top of page

Group

Public·14 members
Mike Farabow
Mike Farabow

Mind Control Theatre The Brothel 2


The builder who stored the timbers of the Theatre was Peter Streete. Once the weather was better Streete took the timber across the Thames, to Southwark, and used them to build the Globe theatre. Southwark was a good place for the new theatre. It was outside the control of the city officials (who were hostile to theatres). People already went there to be entertained. It had two theatres (the Rose and the Swan), animal baiting arenas, taverns and brothels. Streete and his workmen built a brick base for the theatre. The walls were made from big timber frames, filled with smaller slats of wood covered with plaster that had cow hair in it. Because the owners were struggling for money, they used the cheapest options in the building process. For example, the roof of the theatre was thatched with reeds, not covered with more expensive tile. In 1599 the theatre opened and was a huge success.




Mind Control Theatre The Brothel 2


Download File: https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fjinyurl.com%2F2tRloy&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AOvVaw0-XFUvYnW7K1eDSTo2GHYN



These feminists see prostitution as a form of slavery, and say that, far from decreasing rape rates, prostitution leads to a sharp increase in sexual violence against women, by sending the message that it is acceptable for a man to treat a woman as a sexual instrument over which he has total control. Melissa Farley argues that Nevada's high rape rate is connected to legal prostitution because Nevada is the only US state which allows legal brothels and is ranked 4th out of the 50 U.S. states for sexual assault crimes,[23] saying, "Nevada's rape rate is higher than the U.S. average and way higher than the rape rate in California, New York and New Jersey. Why is this? Legal prostitution creates an atmosphere in this state in which women are not humans equal to them, are disrespected by men, and which then sets the stage of increased violence against women."[24]


The term 'legalization', on the other hand, is usually used in the context of prostitution to refer to the use of criminal laws to regulate prostitution by determining the legal conditions under which prostitutes can operate. Legalization can mean anything from rigid controls under a state-controlled system to merely defining the operation of a privatized sex industry. Legalization is often accompanied by strict criminal penalties for anyone who operates outside the legally defined framework.[57] With legalization there may be rules about where prostitution can take place (for example only in state licensed brothels), what prostitutes can do, mandatory registry/licensing and frequent mandatory health exams.[58]


