Joss Post at Whedonesque by FireflyPassenger

Quote:
Originally posted by Sassalicious:
Can I have a houseboat instead of a house?

Houseboat? Sure thing.... but not up here in Wisconsin. Wisconsin sucks. I don't want to be here. When I come to visit I want to be able to go skinny dipping in December. Start your search for Utopia waaaaaaay south.

I read your post again after I posted and I know you weren't really saying that it's all men's fault like I thought you were when I first read it. I'm really sorry to hear about your acquaintence and her incident.

Just don't forget that we're not all bad guys. ;)

SCHMOE - I posted about the attack a while back in a "near death experiences" thread in here before. It's really quite a long story, so I won't get back into it here. Thanks for asking. There were no long term physical problems from the incident, actually the doctors said that he must have been a surgeon to have cut me so deep in my lower back without puncturing a single organ. I'm not the party guy I was before that night though. I'm actually rather anti-social about 80% of the time now, though that comes and goes. (What triggers it, I don't think I'll ever know). I'm pretty much always on guard when I'm out anywhere now too, which in itself isn't a bad thing considering the state of affairs in the world today. Funny thing, how the mind works.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 25, 2007 5:51 PM

[quoute]Chris, many sociologists have posited that thousands of years ago, women were the centers of power and through the centuries that changed. Just because men were at one time low on the totem pole doesn't mean that they were somehow weaker per se. After all, now they are on top, and we can see that they aren't weaker. Thus, following that argument, just because women aren't currently in power does not mean that they are somehow weaker.

I'd say that it meant they were weaker at the time. Anyone who allows themselves to be subjected to someone else is weaker than them. I might be able to physically pummel President Bush, but he is stronger politically than I am physically. Evolution is a tricky thing for humans, survival of the fittest stopped being a purely physical and mental game a long time ago. We can now have areas like socialism, politics, and money. I don't know what men would have used to get ahead, truthfully I don't care.

This goes deeper than just gender. It can easily be applied to race as well, like I alluded to with the "White Guilt" reference. But the main point is this: If you associate yourself with Repressed Group X, then you're asking for a hand out. Be the one person of that group who makes it. Enough of you start thinking like that, and the group wont be repressed anymore. I really hate this idea of anyone trying to rally people to activism for ideas like "equality". I'll fight in a war to keep people from getting stoned to death, because that's wrong, but it's not wrong because it's a female, it's wrong because she's a sentient creature. Why the hell does her being female have any relevence? Would this have been better if it was a guy? Would the mass killings be less tragic if it was a majority of males being killed?

As far as earning respect and equality goes, she'd need to earn her place like anyone else.

Also, I don't know why so many online sources list this as being "almost exclusively" done to females. Islamic families will offer up their men just as often to settle fueds over land and property. I've personally witnessed something as stupid as two families giving over one male member to the other and executing them to settle a dispute. That's right, both families lose a member so that they can call the fued "even". So from my perspective, women are not getting killed for being female, rather, people are getting killed for living in a shitty corner of the globe.

[IMG]

Ride down from Asgard to the battlefield,
Bringer of the valiant dead who died but never yielded,
Carry we who die in battle over land and sea,
Across the rainbow bridge to Valhalla,
Odin's waiting for me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 25, 2007 6:55 PM

You're right, Chris,

Quote:
it's not wrong because it's a female, it's wrong because she's a sentient creature

.

Of course, it is not more wrong to kill a female than a male. I don't believe that was Whedon's argument. I believe his argument was that because Dua Khalil was female that violence and abuse were more likely to happen to her.

He then argues that we should work to end this particular kind of violence. I'm sure you would agree that Whedon did not advocate letting violence against men continue. He was just speaking about a certain behavior and how to work to abolish that specific behavior. If I were to say, "Chris, better chop off that rattlesnake's head" that would not mean that I wouldn't want you to squish a Black Widow spider should it attack you. I am just warning of the danger that is most in my mind at the moment. Whedon had just watched Dua Khalil's sad death and he was attempting to help by speaking out against that specific kind of violence that he had just seen. A violence that led to a terrible tragedy.

Part of the tragedy of Dua Khalil is that she cannot earn respect any more. She is dead and she is dead because she is a woman. That did not make her weak, that made her powerless. There is a difference. To use a show we both love as an example, Mal was not weak but he was powerless in Niska's chamber.

To urge humanity to band together to aid the powerless as Whedon did is not "taking power away" as you stated in your earlier post. If you have ever tried to break a bunch of sticks bundled together, you know how strong that bundle can be. Whedon is attempting to bundle people together so that together they are powerful enough to defeat those who would perpetuate a particular kind of violence--that against women.

Just because Whedon advocates for women doesn't mean that he can only see that cause as worthy. And if the cause you want to fight for is non-violence against both genders in the Middle East, then more power to you. We all need to fight for the cause that speaks to our individual hearts. Just remember that fighting for the powerless is not taking power from anybody. It is adding power to everybody.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 25, 2007 8:30 PM

Just as was said before, this woman did not die because she was a woman. She died because she broke the backwards laws or rules or whatever the fuck in a shitty corner of the globe. As was also stated before, many men die prematurley there for things we would think unfathomable in the 21st century in "civilized" society. Don't even pretend to know the statistics and tell me that women die more often there than men do. I wouldn't believe any numbers you gave me, and you shouldn't believe any numbers somebody tells you either.

Don't worry your little head about it.... the Alliance (Dubya's Army boys) are over there now meddling and in 50 or a 100 years or maybe even sooner they'll be watching Iraqi MTV racking up debt they'll never be able to pay off and having oral sex at 13 years old just like we do over here.

If you want to make this a cause, more power to you. I don't see how anything you do couldn't end up being a complete waste of time. I think there's probably a million causes you could put yourself to use for stateside, but to each their own....

Personally, this is a complete non-issue for me. I feel no guilt about her death and I feel no sympathy for her people. This is not a race thing, this is not a religion thing. I don't wish them ill, I just couldn't care less. I don't know these people, they mean nothing to me. Call me cold, call me insensitive, call me inhuman, call me what you will as long as it's not racist or sexist or any other nasty "-ist" word that people throw about to damage the reputations of others and maniputlate and twist their words, but I have me and I have my own to worry about. This world is going to start getting a lot tougher for everybody as the 3rd world becomes mainstream, populations continue to grow exponentially, and our earthly resourses grow ever more scarce, and it will be the hardest on those of us who have practically had everything handed to us their entire lives.

Who do you think is going to have an easier time adapting to having next to nothing when that day comes? The guy living in the McMansion with heat, A/C, 5 televisions, 3 computers, and a relatively uncorrupted suburbanite police force..... or the guy that lives with practically noting but the sand in hs butt crack all day, surrounded by corrupt politicians and police and religious leaders, who's main hobbys include and are basically limited to doing anything to survive another day?

Most whiny bleeding heart Americans have a real rude awakening on the horizon and if you don't prepare for the future, you're going to be one of the ones in debtors prison or completely dependent on the Government for life support.

Every day there are attemtps made to make me feel bad as a person. They try to make me feel bad for being Human, they try to make me feel bad for being white, they try to make me feel bad for being a male, they try to make me feel bad for being American, they try to make me feel bad for being a smoker.... blah, blah, blah.....

Well..... THEY can go FUCK themselves.

and Chris.... this quote is beautiful

Quote:
it's not wrong because it's a female, it's wrong because she's a sentient creature

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 26, 2007 5:06 AM

Jack, I enjoy discussing ideas with those who aren't afraid to have opinions even if those opinions are different than mine soooo... You said,

Quote:
Don't even pretend to know the statistics and tell me that women die more often there than men do. I wouldn't believe any numbers you gave me, and you shouldn't believe any numbers somebody tells you either.

You've set the parameters of allowing me no statistics. Brutal! No science, only opinion allowed. Well, at least I don't have to do any research.

Quote:
this woman did not die because she was a woman. She died because she broke the backwards laws or rules or whatever ...in a shitty corner of the globe.

You are right that she died because she was perceived as having broke the rules of her society. Unfortunately, in her case,those perceived rules were applied to her because she was a woman so Dua Khalil did die because she was a woman.

Now, I'm going to do something that is risky because you aren't here to correct me. I'm going to restate your argument and I hope I get it right. Your argument appears to be that because the world is getting "tougher," you need to prepare yourself for "living on next to nothing" and you don't have the energy to worry about what happens to

Quote:
these people, they mean nothing to me

. (I couldn't help but notice your similarity to Jayne there.

)

You have a point, you can't worry about everybody and you can't fix all the world's ills. And I'm sorry that people try and make you feel like you are a bad person simply because you are white, male, and American. They are behaving no better than a person who tries to make someone feel bad because they are black, female, and from a ghetto. However, Whedon's point was just that---people shouldn't be made to feel bad, be subject to violence, or to special rules simply because they are something--in Dua Khalil's case because she was a woman.

Dua Khalil's death is not wrong because she is a woman but it happened because she was a woman. Whedon does not diminish the horror of any man's death. He simply agrees with you that people shouldn't be made to feel bad (or worse!) because of something they are born being. He asks us all to examine ourselves as to how we are contributing to making women feel bad. Perhaps the larger question, that he didn't ask, would be what are we doing to make anyone feel bad.

So, with that in mind, I hope I don't offend you by pointing out that my pretty little head is attached to the body of a martial artist and my pretty little head has kept afloat a small school for over 5 years. I, and Whedon, won't ask you to sacrifice huge amounts of money or time. I, and I think Whedon, would just like you to give women the respect that you would like to have given you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 26, 2007 5:34 AM

AGENTROUKA

To add one point to Redhead's beautiful post...

Quote:
Originally posted by redhead:
I, and I think Whedon, would just like you to give women the respect that you would like to have given you.

And if you are already doing it... no reason to feel defensive. Obviously, you are not the target audience, so just keep on doing the right thing and be proud of that.

Can women call for equality without men being offended and saying they have to apologize for having a penis? Can people who have nothing to feel bad about just... not consider themselves attacked? I'm all open for being told what specific language should be changed to make that easier, but I am not really open to pretending that women, globally, aren't still in a much worse position than men are, for whatever reason.

In that context:

WHERE THE HELL were the women who knew Dua Khalil? Mother, sisters, aunts, nieces, friends?
Where they watching and cheering her death? Were they locked up somewhere, unable to help? Did they know? They must have known!

I can't imagine that a bunch of women as large as that bunch of men, rushing to help her would not have caused a disturbance big enough to maybe save her life.

Women failed her just as much as men did.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 26, 2007 8:01 AM

PROPHETESS89

For the first time in a long time, I am proud to be alive. To be a part of the human race.

This post, voicing so loudly and so clearly, of a subject that has been haunting me for as long as I have understood violence against our fellow creatures and the implications of such a thing, has made me realize that not all people are so hopelessly apathetic.

