them. If they judge us they usually keep it to themselves. There is nothing to fear except fear itself.
Unless you're Johnny Depp. I've been following the smoke-trailing trajectory of his latest marital venture with an old person's absolute certainty of fiery impact.
Do I like Amber? No. I think she probably is a thirsty, odious twat in that very specific way one has to be to succeed in her field. Do I enjoy Johnny Depp? No. And I've always been incredulous at the sort of fond regard in which he is held, given that his dim-watt aura, lukewarm intellect, laughable affectations and shrieking decadal addictions have flagged him as unpleasant in private (at the very fucking least) for an eternity.
Ultimately, these two are just another pair of rich cunts fighting over money; my primary interest lies in the mirrored stereotypes they represent. Let's look at how their shared attributes are characterised in the media and public opinion- according to gender.
Wealth: JD's holdings may outgun AH's at this juncture, but they're both obscenely wealthy people. JD's Hughesian lifestyle has attracted very little of the odium appropriate to such abject and swinish materialism and will not hurt him now; AH's pale-in-comparison current holdings and speculative avarice are the spinal column of the campaign against her. Hmmmm.
Sexuality: Rumours have swirled about Depp's baroque practices for a very long time. But hey, he's a rich dude and that's just what they do. Unlike respectable women, who do not identify as bisexual like Amber. That's the worstsexual- not because it is a convenient frame for all the uncomfortably inconstant and slutty projection from the heart of every virtuous observer, bu...
Amber's probably an unsavoury opportunist who bit off more than she could stash away in secure deposit boxes and I'm 100% sure Depp is a bad drunk with a massive trove of shady, unchecked proclivities.
The truth is Depp's midlife bad boy bullshit has just blown up in his stupid, sheltered face. Trawl through his interviews and roll both eyes out of your fucking skull at his cringeworthy anecdotes; he has always wanted to play at being the troubled eccentric without ever experiencing any of the blowback that status attracts in real life. To smash shit up knowing his lawyers will square it away later. Starting fights curated by his security detail. Aping rock stardom without ever having to endure the usual adversities or indentured service to a label. And because he is a wealthy male, he has been able to enjoy these privileges until they threw up all over him and passed out in the public spotlight. His female contemporaries- Courtney Love springs immediately to mind- must envy the endless passes he's received for behaviour that saw them not just criticised, but effectively dehumanised in the media. I'm not saying Love isn't unsavoury because obviously, but she is a Lilit and a golem in the public imagination for exactly the same shit.
Depp has two kids. Imagine how long a female parent exhibiting the same behaviours would have retained custodial rights.
A couple of Depp's former partners have come out in weirdly orchestrated defence of his character and a lot of people will eat this special pleading up with a spoon, even though neither woman could stomach him in their own lives. I just don't believe that Depp is exclusively gentle and trustworthy with intimates who stray from an indulgent role because A: nobody is, and B: he's already thoroughly documented his own bad character in the course of presenting his imagined Byronic qualifications. The narcissist's inclination to abuse is directly commensurate with the likelihood of avoiding detection and reprisal, unless intoxicants loosen the bounds of the self-interest they cherish. Why is it hard to imagine that someone who repeatedly brags about their infantile temper, previous violent engagements, lack of moral rigour and tenuous relationship with reality might pop a bitch in the face in the middle of a three-month bender?
Inverting a situation is always a nice test of its fundamentals. If Johnny Depp had documented and released physical evidence of spousal abuse against his own person, very few people would have publicly doubted Amber Heard had clocked him during an argument. His self-celebrated addictions would have been used in defence of the machismo that suffered the ultimate indignity of effective feminine assault. His wealth would be framed merely as the target of AH's predacious intent, not an instrument of oppression or punitive sanction. And all his other fucked-up unfunny dysfunctional bollocks would have been shrugged away as a famous man's prerogative.
Feminism: still think it's a bit over the top?