Mrs. Warren's Profession 2.0Aux Dog Theatre Nob HillReview by Dean YanniasAlso see Wally's review of The Water Engine and Rob's review of Bonnie and ClydeScott Sharot, Phillip Shortell, Bridget Kelly, Abby Van Gerpen, and Nick PippinPhoto by Russell MaynorA doctor friend of mine came up with this observation a few years ago, and I like it: "Prostitution is not just the oldest profession. It's the only profession." Meaning, I think, that no matter what job you do, you're selling yourself for money. In most cases, there's some truth to that.Prostitution, in the usual sense of selling one's body for sex, is the subject of George Bernard Shaw's 1893 play Mrs. Warren's Profession. It was such a taboo topic at the time that the play did not get a theatrical run until many years afterwards, even though the words "prostitute" and "whore" and "brothel" never even appear in the play. I guess the word "profession" attached to a woman's name in those days made it obvious enough what Mrs. Warren did for a living. There weren't many other professional opportunities for women in Victorian England, and that's one of the points of the play.The problem with putting on Mrs. Warren's Profession nowadays is that prostitution is no longer so scandalous. A few madams have become celebrities, whorehouses are legal in many places around the world, and some people consider sex work empowering for women. So how do you make Shaw's play still pack a punch? Victoria Liberatori, the Producing Artistic Director of Aux Dog Theatre, wanted to do the play and asked Matthew Yde (pronounced Ee-dee), a Shaw scholar and local theater critic, to update it for contemporary performance. He essentially rewrote the whole thing, although keeping Shaw's characters and basic plot, and he did a terrific job of it.If being a prostitute or madam has lost its stigma, human trafficking has not. Mrs. Warren and her "business partner" George Crofts now run high-class brothels in several European cities, and get their workers that way. To make the two even more despicable, Yde has them pretend to be philanthropic by setting up orphanages, the real purpose of which is to feed girls and boys into the system. (None of this is in the Shaw original.) I think Yde goes a little overboard by bringing in mind control and trans-cranial brain stimulation as methods practiced on the children, which to me has the whiff of unproven conspiracy theory. The sex trade trafficking and orphanages are bad enough.The central conflict of the play is between Mrs. Warren and her daughter Vivie. Mrs. Warren has provided a comfortable upbringing for Vivie, but was almost never there, farming her out to boarding schools and paying for her to go to Harvard. (This version of the play is set on the east coast of America in 2016.) Mrs. Warren comes back to the States, thinking that she can now be a mother to the daughter she has neglected for so long. Not quite so easy. Vivie, being a liberal-minded young woman, is not all that shocked when she finds out that her mother was a prostitute and a madam, but she draws the line when she learns about the human trafficking and the orphanages, and that her mother is still in the business. Can mother and daughter ever reconcile?Shaw was not a sentimentalist (check out the ending of Pygmalion versus the ending of My Fair Lady), but Yde rewrites the ending out of the conviction that any person, no matter how sinful, can be forgiven and should be given an opportunity for redemption. I'm still not sure which conclusion, Shaw's or Yde's, is more true to life.There are other plot points which are better left for you to discover as you watch the play. Shaw's script is quite concise, but at the same time has extraneous material, probably to pad it out into four acts. There are only six characters, and yet Mr. Pansolini (in the original, he's Mr. Praed) is pretty superfluous. Yde picks up on a subtle hint I would have missed in Shaw's original that this man is most likely gay, and here he declares it forthrightly. The minister Gardner likewise has not much to do. Both of these roles, however, are well played by Dean Squibb and Scott Sharot, respectively.Phillip Shortell can always be counted on to be excellent. He's older than Shaw intended (Crofts should be about 50), but that's no matter. Shortell plays the capitalist with no conscience as the brute that he is, without softening him at all. Nick Pippin has been good in other roles I've seen him in, but here he is miscast as Vivie's suitor Frank Gardner. It's hard to tell whether he is coming on to Vivie and to Mrs. Warren, or to Pansolini. I guess that could be the point, that he tries to seduce everybody, but it only would work if he showed more machismo and confidence in his own sex appeal.Abby Van Gerpen does a generally fine job as Vivie, but is a little too stoic during the big revelations about her mother's life. She should be shaken to the core, but I didn't see it. Bridget Kelly is superb, as usual, as Mrs. Warren, worldly wise, more than a little tough, but still capable of being heartbroken, and altogether human. Overall, the actors are directed well by Yde, who used to be an actor himself.There's not much to comment on about the technical side of things, there being few props or lighting cues. However, the set is a mystery. Designed by Dean Squibb and executed by him and Susan Roden, it is defiantly unrealistic: a mural on three walls with faces peering out from behind what appear to be draperies, behind a row of chains. I don't know if this is what the designers had in mind, but to me it's Plato's cave, in which the masses of people are chained in darkness and allowed to know only what the powers that be allow them to see. This is a point brought up saliently in Yde's script, that the puppet-masters of our lives are the unseen power brokers. There is also a line early on (not in Shaw) about Plato's contention that children should be brought up apart from their parents (Plato intends this only for that small group destined to be philosopher-kings, but it has been widely misinterpreted). If the set is not meant to be Plato's cave, at least it's thought-provoking. See what you think. As for me, I think you should see this play.Mrs. Warren's Profession 2.0, Through February 25, 2018, at the Aux Dog Theatre Nob Hill, 3011 Monte Vista Blvd NE in Albuquerque NM. Fridays and Saturdays at 8:00, Sundays at 2:00. Tickets $8 to $18. Info at auxdogtheatre.org or 505-596-0607.


Many tourists are surprised to learn that the Salvation Army is located in the Red Light District. It has two buildings where volunteers provide assistance to the homeless. In addition, the employees of the Salvation Army also regularly visit the sex workers in the window brothels. This is done while offering free coffee and tea. The Salvation Army plays an important role in social control within the Red Light District. Learn about this while visiting their museum.