Sometimes we all get lost in our own lives. It's human. It's what makes us real. And it's okay, as long as you come back to the big picture and decide to be a part of it. Too many people don't come back however, and some people even lose themselves to a new kind of selfishness.

I have spent years being bitterly angry with men for everything they have taken from women. But then I realized, they didn't take anything from us. We still have every advantage and every hope that we had from the very beginning... It's just never been shown to us. We are just beginning to realize our true worth and potential.

In a hypocritical world filled with both men and women who have skewed ideas of what it is to be feminine we have to step up and define female ourselves. In the process, we have to look at violence against women, against anyone in fact, and SAY that is NOT okay! This is NOT how things are supposed to be.

In a perfect world, people would be kind, considerate, and no one would need to die for a cause, but we don't live in a perfect world. Not even close. But by taking the initiative, by taking little baby steps-- stopping an act of violence, speaking out against something that is wrong, writing a letter (thank you Joss)-- we are moving towards a better world.

Joss, you are amazing. I see in you a true humanitarian and someone who could change the world with a word (in this case a blog/post thing). I thank you for sharing and putting into words what I have only begun to question. I am profoundly touched by your empathy and I hope more than one person has truly heard what you have to say. Keep saying what you're saying and doing what you're doing.

and you are correct. The sky is not evil. It's beautiful.

Cassie...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 26, 2007 9:45 AM

KAIN

Wish this could somehow be (wo)mandatory reading for everyone.

Kain

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 26, 2007 1:53 PM

I'll fess up and say that I didn't read every single post in this thread (or the even longer one at Wheadonesque), so my sincere apologies if someone else has made this point.

Women, in general, are physically smaller and weaker than men. That's just the way things are, not a lot we can do about that.

However, women are also (in many cases) weaker emotionally and psychologically than men, making them more likely to be victimized (most often, by a man or men). I think this is the result of acculturation and can be changed.

I'm a perfect example...I grew up in a house with an uber-male, ex-Navy, ex-Police Officer dad. I was trained to respect (or more accurately, be in fear of) authority figures. (And still, in 2007, most authority figures are men.) I was raised to be deferential to men and authority figures, and to do what I was told.

There was also an underlying assumption (never even questioned) that women didn't need to learn how to protect themselves, because that's a man's job. It's a husband's/father's/boyfriend's job to protect you. (Unless, of course, he was the one beating you up.)

This kind of upbringing made me ripe for victimisation, and that's exactly what happened. I was sexually harassed by a supervisor at work (eventually losing my job and nearly everything else as a result of it) and on one occasion I was date-raped by a man I had started seeing.

At the time, I simply didn't have the mindset that would have allowed me to physically fight back. Even in this day and age, women are told to not fight back against an attacker, they're told to try to verbally de-escalate the situation or run away. Worst of all, women are told not to carry a gun because a perp will just "take it away from you."

Well, ladies and gentlemen, whomever said that needs to be drug out back and shot. The fact is that a woman who behaves passively is 2.5 times as likely to end up being seriously injured as a woman who has a gun. (John Lott, "More Guns, Less Crime", great interview about the book at http://www.reason.com/news/show/27562.html)

Women are victims because we allow ourselves to be victimized.

The good thing about being assaulted and surviving is that you have the chance to hit rock bottom and then rebuild your life from scratch. In my second go-round, I decided I would no longer be a victim. I did a lot of self-improvement work and upped my self-esteem. A boyfriend took me shooting for the first time, and I got over my fear of guns. I didn't buy a gun at the time, but I finally got my mind right--I AM A WORTHY HUMAN BEING and I HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEFEND MYSELF.

Then there was Virginia Tech. A woman-hating sociopath was able to fire 170 rounds, unopposed, into dozens of sitting-duck victims, starting with his ex-girlfriend. Most were killed, slaughterhouse-style, with single shots to the head. That was the tipping point for me...when I realized that not one of those women defended herself--and for the most part, the men around them didn't either. And they all died.

So last month I took the NRA Basic Pistol class that would allow me to qualify to carry a concealed weapon in my state. I bought a gun, I went to the range, and I learned how to use it.

Now I have something in common with Joss' strong women--I AM ARMED. Has anyone else noticed that? One of the reasons Joss' women can kick ass is that they have weaponry--and it's acting as a Great Equalizer. In addition to her hand combat skills, little Buffy has a trunk full of weapons and she knows how to use them. Tiny waif-like River can take out an Alliance soldier with one shot. Zoe, is, of course, a soldier. Even Inara packs exploding firewords disguised as incense.

Guns are indeed the great equalizer. Learning how to use a gun has changed my life. I now take complete responsibility for my own life and my own safety. I have the tools, mindset, and now, I believe, the duty to defend myself and my loved ones.

I urge every woman reading this to sign up for the next basic pistol class in your town. Then get a gun and learn how to use and carry it safely. I don't say this lightly; I believe (and statistics indicate) that in concealed-carry states, the more women who are armed, the fewer women are raped, mugged, and murdered.

Time to cowboy up, ladies. Our lives are in our own hands.

Mal: And don't you ever stand for that sort of thing. Someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill 'em right back! You got the right same as anyone to live and try to kill people.

-----
It's my job to incite powerful yearning in the hearts and loins of my clients. No, silly, I'm not a Companion...I work at an advertising agency.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 26, 2007 3:15 PM

Not only do I endorse it, but I nominate KayleeWannabee's post as post of the year on the entire internet.

Always a breath of fresh air to have female endorsement protecting or most important Constitutional right to combat Rosie and Oprah thinking. Thank you KaleeWannabee!

(I do not own a firearm myself, but I am aware that without the right to bear arms, all of our other rights are, or will be, meaningless).

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 26, 2007 3:42 PM

CYBERSNARK

Quote:
Originally posted by KayleeWannabee:
However, women are also (in many cases) weaker emotionally and psychologically than men, making them more likely to be victimized (most often, by a man or men). I think this is the result of acculturation and can be changed.

That goes both ways too. Like someone wrote in a Buffy book that I don't own: "There'll be more Buffies when there are more Xanders."

There's plenty of room to "re-educate" guys as well.

Hell, I grew up surrounded by stories of women like Lisa Hayes, Miriya Parino-Sterling, Dana Sterling, Princess Cimmorene, Kazul the Dragon, Beverly Crusher, Deanna Troi, Princess Leia, Mara Jade, Barbara "Oracle" Gordon, Supergirl, Wonder Woman, Lois Lane, Elisa Maza, and the Sailor Scouts. They were nobody's victims.

It boggles my mind that there are still guys out there (in North American society --I've met some) who still buy into the "women = weak/stupid" He-Man crap (which didn't even hold true in He-Man, ironically enough).

I've never met a woman that I'd call inferior.

*wonders if anyone here knows who Cimmorene is*

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 26, 2007 4:08 PM

Reading this post reminds me of how I came to be fan of Joss Wheadon in the first place. I heard him interviewed and talking about what led him to create Buffy the Vampire Slayer several years ago. He talked about his respect for strong women and how he disliked the way they have been portrayed in films.

I read through most of the posts that followed this one and I'm always fascinated how themes evolve and morph. As one of the older (age-wise) Browncoats and female, I have lived through earlier feminist experiences, the rise and fall of the Equal Rights Amendement (the question they asked us then was why do women need equal rights anyway?) and other such events.

Reading Joss' quite eloquent rants is stimulating and insightful in a number of ways. Like all his shows, I'll read it again and continue to think about it. While there is anger and frustration, he also posits a challenge not to accept the inevitability of the worst of civilization. What does it matter whether his theories are correct or not? Womb envy or penis envy are only words we use to try to make sense of the senseless. I personally don't see why anyone should feel guilty about having a penis or a womb, being white, black, American. Those aren't choices they are simply who we are - like having brown eyes. Religion is another matter. That we can choose and use for good or ill. I'm not a religious person. I'm not even sure if I'm spiritual.

I try to be a good person, to be honest, caring and do no harm. I avoid watching reality based shows or movies that poison my mind and heart with horror. I'm not exceptionally good but I try to be humane and support ideas, causes and people that have the potential to elevate us as human beings.

Maybe we are headed for chaos and disaster. Maybe it will get worse and only the rich and powerful will survive in their mansions with all their stuff. However, people have learned to rise above themselves in the past. I have to believe that we can choose to do so and continue to work toward a future that is better and saner for everyone. Maybe I'm a foolish, idealistic dreamer. I thought I had become more cynical as I've gotten older. I don't know that I have faith or hope but I'll try for compassion. There's that "C" word again. Compassion for myself and my failures, my humaness, my weakness (as a woman and as a person). I'm reminded of Madelein L'Engle's A Wrinkle in Time...."such frail vessels..." Yeah, Joss!

Siri

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 26, 2007 4:14 PM

REDHEAD: First let me say thank you for a civil debate. I realize that I can come of as extremely argumentative and this is usually out of frustration and rarely is it directed personally at anyone, but more in fierce opposition of things that are said that I don't believe. Thank you for recognizing my words as not a personal attack or an attack on woman, but more an attack on just another thing that I percieve as another huge and unwelcome guilt trip that Joss is putting on men, many of which don't diserve it in the least.

That being said, I'd like to take the time now to address your thoughts.

Quote:
You've set the parameters of allowing me no statistics. Brutal! No science, only opinion allowed. Well, at least I don't have to do any research.

If we were to live there and see it with our own eyes, it would be one thing, but this is not the case. Frankly, I don't believe a single statistic I've ever read. Statistics are skewed in favor of whatever point is trying to be made with them, and they get away with this because usually there is no way to really prove them wrong. I worked for a retired Repuglican Congressman doing political campaigns and demographics and I know first hand how numbers are manipulated to get a point across. All somebody needs to do is put those two words "Experts say" and it legitimatizes any numbers that follow. So, if you want to look at numbers for your own benefit, great. I was just saving you the trouble of looking them up on my behalf, because I give them no creedence. I haven't decided whether God exists or not, and I figure if I can't do that than I certainly am not going to give blind faith to any concept that I haven't seen with my own eyes.

Quote:
You are right that she died because she was perceived as having broke the rules of her society. Unfortunately, in her case,those perceived rules were applied to her because she was a woman so Dua Khalil did die because she was a woman.

I'm not arguing that in her particular case she is dead because she broke whatever freaky rules women are supposed to abide by there. She did not die because she was a woman though. She died because she lives in a backwards place where women have to live by concepts that are very foreign to us and she broke the rules. My point is that the men there also have to live by a code of ethics that is very foreign to us and without knowing firsthand by living there I would not doubt that many men are lynched and killed for ideals that we can't comprehend in the West.

Quote:
Now, I'm going to do something that is risky because you aren't here to correct me. I'm going to restate your argument and I hope I get it right. Your argument appears to be that because the world is getting "tougher," you need to prepare yourself for "living on next to nothing" and you don't have the energy to worry about what happens to
Quote:
these people, they mean nothing to me
. (I couldn't help but notice your similarity to Jayne there.)