Highly relevant today, World War II has much to teach us, not only aboutthe profession of arms, but also about military preparedness, global strategy,and combined operations in the coalition war against fascism. During thenext several years, the U.S. Army will participate in the nation's 50thanniversary commemoration of World War II. The commemoration will includethe publication of various materials to help educate Americans about thatwar. The works produced will provide great opportunities to learn aboutand renew pride in an Army that fought so magnificently in what has beencalled "the mighty endeavor."World War II was waged on land, on sea, and in the air over severaldiverse theaters of operation for approximately six years. The followingessay on the critical support role of the Women's Army Corps supplementsa series of studies on the Army's campaigns of that war.This brochure was prepared in the U.S. Army Center of Military Historyby Judith A. Bellafaire. I hope this absorbing account of that period willenhance your appreciation of American achievements during World War II. The Women's Army Corps in World War II Over 150,000 American women served in the Women's Army Corps (WAC) duringWorld War 11. Members of the WAC were the first women other than nursesto serve within the ranks of the United States Army. Both the Army andthe American public initially had difficulty accepting the concept of womenin uniform. However, political and military leaders, faced with fightinga two-front war and supplying men and materiel for that war while continuingto send lend-lease material to the Allies, realized that women could supplythe additional resources so desperately needed in the military and industrialsectors. Given the opportunity to make a major contribution to the nationalwar effort, women seized it. By the end of the war their contributionswould be widely heralded. The Women 's Army Auxiliary Corps Early in 1941 Congresswoman Edith Nourse Rogers of Massachusetts met withGeneral George C. Marshall, the Army's Chief of Staff, and informed himthat she intended to introduce a bill to establish an Army women's corps,separate and distinct from the existing Army Nurse Corps.Rogers remembered the female civilians who had worked overseas withthe Army under contract and as volunteers during World War I as communicationsspecialists and dietitians. Because these women had served the Army withoutbenefit of official status, they had to obtain their own food and quarters,and they received no legal protection or medical care. Upon their returnhome they were not entitled to the disability benefits or pensions availableto U.S. military veterans. Rogers was determined that if women were toserve again with the Army in a wartime theater they would receive the samelegal protection and benefits as their male counterparts.As public sentiment increasingly favored the creation of some form ofa women's corps, Army leaders decided to work with Rogers to devise andsponsor an organization that would constitute the least threat to the Army'sexisting culture. Although Rogers believed the women's corps should bea part of the Army so that women would receive equal pay, pension, anddisability benefits, the Army did not want to accept women directly intoits ranks.The final bill represented a compromise between the two sides. The Women'sArmy Auxiliary Corps (WAAC) was established to work with the Army,"for the purpose of making available to the national defense the knowledge,skill, and special training of the women of the nation." The Army wouldprovide up to 150,000 "auxiliaries" with food, uniforms, living quarters,pay, and medical care. Women officers would not be allowed to command men.The Director of the WAAC was assigned the rank of major. WAAC first, second,and third officers served as the equivalents of captains and lieutenantsin the Regular Army, but received less pay than their male counterpartsof similar rank. For example, although the duties of a WAAC first officerwere comparable to those of a male captain, she received pay equivalentto that of a male first lieutenant. Enlisted women, referred to as "auxiliaries,"were ranked in descending order from chief leader, a position comparableto master sergeant in the Regular Army, through junior leader, comparableto corporal, and down to auxiliary, comparable to private.Although the compromise WAAC bill did not prohibit auxiliaries fromserving overseas, it failed to provide them with the overseas pay, governmentlife insurance, veterans medical coverage, and death benefits granted RegularArmy soldiers. If WAACs were captured, they had no protection under existinginternational agreements covering prisoners of war. Rogers' purpose inintroducing the WAAC bill had been to obtain pay, benefits, and protectionfor women working with the military. While she achieved some of her goals,many compromises had been necessary to get the bill onto the floor.Rogers introduced her bill in Congress in May 1941, but it failed toreceive serious consideration until after the Japanese attack on PearlHarbor in December. General Marshall's active support and congressionaltestimony helped the Rogers bill through Congress. Marshall believed thatthe two-front war in which the United States was engaged would cause aneventual