Heh.... It is rather Jaynelike, isn't it?

It's not that I don't have the energy to spend on worrying about these people, it's that I choose not to waste energy worrying about these people. Not only is there absolutely nothing that I can do for them in the first place, but there are plenty of causes to get behind right here, and I assume, that there are many ways you could start yourself by just helping those that are close to you (family and friends).

Quote:
You have a point, you can't worry about everybody and you can't fix all the world's ills. And I'm sorry that people try and make you feel like you are a bad person simply because you are white, male, and American. They are behaving no better than a person who tries to make someone feel bad because they are black, female, and from a ghetto. However, Whedon's point was just that---people shouldn't be made to feel bad, be subject to violence, or to special rules simply because they are something--in Dua Khalil's case because she was a woman.

Dua Khalil's death is not wrong because she is a woman but it happened because she was a woman. Whedon does not diminish the horror of any man's death. He simply agrees with you that people shouldn't be made to feel bad (or worse!) because of something they are born being. He asks us all to examine ourselves as to how we are contributing to making women feel bad. Perhaps the larger question, that he didn't ask, would be what are we doing to make anyone feel bad.

So, with that in mind, I hope I don't offend you by pointing out that my pretty little head is attached to the body of a martial artist and my pretty little head has kept afloat a small school for over 5 years. I, and Whedon, won't ask you to sacrifice huge amounts of money or time. I, and I think Whedon, would just like you to give women the respect that you would like to have given you.

Do onto others as you would have them do onto you.....

No arguments here. I would just like to remind people that although I don't get physically assulted on a daily basis because I'm Human, American, White, Male, a Smoker, ect..., I have to deal with a psychological and political attack against me and people like me every day.

In the West, we have laws that will put any douchebag that beats his wife or girlfriend or date rapes a girl behind bars. They did bad things, as Chris would have said "against another sentient being" and diserve to be punished. Where is my justice though? When does this psychological attack on everything I am end? I've never victimized a woman. I've never raped anyone. I don't go beating up peole needlessly or try to ruin anyone's life. Still, I have the Surgeon General telling the world that I'm destroying the ozone layer, giving cancer via secondhand smoke, and killing babies via SIDS with my cigarettes. (More bullshit studies and statistics by "The Experts). I know in my heart that I'm not a bad person, but I have to hear about how I'm a bad person everyday simply because of my demographics. This is something that women in the West today don't understand because if any of this were directed towards them it would be a hate crime, or at the very least sexist and a fireable offence. It's a double-standard that I'm not at all comfortable with and quite frankly I am growing very tired of.

My problem with nearly the entirity of Joss's post is that he's just another person legitimatizing all of these things that I just said that I'm growing tired of. This may not have been his intention, but this is in effect the end result. What should he care? He's a multimillionaire that doesn't have to deal with all of the crap that Joe Nobody has to deal with on a daily basis. That and the fact that women who he doesn't even know just drool over him, and things like these just make them salivate more.

I hope that makes sense, although I doubt you'll agree with me. Yes, because you are a woman. And no... not because women are beneath men or inferior in anyway that would make them unable to grasp these concepts, but because of your demographic, you couldn't know what it's like to be a twentysomething male just trying to make it by in the West in the 21st Century.

AgentRouka: I don't kowtow to women. I'm assuming that is not what you are asking for. I treat women with the same respect that I treat men. As you know I'm very argumentative, and you've probably noticed that I get in as many arguments with men as I do women here. I'm not proud of this though. Why should I be? I don't think anybody should feel pride for respecting other human beings. It's something that you should just do.

Quote:
Can women call for equality without men being offended and saying they have to apologize for having a penis? Can people who have nothing to feel bad about just... not consider themselves attacked? I'm all open for being told what specific language should be changed to make that easier, but I am not really open to pretending that women, globally, aren't still in a much worse position than men are, for whatever reason.

In short, no. Not anymore. Globally, you may be right that women are not treated equally, but I look around me and I don't believe that women are treated poorly simply because of their sex. In fact, women are given certain extra liberties that men are not allowed. Everytime something is said about this issue, men are all thrown together. So when someone talks about men in general mistreating women, I as a male, take great offence to it. I'm quickly growing very sick of that shit.

I'm also tired of every TV show depicting the husband as the idiot and the wife as the brains of the family that keeps the idiot husband in line. I see it everywhere around me now. It's mainly subversive, but men are being treated like shit now. It's just the pendulum swinging the other way, but that doesn't mean that I can't take notice of it and have a gripe with it.

Quote:
WHERE THE HELL were the women who knew Dua Khalil? Mother, sisters, aunts, nieces, friends?
Where they watching and cheering her death? Were they locked up somewhere, unable to help? Did they know? They must have known!

I can't imagine that a bunch of women as large as that bunch of men, rushing to help her would not have caused a disturbance big enough to maybe save her life.

Women failed her just as much as men did.

I would assume here that the women believed just as much as the men that she should have paid for what she had done. Remember, WE are the Alliance and WE are going to go over there to meddle and change the way they have been doing things for thousands of years. They don't have feminist man-hater's clubs there, nor would I imagine they have they ever thought they needed one in the first place. Women in this country didn't realize they were even oppressed on a large enough scale to matter until we became an entertainment based culture and movies started portraying women as self-sufficient and strong characters. (Not that I disagree that they are and/or can be these things, they just didn't know it until they were being reaffirmed everyday by the various media outlets).

In the East they've done things that way for thousands of years. This was what my cynical remark above was about:

"Don't worry your little head about it.... the Alliance (Dubya's Army boys) are over there now meddling and in 50 or a 100 years or maybe even sooner they'll be watching Iraqi MTV racking up debt they'll never be able to pay off and having oral sex at 13 years old just like we do over here."

It's true... there will be a lot of good done over there when we've completely changed the way these people live, but at what cost? Along with the good of our society, they will adopt all of our society's ills.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 26, 2007 4:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cybersnark:
I've never met a woman that I'd call inferior.

I've met plenty of people who I'd call inferior. Some of them just happen to be women.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 26, 2007 4:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Not only do I endorse it, but I nominate KayleeWannabee's post as post of the year on the entire internet.

Always a breath of fresh air to have female endorsement protecting or most important Constitutional right to combat Rosie and Oprah thinking. Thank you KaleeWannabee!

The whole entire Internet? You're too kind.

I realize that what I've said will probably frighten and offend some folks who read it, but I truly in my heart believe that we women have to grow up and learn to take care of ourselves. Take responsibility (sometimes spelled response-ability). While there are mostly good and kind and rational people in the world, in some latitudes they seem to be few and far between. And we have to have the means to deal with them.

I think it's quite significant that Joss' strong women characters tend to be slight--but they also tend to be heavily armed. Even in the comic book genre, female superhero(ine) characters tend to have either weapons or some innate weapon-like characteristic that gives them as much (if not more)power as the male characters.

Just another 2¢.

-----
It's my job to incite powerful yearning in the hearts and loins of my clients. No, silly, I'm not a Companion...I work at an advertising agency.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 26, 2007 7:38 PM

KayleeWannabee, the things you said needed to be said by someone. But being a male and having said them in the past, I caught all matter of hell for it. Specifically the sentiment that "Women are victimized because they allow themselves to be". I am so very glad to hear it come from a female. Not because it takes responsability away from me, for you see, it never was my responsability. I'm glad because it means that at least one female is taking steps towards empowering herself.

I would also very much like to echoe the sentiments of 6StringJack. I don't care about this tragedy or that tragedy, because I am not responsabile for them, and more than that, because I have absolutely no personal control over them. I think my biggest problem with Joss's post is that he asserts that activism can change anything. Last I checked, China still controlled Tibet.

The unfortunate thing about living in a physical realm is that that's how things have to get done. I might not care about any particular issue personally, but I'm happy to start caring when my job puts me in a position to. The basic idea is that we can only solve so many problems at once, and that it is WE, the military, who solves them, not college kids with picket signs. Passive nature is what got half these people into the shitty positions that they're in today. If women started stoning people back, I don't forsee honor killings being so much of a problem in the next 10 years or so.

This really could lead me into personal philosophies about conflict and war being the center of and perpetuating factor in existance, but people don't like to hear that type of stuff in general.

[IMG]

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 26, 2007 9:51 PM

Jack,
When I was thinking about how to respond to you, I put this quote from your post on my paper

Quote:
I know in my heart that I'm not a bad person, but I have to hear about how I'm a bad person everyday simply because of my demographics. This is something that women in the West today don't understand because if any of this were directed towards them it would be a hate crime, or at the very least sexist and a fireable offence. It's a double-standard that I'm not at all comfortable with and quite frankly I am growing very tired of.

I’ve read it over and over because it touched me. I am occasionally guilty of lumping all men in the You-have-done-this-to-me-and-my-gender basket. And I don’t blame you for resenting it.

However, when you turned to AgentRouka and said

Quote:
Globally, you may be right that women are not treated equally, but I look around me and I don't believe that women are treated poorly simply because of their sex.

I believe that you, too, are guilty (as most of us are) of only feeling the wounds on your own body. It is hard to look from another’s perspective and see another’s pain. But I think Kayleewannabe’s experience shows that women “are treated poorly because of their sex.” She speaks of how acculturization has made some women “weaker emotionally and psychologically.” She speaks eloquently of her own experience with our American culture. She wasn’t stoned like Dua Khalil but she suffered also--as most women have. Since I’m not allowed to use statistics

, I will have to bring in anecdotal experience.

In any gathering I’ve been, where women are with close friends and over about 25 years old (this allows them time to have these experiences), at least a quarter will admit to having experienced sexual abuse by a male family member, or date rape (or at least attempted date rape). In addition, they experience little indignities that are generally not the province of the male. I personally have lost count of how many times men (not my lovers) have pinched, slapped or otherwise fondled some part of my anatomy just because I happened to be walking by them. Before I learned how to discriminate on the kind of men I dated, several times I had bruises from pressing into the inside of a car door in attempts to avoid unwanted groping.

Now, because I’m complaining of experiences I have had with some men does not mean you should feel some kind of collective guilt. I don’t blame you for these men's actions. I am just saying that our culture often portrays women as bodies to be conquered not people to be enjoyed. And our culture does indeed treat women poorly.

Having said that, I understand why you and others, as men, take offence when Whedon points out how poorly women are treated. You might think he is pointing his accusations at you. However, I believe he was speaking to both genders. I certainly took it that he was talking to women also. I believe with Chris and Kayleewannabe that women have some responsibility for standing up for themselves (I am a martial artist after all

) and I believe that men also have a responsibility to behave in ways that respect the other gender. If you are already doing that, then by all means ignore Whedon. But I believe that I need to do more to stand up for my own gender.