manpower shortage. The Army could ill afford to spend the timeand money necessary to train men in essential service skills such as typingand switchboard operations when highly skilled women were already available.Marshall and others felt that women were inherently suited to certain criticalcommunications jobs which, while repetitious, demanded high levels of manualdexterity. They believed that men tended to become impatient with suchjobs and might make careless mistakes which could be costly during war.Congressional opposition to the bill centered around southern congressmen.With women in the armed services, one representative asked, "Who will thendo the cooking, the washing, the mending, the humble homey tasks to whichevery woman has devoted herself; who will nurture the children?" Aftera long and acrimonious debate which filled ninety-eight columns in theCongressional Record, the bill finally passed the House 249 to 86.The Senate approved the bill 38 to 27 on 14 May. When President FranklinD. Roosevelt signed the bill into law the next day, he set a recruitmentgoal of 25,000 for the first year. WAAC recruiting topped that goal byNovember, at which point Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson authorized WAACenrollment at 150,000, the original ceiling set by Congress.The day the bill became law, Stimson appointed Oveta Culp Hobby as Directorof the WAAC. As chief of the Women's Interest Section in the Public RelationsBureau at the War Department, Hobby had helped shepherd the WAAC bill throughCongress. She had impressed both the media and the public when she testifiedin favor of the WAAC bill in January. In the words of the Washington TimesHerald, "Mrs. Hobby has proved that a competent, efficient woman whoworks longer days than the sun does not need to look like the popularidea of a competent, efficient woman."Prior to her arrival in Washington, Hobby had had ten years' experienceas editor of a Houston newspaper. The wife of former Texas Governor WilliamP. Hobby, Oveta Culp Hobby was well versed in national and local politics.Before her marriage she had spent five years as a parliamentarian of theTexas legislature and had written a book on parliamentary procedure.Oveta Culp Hobby was thus the perfect choice for Director of the Women'sArmy Auxiliary Corps. The position needed a woman with a proven recordof achievement. The individual selected had to be politically astute, withan understanding of how things got done in Washington and in the War Department.Most important, the Director of the WAAC had to show a skeptical Americanpublic that a woman could be "a lady" and serve as a member of the armedforces at the same time. This was crucial to the success of the WAAC. Avolunteer force, the WAAC had to appeal to small town and middle-classAmerica to recruit the skilled clerical workers, teachers, stenographers,and telephone operators needed by the Army. The values and sensibilitiesof this middle class were very narrow, as exemplified by the words of CharityAdams, a WAAC officer candidate and later lieutenant colonel: "I made aconscientious effort to obtain every item on the list of suggested suppliesfor training camp except the slacks and shorts. I had never owned either,feeling that I was not the type to wear them." In small town America in1942, ladies did not wear slacks or shorts in public.Initially, Major Hobby and the WAAC captured the fancy of press andpublic alike. William Hobby was quoted again and again when he joked, "Mywife has so many ideas, some of them have got to be good!" Hobby handledher first press conference with typical aplomb. Although the press concentratedon such frivolous questions as whether WAACs would be allowed to wear makeupand date officers, Hobby diffused most such questions with calm sensibility.Only one statement by the Director caused unfavorable comment. "Any memberof the Corps who becomes pregnant will receive an immediate discharge,"said Hobby. The Times Herald claimed that the birth rate would beadversely affected if corps members were discouraged from having babies."This will hurt us twenty years from now," said the newspaper, "when weget ready to fight the next war." Several newspapers picked up this theme,which briefly caused much debate among columnists across the nation.Oveta Culp Hobby believed very strongly in the idea behind the Women'sArmy Auxiliary Corps. Every auxiliary who enlisted in the corps would betrained in a noncombatant military job and thus "free a man for combat."In this way American women could make an individual and significant contributionto the war effort. Hobby's sincerity aided her in presenting this conceptto the public. In frequent public speeches, she explained, "The gaps ourwomen will fill are in those noncombatant jobs where women's hands andwomen's hearts fit naturally. WAACs will do the same type of work whichwomen do in civilian life. They will bear the same relation to men of theArmy that they bear to the men of the civilian organizations in which theyw


https://soundcloud.com/missndebmendsich1976/why-is-adobe-photography-cheaper-than-photoshop-best

https://soundcloud.com/tirapieru/fl-studio-mobile-apk-cracked-free-download-repack

About

Welcome to the group! You can connect with other members, ge...
bottom of page