And, Chris, I would argue with you that it is “the military, who solves {problems}, not college kids with picket signs.” I would say that what is happening in Iraq is a pretty good indication of how many problems military intervention solves. (I have nothing but respect for men and women risking their lives. I just don’t think they are succeeding in solving problems there).

That doesn’t mean that military action never solves problems just that it rarely does. Those same “college kids with picket signs” are following in the fine tradition of Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr. While I don’t see Whedon on a par with either of these men, his blog is a cry from the same tradition. He asks, as do those great men, that we reach out to change our own behavior. I, for one, intend to try.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 27, 2007 12:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by redhead:
I’ve read it over and over because it touched me. I am occasionally guilty of lumping all men in the You-have-done-this-to-me-and-my-gender basket. And I don’t blame you for resenting it.

However, when you turned to AgentRouka and said

Quote:
Globally, you may be right that women are not treated equally, but I look around me and I don't believe that women are treated poorly simply because of their sex.

I believe that you, too, are guilty (as most of us are) of only feeling the wounds on your own body. It is hard to look from another’s perspective and see another’s pain.

Perhaps we have both been guilty of that. This is a very good point. Maybe I underestimate the volume of cases similar to this. I grew up in what was considered a "good" neighborhood, and though you might have heard about an incident from time to time, you really didn't know anybody anything like this happened to. Maybe we were spoiled? I'm glad that what I had said previously had touched you though.

We don't live in Utopia and we never will. I don't think we'd be happy in Utopia either, unless we all had lobotomies (which incidentally would probably be the only way we could live in a Utopia in the first place). It's a dangerous world out there for both sexes, not just in the military, but even here at home. Barring 9/11, we've been much luckier than citizens of most countries, and though I hope it continues on that way, I have very little faith that it will. This is why I do whatever I can to save every penny I make. I plan on getting myself armed while the law still allows me to do that and I'd like to learn survivalist tecniques and learn how to raise livestock and crops. My plan is to be as self-sufficient and off the grid as I possibly can be so if the shit ever hits the fan I will be one of the people in a position not to have to worry much about it. This is where the ability to arm yourself would be VERY important. I can have all the bottled water and canned food in the world, but I'm not going to live long enough to enjoy it if the guy down the road who has nothing but a gun decides he'd like to squat at my little fortress and all I have is an old baseball bat.

Sorry.... I tend to go off on tangents...

My point is, I think Kaylee's post was so refreshing in so many levels because it was a message of female empowerment, and such a unique one to boot. It was not an interest group thing, it was not a "what are you going to do for me" thing, it was not a blame anyone else thing. It said this is what I am... I'm proud of what I am... these are my strengths, these are my weekenesses and this is what I need to do for myself.

I know plenty of women who would never allow something like that to happen to them, and I can do nothing now but assume that KayleeW is one of these women. It may have taken something horrible to happen to her to make her that way and that made it a double edged sword, but it will not be happening again and I don't believe she'll ever have daughters that allow it to happen to them earlier. I know that most men in "civilized" society are not like this and I feel that every year there are more women who do for themselves what it takes not to let themselves be weak and victimized. The important thing is for women to be self empowered without developing a hatered for men because a few of us are bad. Women don't like being judged like that and neither do minorities and I see no reason to do that to men either. I hope that one day when something like this does happen, it is such a rare occurance that instead of being a "sex" issue it is only recognized as the crime that it is and the perps are punished justfully and the issue is put to bed and not paraded around for a cause.

Now I admit to have seen the occasional ass slap here and there, but let me tell you a little personal story. When I was in Jr. High, I was one of the smallest kids in the class. I also wore braces and glasses too. Suffice it to say, I was not the most popular guy in class. I was borderline obsessed with this popular girl (which blinded me to the fact that there were other cute girls that liked me but I didn't know that till high school because I was completely oblivious to it at the time). I asked her out a few times and even asked her to dance at one of our dances and she always turned me down. (I always appreciated how nice she was about it while her girlfriends would laugh at me as I sulked away) Now, I would never have gone around slapping girls on the ass. Maybe that was because I was raised by a single mother, but I also have friends who's parents weren't divorced who wouldn't do that either, so I don't know. There was this guy, we'll call him Rick, that went around slapping girls on the ass quite often. I remember even telling my mom about it and I know she didn't approve of that none too much. Well, he ended up dating that girl for a majority of 8th grade, even when he'd go around slapping other girls on the ass........

Does this not send mixed messages? Now I don't mean to generalize, but why does it seem that women often say they want one thing but act a completley different way? Why when I got older and acted colder and more distant around girls were they more attracted to me? Why would a girl be even more into me when she knew other women were and I had a wandering eye? I would have done anything for that girl in 8th grade and although I've always treated every woman I've ever been with with respect, I don't think I'll ever feel that way about another woman in my life.... at least I haven't yet.

I'm just wondering. I'm not bashing here. In any event, good for you for getting Martial Arts training.... I never made it past Orange belt in Kenpo myself.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 27, 2007 12:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ChrisMoorhead:
KayleeWannabee, the things you said needed to be said by someone. But being a male and having said them in the past, I caught all matter of hell for it. Specifically the sentiment that "Women are victimized because they allow themselves to be". I am so very glad to hear it come from a female. Not because it takes responsability away from me, for you see, it never was my responsability. I'm glad because it means that at least one female is taking steps towards empowering herself.

The unfortunate thing about living in a physical realm is that that's how things have to get done.

I'm a Libertarian, so I believe in a non-violent, live-and-let-live, do-your-own-thing-as-long-as it-doesn't-hurt-me-or-mine way of interacting with other people. The world would be a better place, IMHO, if everyone shared this philosophy. But they don't.

And every person like me who allows themselves to be victimized turns a little part of the world over to the perpetrators...the ones who believe that their ends justify any means, that women are property to be used (or disposed of) at their leisure, that girls aren't worth educating, etc.

"Activism" can't change the world. ACTIONS can. Actions taken by individual human beings (male or female) who are mad as hell and aren't going to take it anymore. I can't change THE world...but I CAN change MY WORLD.

I agree with those who don't feel a personal connection with all the tragedies in the world (even the one that inspired Joss' post.) I won't watch the video--I don't need that kind of evil polluting my consciousness or my dreams. I didn't know that poor woman, or the people who perpetrated evil against her. I'm not responsible for what happened to her (i.e., I did't have the "ability" to "respond" because I wasn't there.) All I can do is live my life in such a way that allows me to respond against evil when it confronts ME in my circle of influence.

One of my favorite sayings is Gandhi's "We must be the change we wish to see."

Get that? It bears repeating. Women especially: BE the change you wish to see in the world. If you want "the world" to treat women like valuable human beings, treat yourself like a valuable human being! And in YOUR WORLD, you will be a valuable human being, and an example to other women and men! If you want "the world" to stop victimizing women, stop allowing yourself to be victimized...and in YOUR WORLD, there will be one less victim.

I no longer allow myself to become overwhelmed by world events over which I have no control. It's paralyzing...you feel so helpless and impotent. I concentrate my energy on BEING THE CHANGE I WISH TO SEE IN THE WORLD.

Imagine the power that each of us has to change ourselves...because by changing ourselves, we do indeed change "the world."

-----
It's my job to incite powerful yearning in the hearts and loins of my clients. No, silly, I'm not a Companion...I work at an advertising agency.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 27, 2007 12:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by KayleeWannabee:
ENTIRE POST

Wow.... just wow.

With all due respect, my lady, I think I'm in love.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 27, 2007 1:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by redhead:
Now, because I’m complaining of experiences I have had with some men does not mean you should feel some kind of collective guilt. I don’t blame you for these men's actions. I am just saying that our culture often portrays women as bodies to be conquered not people to be enjoyed. And our culture does indeed treat women poorly.

I'd like to bring this back down to the realm of the individual...although it's a common turn of phrase to refer to "our culture" or "the world," there really is no such animal. These are collective nouns--concepts, really. Only individual human beings have the ability to take actions. Only individual human beings have the ability to treat women poorly (or well). It is individuals who choose what to teach their children in terms of right and wrong treatment of women. It's individual ad executives who choose to disseminate negative images of women as objects. It's individual rap artists who choose to call women "hos" and "bitches" that are only good for one thing. And it's individuals who choose to buy those demeaning rap albums.

Sorry to get picky about this...but thinking in terms of collective nouns taking action is just not helpful. Only individuals have the power to act, the power to change, the power to make a different decision.

-----
It's my job to incite powerful yearning in the hearts and loins of my clients. No, silly, I'm not a Companion...I work at an advertising agency.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 27, 2007 1:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Quote:
Originally posted by KayleeWannabee:
ENTIRE POST

Wow.... just wow.

With all due respect, my lady, I think I'm in love.

LOL! Thank you kindly. :)

-----
It's my job to incite powerful yearning in the hearts and loins of my clients. No, silly, I'm not a Companion...I work at an advertising agency.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 27, 2007 1:20 AM

You're welcome... and all joking aside, you are one awesome lady. From the beginning of your posts to the end of your sig, I'm lovin' it.

Not a Ron Paul fan by any chance, are you?

EDIT: Just read your last post. That's a hat trick!

You ever read "And Then There Were None" by Eric Frank Russell? If you haven't, I think you'll enjoy it. Here's the link: http://www.abelard.org/e-f-russell.htm

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 27, 2007 1:35 AM

AGENTROUKA

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

Does this not send mixed messages? Now I don't mean to generalize, but why does it seem that women often say they want one thing but act a completley different way? Why when I got older and acted colder and more distant around girls were they more attracted to me? Why would a girl be even more into me when she knew other women were and I had a wandering eye? I would have done anything for that girl in 8th grade and although I've always treated every woman I've ever been with with respect, I don't think I'll ever feel that way about another woman in my life.... at least I haven't yet.

I'm just wondering. I'm not bashing here. In any event, good for you for getting Martial Arts training.... I never made it past Orange belt in Kenpo myself.

What makes me take notice of this story is that you seem to equate physical attraction with whether women appreciate respect from men in general. Physical attraction is, after all, not a reward that is automatically paid for good behavior.

Maybe the girl was into a "bad boy" for the same reason you were into the popular (and apparently very pretty) girl, even though she had no interest: they were very sexually attractive.

After all, you said you didn't notice the other cute girls, who weren't the popular girl, even though they would have wanted you. Same goes for her.

Maybe the fact that women started noticing you more as you got older has more to do with the fact that you got more sexually attractive when you outgrew the braces and gained some height and moved more into an adult shape.

Anyway, being at the top of the food chain in terms of attractiveness, raises self-confidence. In the boy's case, it created arrogance. Because he was considered so attractive, girls let him get away with it because his attention raised their self-confidence.

It's irrational and stupid, but it's teenagers. And sex. A world of insecurities that needs to be overcome. They're hormonally charged up to the high heavens and things like equality and respect often take a backseat to what strokes our ego at that tender age. That's why we're not legal adults yet at that age, just because we are able to procreate. We're still mentally immature.

The same thing doesn't get excused in adults anymore. Or really, really shouldn't.

Because we should not rate our behavior just by how sexually rewarding it is, or how ego-stroking. You said the girl was always polite to you even turning you down. Do you think she didn't appreciate your respect, even though she wasn't attracted to you?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 27, 2007 2:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
You're welcome... and all joking aside, you are one awesome lady. From the beginning of your posts to the end of your sig, I'm lovin' it.

Not a Ron Paul fan by any chance, are you?

EDIT: Just read your last post. That's a hat trick!

You ever read "And Then There Were None" by Eric Frank Russell? If you haven't, I think you'll enjoy it. Here's the link: http://www.abelard.org/e-f-russell.htm

6ixStringJack, you have great taste in women. If only you were a little older... I am, as a matter of fact, a huge fan of Ron Paul ( http://www.ronpaul2008.com)

I'll check out Russel's work...thanks for the tip!

-----
It's my job to incite powerful yearning in the hearts and loins of my clients. No, silly, I'm not a Companion...I work at an advertising agency.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 27, 2007 7:25 AM

Jack, I think AgentR spoke pretty eloquently to your question

Quote:
why does it seem that women often say they want one thing but act a completley different way?

but I also think there are women who are attracted to bad boys and this has less to do with the bad boys’ individual attractiveness than it has to do with our culture’s glorification of those same type of men.

“Our culture,” there is that phrase that Kwannabe doesn’t like

Kwannabe, I expect the differences between our positions might be more a matter of semantics than actual practice. So I’ll try stating my position clearly and then you can see where we differ. You say,

Quote:
Only individuals have the power to act, the power to change, the power to make a different decision.

And I agree but I have to disagree with your statement that

Quote:
although it's a common turn of phrase to refer to "our culture" or "the world," there really is no such animal.

Even though individuals are the only ones who can actually change, “our culture” is a reflection of the ideas that individuals grouped together have. In other words, when enough individuals treat women as equals, then our culture will no longer treat women as lesser than men. Individuals change culture but culture and its influence on us exists. Thus, when I say “our culture treats women poorly,” I understand that it is individuals who must create change but I also know that the results of large numbers of people thinking and acting certain ways are going to have an influence on women and men’s behavior.

So, individually, I try to live my life so I won’t be a victim. I practice martial arts with passion and patience. (I possess my own gun but I don’t plan on carrying it with me but I respect your need to carry yours. Mine is for dealing with literal rattlesnakes and skunks not metaphorical ones

) I try to live in such a manner as to be worthy of respect. I try to treat others with the same respect I would like to receive. I try to speak out politely but firmly when I see injustice.

And, I use ‘activism!” I contribute financially to groups who work for change. I sign petitions and I write letters. I believe with Whedon that the action of the individual, while in the end is the only real change that happens, must be bundled with other individuals also acting. “True enlightened activism is the only thing that can save humanity from itself” to quote Whedon. “All I ask is this: Do something. Try something. Speaking out, showing up, writing a letter, a check, a strongly worded e-mail. Pick a cause – there are few unworthy ones. And nudge yourself past the brink of tacit support to action. Once a month, once a year, or just once. ... Even just learning enough about a subject so you can speak against an opponent eloquently makes you an unusual personage. Start with that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 27, 2007 4:55 PM

KayleeWannabee,

Quote:
... Women especially: BE the change you wish to see in the world. If you want "the world" to treat women like valuable human beings, treat yourself like a valuable human being! And in YOUR WORLD, you will be a valuable human being, and an example to other women and men! If you want "the world" to stop victimizing women, stop allowing yourself to be victimized...and in YOUR WORLD, there will be one less victim....

That's a marvelous sentiment and does indeed bear repeating. I've been re-reading thru these posts and have been thinking about the comments. As a therapist who has worked with physically and sexually abused women and children I am reminded of frequent remarks, directed more to the women than the children, that they stayed with their abusers, that they went back to them, that they didn't leave. It's true that the average women leaves 7 times before she's gone for good, if she isn't killed. I think it's not unlike why women don't stand up and oppose those societal norms that lead to their victimization. Internalized sexism, like internalized racism is a factor. Having been born into an environment that normalizes oppression is another component.

While I don't see guilt as particularly helpful, I do think we have certain internalized entitlement schemas that keep us blind to our own isms. We deny it because we simply can't see it. We accept the reality that is part of our worldview so it doesn't look like entitlement but rather that is the way things are. When we are challenged we become defensive and sometimes confused. It's like cracking the persona of someone with a severe personality disorder.

In working with victims, sometimes for years, it comes to a point in therapy where I challenge them to stop being victims. Even with the children, at some point I tell them, "What happened to you was wrong. It will never be OK. No one can change it. But here you are today. You not only survived but you are stronger, smarter and you can be more than a victim." People who are abused or victimized frequently identify with their oppressors because the oppressor appears strong. They would rather be strong like the oppressor than weak as the victim. They can blame themselves and decide that it was their fault and that they somehow deserve it. I have found it ususally doesn't work to push people too soon, before they are able to accept, believe and see themselves as anything but a victim.

It's complicated. That's all I'm saying. It may seem simple but we humans tend to be a mixed bag. I have to remember that or I wouldn't be able to keep doing my job. I'd become either too involved and overwhelmed by the pain or I'd become too hard and uncaring.

Siri

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 27, 2007 11:05 PM

It's hard to jump into these conversations sometimes because they move so damn fast and you can't help feeling that someone has already said it anyway. I have tried to read everything. But if I missed, or misunderstood something I apologise.

Regardless, her is my two penneth worth.

There has been a lot said about not being a victim.

This girl rebelled; she apparently started "seeing" someone from outside her religion. She was rewarded for her defiance by being stoned to death.

I admit freely that my understanding is limited but there seem to be some heavy parallels with the animal kingdom. Pack behaviour, the dominant male wants his genetic material to be passed on so he uses his physical strength to control access to reproductive females.

Things have moved on, and the males in this case banded together to control an errant female for the benefit of the genetic material of the pack (religious group in this case) as a whole.

So they behaved like animals.

Is this right, hell no. Am I surprised, no. There are a lot of humans I like very much as individuals but as a race, I'm not a fan.

But it was no doubt an effective message to the rest of the females. If you don't behave we will kill you.

Why on earth would anyone, irrespective of sex put up with this kind of thing? Why didn't all the women rise up and slay the oppressors? Because we want to survive, the urge to survive is a pretty important part of our make up as animals never mind human beings. Look at capture bonding and the Stockholm syndrome.

Policemen were present, and did not intervene which suggests they condoned the killing. Even if the women rebelled where would they go?

It is easier to be free in a society that allows you freedom.

Personal example on a much smaller scale, my dad died when I was twelve. I absolutely adored him but I've found out some things about him as an adult that are not easy to accept.

He was a repressive, at times violent bigot.

I never saw this side of him. However my sisters, brother and half sisters (who are all at least twenty years older than me, I'm 37) did.

The girls were not allowed to carry on their education past High School despite all being bright. (Because they'd just go and get married and their education would be a waste).

They were not allowed Make up.

They were not allowed to wear trousers.

They were not allowed to wear sleeveless clothes.

They were not allowed, they were not allowed...

Ok, none of these things were a threat to their lives. But every damn one of them was married by the time they were eighteen just to get away from home. Every one of them is divorced now.

One of them brought my brother some jeans (he was about fourteen). She was told never to darken my parent’s door again. Not because jeans are the instruments of the devil, but because she had defied my parents edict that my brother wore proper trousers at all times.

I didn't have this influence growing up. My mother had a whole other bunch of issues which are not relevant so I'll skip onwards.

Dad wasn't there to teach me that doing things my own way was punishable.

I left home at nineteen, had a social life, some boyfriends. Earned my own money, went where I wanted to go either with friends or if no-one else wanted to go on my own.

One guy tried to teach me the error of my ways. He was very sweet to start of with. Until I moved in with him. He was a drunk and he tried to tell me what to do, but I wouldn't do it just because he told me.

He tried to stop me seeing my friends, but I saw them anyway.

When he exhausted every other avenue of control he would come home drunk and pissed off and try to force me to have sex with him.

He was drunk so I could run away and he was so uncoordinated that he couldn't control me physically anyway.

And he hit me a couple of times.

Yet I didn't leave straight away. It took another couple of months and several repeats of this behaviour and his tearful apologies. (I used to be ashamed of this, but I think I've forgiven myself now).

Funnily enough, I left after I started some self-defence classes (for a completely un-related reason). I had to practice and I asked him to help, not to actually toss him around just to work through the moves slowly.

He sneered and said it would never work since he was so big and strong and purposely threw his weight in the wrong direction.

I got pissed off and threw his ass across the room.

Shortly afterwards I left.

Because I could. Because I had somewhere else to go, the ability to earn my own money, the strength and ability to defend myself. He had no power over me.

My sisters couldn't. This was the sixties; no one doubted my father’s right to assert his authority. He took most of their money. He limited their social engagements. Their only escape was to get married and since they were never really allowed to go much further than the village they lived in they didn't have a lot to choose from. Each one of those marriages ended badly.

Am I a better, stronger person than my sisters? No. I just didn't have a controlling presence in my life constantly telling me that I couldn't do things, that I was weak and had to be guided by someone stronger. Even so I nearly lost that with drunk man, but I got it back fairly quickly because I hadn't had the long term conditioning to accept it.

My sisters have all found their own lives in some way. (Notably one of the eldest is having sex with as many black men as she can find. As my brother said, she isn't really screwing them; she's screwing Dad who would have had an apoplexy at the mere idea). But they still carry a ton of baggage around with them and I have my share from various things.

Was it only my sisters who suffered? No, my Brother was in an abusive relationship for years (as the abusee, not the abuser). He stayed to protect his daughter who got the brunt of the abuse if he wasn't there.

What is my point *thinks a bit* There is a saying that I can't remember the source of and my browser is playing up, (search isn't working) about "give me a child until he is seven..." I think it got used by the Nazi's at some point. It is very hard to break away from your conditioning. This girl had a lot of guts and tried, she got killed for it. I can understand why a lot of women and men don't and wonder if I would be brave enough if it was my life on the line.

And finally, I wonder how many of the men who stoned that girl to death really wanted to do it. I wonder how many just went along because they were scared of what the other men would do to them if they didn't.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 28, 2007 2:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Siri:
KayleeWannabee,

Quote:
... Women especially: BE the change you wish to see in the world. If you want "the world" to treat women like valuable human beings, treat yourself like a valuable human being! And in YOUR WORLD, you will be a valuable human being, and an example to other women and men! If you want "the world" to stop victimizing women, stop allowing yourself to be victimized...and in YOUR WORLD, there will be one less victim....

That's a marvelous sentiment and does indeed bear repeating. ... It's true that the average women leaves 7 times before she's gone for good, if she isn't killed.

It's complicated. That's all I'm saying.
Siri

Hi Siri,

Thanks for your kind words of acknowledgement. As you know, it's very difficult for people to change...generally, human beings don't change until the pain of changing is less than the pain of staying the same. It was a great day for me when it became too excruciating for me to go on as I was.

Part of my own healing process included working with an NLP practitioner (good discussion of NLP at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming/

Neuro Linguistic Programming is a set of psychological techniques for accessing your brain's "software" and reprogramming it to allow you to be a more resourceful person. My NLP coach asked me something that changed my life:

What if, on some level, you allow, promote or create everything that happens to you?

This thought is incompatible with the state of victimhood--which is why he asked me.

Which is why I fought it, and was offended by it, at first. (I was still all about being a helpless victim.) He emphasized that it may or may not be true, but perhaps I could examine how my behaviors and thoughts would be different if it were true.

That question was a turning point for me. You suddenly start taking responsibility for what you think and how you behave, if it may be true that you allow, promote, or create everything that happens to you. (Again, it may or may not be true, but you behave in a much more resourceful and responsible manner if you presuppose that it is true.)

What this boils down to is that victims and perpetrators are two sides of the same coin. You can't have one without the other. I now believe that victims who return to abusive situations are just as responsible for what happens to them as the perps are.

It sounds horrible and cold (and feminists would probably be appalled, but I'm not one so I don't care). It's not about blaming the victim; it's about dealing with your surroundings and the people in your life in a more responsible way, and empowering yourself to be self-sufficient.

-----
It's my job to incite powerful yearning in the hearts and loins of my clients. No, silly, I'm not a Companion...I work at an advertising agency.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 28, 2007 2:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by redhead:

And, Chris, I would argue with you that it is “the military, who solves {problems}, not college kids with picket signs.” I would say that what is happening in Iraq is a pretty good indication of how many problems military intervention solves. (I have nothing but respect for men and women risking their lives. I just don’t think they are succeeding in solving problems there).

That doesn’t mean that military action never solves problems just that it rarely does. Those same “college kids with picket signs” are following in the fine tradition of Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr. While I don’t see Whedon on a par with either of these men, his blog is a cry from the same tradition. He asks, as do those great men, that we reach out to change our own behavior. I, for one, intend to try.

It's easy to point to the most recent failure and say "look, it didn't work!", but how long has that land been unbalanced in the presence of warfighters and peace talkers? The only problem I see is the same thing everyone else has been saying, that we didn't hit it hard enough with our military. Turning that area into one giant sheet of glass would very much stop the violence there, but even I'm not an advocate of such brash, unthinking violence, even if it would solve the immediate problem.

How about you look at everything military intervention did stop? How about the spread of fascism and the possibility of a One World Order? Sure, for every one thing our military did right, you could bring up 10 that another country's did wrong, but we're arguing effectiveness here, not moral right and wrong. The bottom line is that military action has achieved the means of whoever was using it historically on a much more consistent basis than any other extension of diplomacy (And yes, I use Clausewitz' definition of war as being an extension of diplomacy).

[IMG]

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 28, 2007 4:59 AM

Hi KayleeWannabee,

Quote:
... What if, on some level, you allow, promote or create everything that happens to you?...

That's a great question. I, too, use NLP techniques in my practice. I would also consider myself a femisinist altho I'm not sure exactly what that means today. That is much of what I was trying to say. A person has to be ready to hear, accept and take action when asked that sort of question. I would guess your counselor knew you and had worked with you enough to believe you were there and was also present to help you move on.

This topic is challenging on so many levels. We want to make it simple because it hurts our brains as well as our hearts. Yes, victims and perpertrators are indeed two sides of the same coin - the human being coin. I've worked with perps, too. Sometimes they can and want to change. Sometimes they don't. They most often come from environments of conditioning and victimization. If it's too deep and entrenched they can't seem to move out of it. For both the victim and the perpetrator it feels normal to live and be in the situations they are in.

I was listening to Jesus Christ Superstar CD and was reminded of the story of Peter's denial of Christ after he was arrested. The people keep saying "I saw you with him." "You were with that man." His response to Mary Magdalene "I had to do it. Don't you see? They would have come for me." CD movie version but that's pretty much the story. Well, he did go on to become the first pope. Some would say the church later became the oppressor but that is another thread.

Conditioning can be changed. People can be changed. They can learn to experience their world and their place in it differntly and choose to act differently. It's easier for an individual working with a therapist or trusted friend. It's much more difficult changing a culture. Can it be done with might and force? It's been tried a few times over the centuries .... I'd say the results are mixed.

Thanks for the discussion. It's one way for us (including me) to expand our worldview. JoHari's window is opening a tiny bit.

Siri

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 28, 2007 5:17 AM

PonyXpressInc,
Wow! I just responded to KayleeWannabee so will make this short. Your summation of pack mentality is quite astute. Your personal story of your family dynamics and journey is amazing and illustrative of many others although the endings vary. I strongly advocate self-defense as well as introspection for personal growth. I salute you for finding your way, your voice, your strength and sharing it with the rest of us. It shines a light on alternatives to the internalized victimziation and a way out. Very shiny indeed!

Siri

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 28, 2007 5:26 AM

Chris, the military can solve some problems as I said. But, I think in most cases it causes more problems than it solves. When we look back in history, it is easy to see the bloody swath of military action, less easy to see the delicate caress of non-violent diplomacy. Therefore people often disregard the non-violent actions that lead to change.

And, I think for me, effectiveness must be tied to morality. It is not effective to turn the Middle East into a "giant sheet of glass" in order to change the way women are treated there. I realize you are not advocating that but that would be the result of 'solving' problems without thinking of the moral consequences of our own actions. (Which is what led us into the Iraqi tragedy in the first place.)

Pony,
You described--powerfully!--what happens to make women victims--how hard it is to change one's conditioning. The Jesuit quote you were looking for is "Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man."

You also explained clearly why many women who remain victims, choose to remain victims--the consequence of trying for freedom can be literal death. Thank you--you've said it all.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 28, 2007 5:45 AM

Quote:
"You also explained clearly why many women who remain victims, choose to remain victims--the consequence of trying for freedom can be literal death. Thank you--you've said it all."

Thank you Red, I would just like to add that I do not see this as specifically a woman’s problem.

My brother stayed in an abusive relationship for years. His wife would physically and mentally abuse his daughter if he wasn't there to be the brunt of her rage. He was just as vulnerable, even though he was relatively big and strong his wife could control him through his love for his child and his desire to prevent his child from coming to harm.

His daughter is now twenty years old. Fifteen to twenty years ago his wife would almost certainly have got custody of the children (there was a son as well) in the event of a divorce.

Plus she would have tried to blame him for the abuse.

He was in the RAF, served in the Falklands, so not a weak man. But he was prevented by his own decency from hitting back at a woman however violent she was. He just had to stand there and take it. Because then his daughter didn't have to.

His wife was just as guilty of weilding power for her own ends as those men who stoned the girl. She was just more subtle about it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 28, 2007 5:55 AM

Thank you Siri

Quote:
I strongly advocate self-defense as well as introspection for personal growth.

I don't think I ever made the connection before because I didn't leave immediately. But I think throwing him that time actually made me see that there was no way he could control me. So yes, I agree with you, anything that gives an otherwise physically vulnerable person (I don't want to say women specifically, physical bullying/abuse is something that men suffer from as well) confidence in their ability to defend themselves is a good thing.

Anyway, he was a very sad little man, who is no doubt facing his fifties alone. (Small bitchy moment

)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 28, 2007 6:10 AM

Victims of domestic abuse can be male and female (though there are overwhelmingly more women then men being abused), the elderly and the young, and members of any race. However Pony, we were just speaking in this post mainly about women so I focused on them.

In addition to men being damaged by abuse themselves, I think that being the abuser also leads to obvious and not so obvious self damage. Earlier in this post were several discussions about how a sense of entitlement damages the victim and keeps her(him) from making necessary changes.

Well, similarly, those who contribute to oppressing women also suffer by not reaching for the lasting satisfaction of self mastery instead focusing on the temporary pleasure of dominating others.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 28, 2007 6:25 AM

Quote:
"However Pony, we were just speaking in this post mainly about women so I focused on them."

You are absolutely right and my response was more about being comfortable with myself, rather than implying that men were being ignored unfairly. If that wasn't clear I apologise.

I agree with the "sense of entitlement," In my experience the abuser deludes/rationalises themselves into believing that they are in the right.

People are strange creatures.

"The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed."
-- Stephen Biko

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 28, 2007 8:56 AM

J1M

You can all argue over the pros and cons of military action all you like, fundamentally what this all comes down to is the fact that Dua Khalil was murdered in Iraq, in full view of the public and in such a way, that the people involved thought it was the right thing to do! All in the name of Religion or specifically a religious belief.

The myth has been perpetuated for hundreds if not thousands of years that women are the weaker sex, its a belief that has been bred into the human race, and its the kind of brain washing on a global scale that will take another hundred if not thousand years to breed out of us.

Im not saying that organised religion is wholy responsible for the way our belief systems work or the way our attitudes relate, but just try for a second to comperhend that women have been portrayed as a morally questionable sub-species in virtually every endorsed religious text in some way or another. Yes im talking about the Bible too! Just look at the Catholic witch hunts for a hundred years after 1550, women were burned alive in the name of religion in Europe on a huge scale. In the main for just being women!

It wasn't always this way though, before being a 'Pagan' was more commonly assoiciated with being a devil worshiper than an Earth-mother to anyone who didn't know any better, women were seen as the infinitly better half of mankind, for the fact that they ARE able to perpetuate the human race, they are able to bring life into this world, the most beautiful gift anyone can give. (I wont go into 'the sacred feminine', i'll leave that for Dan Brown to do in the Da Vinci Code.) And yet over the millenia this gift has been peverted.. by men, who, when it all comes down to it are just bloody jealous of women, because essentially we men ARE inferior! Unfortunatly those that have realised this deal with it in many ways, one of which because us men are stronger physically: is to beat women down, and if we cant do it physically we do it mentally. A practice which still goes on everywhere around the world, probably even in your street...now.

Yes men and women are supposed to be equal and men that can't accept this use the only means on their power to make themselves feel better, their anger and their fists, those 'men' in Iraq while killing Dua Khalil (if you want to go into physcology) probably didn't care what she'd done or not done they had an excuse to beat a woman and they took it, i can go a step further and say they were thinking about a competely different woman when they were doing it, their wife, sister or whoever they have a deep seated emotional problem with.. probably their mothers if you want to get Freudian. Those men know they're the weaker sex, they just cant deal with it and neither can most of the rest of us, but they can hide behind religion.

Its this systematic smearing of women over the centuries that have lead us all to the point we are now, that people in a country far away from us and our comfortable little lives can publically beat, kick, stamp, and stone to death a woman who did nothing wrong apart from be seen in public with a man of different faith.
Im sure we can all sit here infront of our computers and be horrified and thank whichever god it is we prey to that things like that 'dont happen over here' and that in some way THAT country isnt the same as the more enlightened one that we can call home, and talk about THAT country in a condesending tone that impilies that its people are in some way to be pitied and saved by our obviously more supirior, evolved and enlightened nations, well we're all guilty of being patronising hypocrites because 'honour killings' as they are called happen worldwide, yes, in your country...now. All in the name of religion.

Dua Khalil being murdered in the name of a belief is most likely somthing that is way beyond your comprehension if you're all honest with yourselves, as much as it is to me. And if you watch the vid of it you will feel horrfied and sick as i was because we mostly are 'fairly evolved' But watch it, then watch it again, and again, until you cant watch it any more, seeing that poor 17 year old Iraqi girl being beaten to death by an angry mob of religious fanaticts; bloody face, wondering what SHE could have done to deserve this..

Then imagine its your sister, or your daughter or your niece your friend or just the girl at the end of the street, then see how you feel, feel worse right? The truth is we're all guilty of thinking deep down that this kind of thing is horrible but we are somohow removed from it, that its just somthing on TV that we will never experience or want experience in our lives, that we're different or in some way better than the people of Iraq, or any of the other far away countrys that we have culture clashes with. But the truth is we are all the same. Us 'fairly evolved' are just like the alcoholic who just realised they have a problem, but just doesn't know what to do about it. We're stuck waiting for the day when, sometime in the future the infantile egomaniacs in charge of the world, (some of which are not men) that believe that they're backed by the power of whichever god, have it drummed into their stupid, close minded, near sighted, underdeveloped, bloodthirsty, bigoted minds, that we can't as a species go on like this for much longer, because a religion or a belief is not a license to kill.

Im not saying that religion is wrong, of course not, having a faith in somthing better gives people the hope they need to make it through the day and all that shiney stuff, but when its warped to condone the public murder of a 17 year old girl then there really is somthing wrong with the world we live in.

J1m

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 28, 2007 10:25 AM

Quote:
And yet over the millenia this gift has been peverted.. by men, who, when it all comes down to it are just bloody jealous of women, because essentially we men ARE inferior!

I don't care how you slice it, or about the fact that you're male, this is sexist. If I expressed the same idea publically about women I would be chastized to no end for it.

I'd also like to note how sick I am of this sentiment that it is women alone who perpetuate existance. Last I checked, they still NEEDED a seed to be planted in their garden, so to speak. Without that seed they're just as useless in reproduction as a man. You can flower it up however you want with the 9 month bond the woman has with life growing inside of her, but fundementally, she's just as incapable of that as a man if he's not there to give it to her.

[IMG]

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 28, 2007 12:00 PM

You know, I don't particularly see either sex as inferior. Actually, I don't like the idea at all. Not inferior, different, and I wish we were more able to celebrate those differences rather than despise them or use them as sticks to beat each other with.

Obviously a woman cannot reproduce without a man being involved somewhere along the line even if it's just some private time with a cup.

The only way you can argue that women have control over procreation
(If you exclude forcible or coerced impregnation) is that the woman gets to choose who does the deed. Excepting IVF, donor egg situations, when you see a baby come out of a woman’s womb you have a pretty damn clear indication of who the mother is.

Without DNA tests (or before they existed) you would have no guarantee of who the father is.

No, I'm not suggesting that lots of women are fickle deceivers. I'm just saying that at that point there is no proof.

It comes back to something I said earlier, maintaining control over your women increases the likelihood that it is your genetic material that is passed on. We are just complicated animals.

A lot of male animals do not want to raise the offspring of another male. A Male lion after deposing another will kill any cubs still in the pride. Male Gorillas will sometimes do the same thing and you know how closely related we are.

The human excuse may be religion, or honour, or pride but I think (and I really do accept that I could be wrong, it’s just an opinion) that this is just cloak for a basic animal desire to ensure that it's our genes that are passed on.

Does this make stoning a girl to death right, acceptable in anyway? Are we just poor animals who can't help ourselves?

Of course not. For crying out loud how long have we been upright and talking? We should have conquered this by now.

But we haven't.

And I really hope the above makes some kind of sense, because, damn, I’m tired.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 28, 2007 10:30 PM

AGENTROUKA

Quote:
Originally posted by ChrisMoorhead:
Quote:
And yet over the millenia this gift has been peverted.. by men, who, when it all comes down to it are just bloody jealous of women, because essentially we men ARE inferior!

I'd also like to note how sick I am of this sentiment that it is women alone who perpetuate existance. Last I checked, they still NEEDED a seed to be planted in their garden, so to speak. Without that seed they're just as useless in reproduction as a man. You can flower it up however you want with the 9 month bond the woman has with life growing inside of her, but fundementally, she's just as incapable of that as a man if he's not there to give it to her.

To offer a POV about the "women are more important in reproduction than men" factor...

(and I want to emphasize that I do NOT think this in any way assigns greater value to women!)

.. it's a question of numbers.

The amount of babies born is entirely up to the amount of women. You can have ten men and one women and you get one baby after nine months. Maybe two if they're twins.

With ten women and one men, you could get ten babies in the same amount of time.

In terms of species survival women as individuals are more important, because it just takes one healthy man. That makes most men really expendable. They matter in terms of genetic variety, but with all individuals healthy, this can be skipped over for a couple of generations.

Plus, up until very recently, the question of paternity locked them out even more. Without scientific confirmation, they can never be sure, unless the impose limitations upon the woman's sexual behavior, whether they were even successful in passing on their genetic material. They don't get know in the way a woman does, that they had any part in a new life at all.

Procreation, biologically speaking, reduces men to one single act that they can never even be sure happens at all: fertilization.

I can't imagine that this doesn't have an impact on the subconscious.

And again I want to emphasize that we are more than just biology, so this procreational expendability has absolutely no bearing on the value of a person or gender.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 29, 2007 11:11 AM

ZOID

Howdy, folks.

Whew! Where to begin? So many valid sidebars to the main topic, all deserving of consideration and commentary...

I guess I'll start with the main topic. While I disagree with sansmercy's insulting and condescending tone, I do not disagree with his/her main point. To wit, that women are mistreated and generally undervalued throughout the world. I do disagree with her/his sentiment that Joss' post is indicative that he has 'just woken up to the plight' of women because of this one video. I further agree with sansmercy, however, that Joss' post seems a bit knee-jerk reactionary to a couple of viscerally grotesque visual images, when there are many millions of unseen, un-video-recorded acts of lesser or greater grotesqueness that occur on a daily basis around the world. I believe that was sansmercy's underlying point, that he/she was somewhat justified in being indignantly opposed to making Dua's murder a cause celebre when so many unobserved crimes happen daily; but, I also strongly believe that he/she was wrong for attacking Joss. He/she was angry with the world-in-general's apathy towards the plight of the 'permanent underclass' treatment of women, and took out that anger on Joss, who did not deserve it...

I vaguely agree with those who claim men are being painted as villains and that we, as a society, should cease doing that, in addition to our efforts to address the on-going disparity between men and women. We cannot seek redress of a societal ill by exchanging victimization of one group for victimization of another...

I strongly disagree with anyone who possesses lethal force, of any kind. My sentiment on this issue is not going to be welcomed by many, I know. But I strongly believe that violence begets only violence; that those who live by the sword die by the sword. I strongly believe that more handguns will not lead to less criminal activity, but to more people being criminalized as they wield ultimate authority. Making a person the judge, jury and executioner -- in the blink of an eye, as a seemingly life-threatening event unfolds -- threatens that gun-toting individual more than the specter of violence does; possibly turning an innocent, potential victim into a very real murderer. With a handgun, you feel powerful, in control of your destiny. But what happens when you actually pull the trigger? What happens to you when you end another person's life? Some say they could end another person's life -- in self-defense -- and sleep soundly at night. I'm not so sure...

I strongly believe that one should live an exemplary life, reflecting the type of ideal world they'd choose to live in. I want to change the world. I do that by living my principles, not necessarily what society expects of me. I do that by raising my children -- male and female -- to be self-sufficient and beholden to none.

Beyond that, though, our society is delusional and self-contradictory. Give money/support to women's activist groups, but, be a slave to fashion? Rail against the inequalities women face -- with much hair-pulling and gnashing of teeth -- while maintaining an emaciated and properly painted facade? Women who starve their selves to death or disfigure their selves surgically while still seeing their selves as fat and ugly? What about what's inside the 'pretty' or 'ugly' exterior?

The film and advertising industries have much to answer for in keeping women 'in their place' as sexual objects, window dressing, subservient to male appetites. Males are victimized by this objectification of women, too, whether that's a popular notion or not. As much as women are lessened by Sales of Image, men are brainwashed by these unreal depictions of 'what a woman should look like/be', too. Is the death of Dua Khalil somehow more poignant than the death of a teenage girl who perishes of bulimia? I assert that they are the same. But who is holding the film and advertising industries responsible for promulgating and making money off these twisted images of women? How have we empowered these, our victimizers, to continue victimizing us? Why haven't we told them, collectively (with our money), to go pound sand up their culu?

There's enough shame to go around for everyone. But we need to give ourselves a sharp slap on the cheek to wake us up to the reality of this crisis, rather than just running panicked through the woods of our dilemma, tripping over every fallen branch in our path. We're just so...stereotypical.

Respectfully,

zoid

P.S.
Love it or hate it, these are just my opinions. I come by them honestly, by searching my own feelings. Nobody else provided me with these opinions.
_________________________________________________

"I aim to misbehave." -Capt. Mal Reynolds, Serenity, a.k.a. 'the BDBOF'

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 29, 2007 7:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by zoid:
I strongly disagree with anyone who possesses lethal force, of any kind. My sentiment on this issue is not going to be welcomed by many, I know. But I strongly believe that violence begets only violence; that those who live by the sword die by the sword. I strongly believe that more handguns will not lead to less criminal activity, but to more more people being criminalized as they wield ultimate authority.

Hi Zoid, you've made some really, really excellent points...and with the same respect, I'd like to disagree on the issue of lethal force. I think that by eschewing the use of defensive force, you're actually advocating for more victimization.
I do apologize for how harsh that must sound. But it is a fact that terrorists/tyrants/muggers/rapists/murderers
are all willing to use force to achieve their goals. Those who are unwilling or unable to resist them end up in the morgue--or, in places like Iraq and Cambodia and Rwanda and WWII Europe, in mass graves.

You are entitled to believe whatever you want to believe, but unfortunately, the facts are not on your side. Here are some statistics from Australia:

Quote:
From Las Vegas Review Journal, http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/1999/Sep-19-Sun-1999/opinion/11
963774.html
Unintended Consequences of Gun Control
Can gun control reduce crime?
One year ago, Australian gun owners were forced to surrender for destruction 640,381 personal firearms...This program cost the Aussie government more than $500 million.... Now, Keith Tidswell of Australia's Sporting Shooters Association reports the results are in.
Drum roll, please. Mr. Tidswell reports, based on a full 12 months of data:

Australia-wide, homicides up 3.2 percent.
Australia-wide, assaults up 8.6 percent.
Australia-wide, armed-robberies up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent.)
In the state of Victoria, homicides-with-firearms are up 300 percent.

(Up until the government gun grab, figures for the previous 25 years had shown a steady decrease in homicides with firearms, as well as armed robberies, Mr. Tidswell notes.)
Although at the time of the victim disarmament order, the Aussie prime minister decreed "self-defense is not a reason for owning a firearm," there has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly, now left with no means to protect themselves. (One wonders whether the prime minister's personal bodyguards gave up their military-style weapons.)
Mr. Tidswell reports: "Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in 'safety' has been observed after such monumental effort and expense to successfully 'rid society of guns.' "

It is a sad fact that there are evil actors in the world. Some of them are only evil enough to beat up their girlfriend or molest the neighbor kid or stone their cousin to death. Other, more charismatic evil actors, can attract followers--sometimes millions of follwers--and thus have the ability to perpetrate evil on a massive, genocidal scale. And virtually every genocide in modern history began with a mandatory disarmament of the citizenry.

Quote:
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so."
-- Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitlers Tischegesprache Im Fuhrerhauptquartier 1941-1942.

Nazi Germany was a model society in terms of "gun control." Nazis controlled the country, so only Nazis were allowed to have guns. In the 1930s, Hitler outlawed gun ownership for Jews. Being law-abiding citizens, most Jews turned their guns in to the authorities, and hoped the whole Nazi thing would blow over. But by disarming themselves, they had sealed their fate. They had no way to resist when the Nazis came to round them up, force them onto cattle cars, and transport them to the gas chambers. (One of the few stories of resistance involves the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, where a very small number of weapons allowed Jews to resist...but only until they ran out of ammunition.)

Here are some stats that Paul Harvey read on his radio show:

Quote:

In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

That places total victims who lost their lives because of gun control at approximately 56 million in the last century. Since we should learn from the mistakes of history, the next time someone talks in favor of gun control, find out which group of citizens they wish to have exterminated.

Moving on to your next point...

Quote:
Making a person the judge, jury and executioner -- in the blink of an eye, as a seemingly life-threatening event unfolds -- threatens that gun-toting individual more than the specter of violence does; possibly turning an innocent, potential victim into a very real murderer.

Killing someone who is attempting to seriously injure, rape you, or kill you is not murder, it is self defense. To say otherwise is to imply that the rapist/murder's life is actually more valuable than his victim's, IMHO. You seem to be saying that "potential victim" is only innocent until she defends herself...and then she's no better than the creep attacking her. If this isn't a glorification of victimhood, I just don't know what is. I haven't seen the video of the stoning that inspired Joss' comments...but what you're saying, Zoid, is that you'd hold the victim in less esteem if she had tried to defend herself. That is simply chilling.

In actual fact, handguns are used in self defense about 2 million times a year in the U.S. In most cases, the would-be victim simply pulls the gun. The perp, having more of a sense of self-preservation than you seem to, Zoid, runs away. No shots are ever fired. This is true in law enforcement circles too--most cops never have occasion to fire their weapons--ever. (Except on the range, of course.)

Quote:
With a handgun, you feel powerful, in control of your destiny.

You say this as though it's a bad thing to be in control of whether you live, or die at the hands of a thug.

Quote:
But what happens when you actually pull the trigger? What happens to you when you end another person's life? Some say they could end another person's life -- in self-defense -- and sleep soundly at night. I'm not so sure...

I don't know what I would do in that situation. My fervent hope is that I'll never, ever have to use my gun in self defense. But if a thug kicks my bedroom door down in the middle of the night, I'm not going to ask him to please use a condom while he rapes me. I'm just going to shoot. I don't know how I'll feel about having injured or killed him. I'm willing to deal with the consequences of my actions--especially because I'd rather not have my loved ones dealing with the consequences of my death or serious injury. Anyone who breaks into my house with the intent of assaulting me will have to deal with the consequences of his actions.

(And I use the male gender because, statistically, most violent crimes are perpetrated by men.)

Sincerely, with all due respect, Zoid, I urge you to stick with your priciples and live your life according to your own dictates. But please do not advocate for the disarmament of those of us who are willing to defend ourselves and our families.

-----
It's my job to incite powerful yearning in the hearts and loins of my clients. No, silly, I'm not a Companion...I work at an advertising agency.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 6:14 AM

ZOID

KayleeWannabee replied, in part:

Quote:
...Moving on to your next point...

Quote:
Making a person the judge, jury and executioner -- in the blink of an eye, as a seemingly life-threatening event unfolds -- threatens that gun-toting individual more than the specter of violence does; possibly turning an innocent, potential victim into a very real murderer.

Killing someone who is attempting to seriously injure, rape you, or kill you is not murder, it is self defense. To say otherwise is to imply that the rapist/murder's life is actually more valuable than his victim's, IMHO. You seem to be saying that "potential victim" is only innocent until she defends herself...and then she's no better than the creep attacking her. If this isn't a glorification of victimhood, I just don't know what is. I haven't seen the video of the stoning that inspired Joss' comments...but what you're saying, Zoid, is that you'd hold the victim in less esteem if she had tried to defend herself. That is simply chilling.

In actual fact, handguns are used in self defense about 2 million times a year in the U.S. In most cases, the would-be victim simply pulls the gun. The perp, having more of a sense of self-preservation than you seem to, Zoid, runs away. No shots are ever fired. This is true in law enforcement circles too--most cops never have occasion to fire their weapons--ever. (Except on the range, of course.)

Quote:
With a handgun, you feel powerful, in control of your destiny.

You say this as though it's a bad thing to be in control of whether you live, or die at the hands of a thug.

Quote:
But what happens when you actually pull the trigger? What happens to you when you end another person's life? Some say they could end another person's life -- in self-defense -- and sleep soundly at night. I'm not so sure...

I don't know what I would do in that situation. My fervent hope is that I'll never, ever have to use my gun in self defense. But if a thug kicks my bedroom door down in the middle of the night, I'm not going to ask him to please use a condom while he rapes me. I'm just going to shoot. I don't know how I'll feel about having injured or killed him. I'm willing to deal with the consequences of my actions--especially because I'd rather not have my loved ones dealing with the consequences of my death or serious injury. Anyone who breaks into my house with the intent of assaulting me will have to deal with the consequences of his actions...

Okay, you misunderstood the brunt of my argument against handguns in the hands of innocent people and then expecting them to be judge, jury and executioner 'in the blink of an eye'. I suspect this is because I was being more subtle than I should (to the point of loss of signal), rather than you being too emotionally attached to your gun to listen to reason.

What I meant is that people in general tend not to be adept at making split-second decisions. They wind up guessing at the level of threat being directed at them in this situation. Was the attacker really going to do me grievous bodily harm? Or were they just going to get nose-to-nose with me and engage in a shouting match, maybe up to and including punching me in the gob for being such an asshole? How can I know, now that I've preemptively killed the 'attacker'? How can I know if the guy (because men are the most likely to perpetrate violent arguments) had a wife and kids who will miss him? Will it ever make me feel better about ending his life if I just keep muttering my mantra, "I did it in self-defense...", "How was I to know he didn't mean to bludgeon me to death?", and of course, "It was his own fault; he should've been nicer to people who might be armed to the teeth."

Politeness...at the point of a gun. Good Manners...or a diet of lead. There's your bumper stickers. Arming the populace to ensure a kinder, gentler, more polite society has certainly worked wonders along the PCH, hasn't it?

Now let's take the case of your 'thug'. Believe it or not, some thieves are just thieves. They only want your junk, not your 'junk'. It takes special wiring to be a rapist...but I'll return to this aspect momentarily.

So this perp approaches you in the dark alley where you usually park your car, and says, "Okay, bitch (for proper drama), gimme your purse!" All he wants is your cash, credit cards (which can be cancelled without costing you anything) and your cell phone (which you'd rather die than part with). He's got no interest in raping you, but how could you know that? Are you gonna take the time to question the condemned man? He's dead already, it just hasn't hit him yet...

Because, if you give him your purse, chances are you'll also be giving him your gun. So, the decision is already made, isn't it? The gun makes the decision for you, simply by being there. You pull your gun and shoot him, let's assume in center mass. ...As opposed to shooting someone watching TV (or a child in bed, again for drama) two blocks away because you're shaking so badly, in a way you never did whilst shooting paper targets at the range.

Now, if you're really unreasonably lucky, the perp isn't robbing you at gun point. He sees you pull the gun and runs away. Ta-da! Go ahead, punk, make my day! Woo-hoo! ...or 'yee-haw!', in the spirit of "cowboy up".

But what if he is robbing you at gun point? Technically, that's the only time that you're fully legally justified to use lethal force; but, he's got you point blank, and is probably more practiced at such situations than you are (unless you not only routinely park your car in dark alleys, but live in one, too). As soon as he sees you pulling/unholstering your weapon, he pops you. All he wanted was your purse, but now he's a murderer.

Whether you win or lose the draw, the fact that you were 'strapped' escalated the situation to one of lethality. In the words of Ronnie Van Zant, "Handguns are made for killing; they ain't no good for nuthin' else."

Now let's speak briefly about rape, the bugbear that presumably serves as the primary motivator for handgun ownership for women. Rape is a horrendous act, the ultimate invasion of one's person. I don't think it's possible to overstate that. Speaking as a man who has looked down the barrel of a handgun (road rage), been accosted at knife point (drunken rage), and had all of his possessions stolen from his home, these are fairly scary 'invasions of person', too. I'm not saying these are remotely equal to the violation that takes place in the bodily invasion of rape; I'm just saying these things should never happen either, and that I can relate, if imperfectly, with the profound psychological effects that ensue.

I reckon a woman is at least as likely -- if not more likely -- to be raped by a man they know and trust, as they are to be raped by a random mugger. As you undoubtedly know, rape is not a sex act, it is an act of rage.

Let's suppose a nice girl meets some nice guy, dates him for a year (suspend your disbelief), then decides to take the ultimate step in intimacy and engage in the sexual act with him. She's really ready for this to happen. He -- on the other hand -- is really ready for a lot more than she is figuring into the deal. Leaving out the more dramatic possibilities, he requests, "Let me do this to you." She says, "No." Unbeknownst to her, that whole year of going to restaurants and movies never revealed this particularly nasty streak of getting mad when he gets denied something sexually, and he proceeds to take what she is unwilling to freely give.

I suppose in the gun lobby's position, the woman then pulls the pistol from under her pillow/mattress where she has handily stored it and shoots the guy dead. (NB: Watch out for his blood getting all over your naked body! You never know where this guy has been, but you've got a pretty good idea by now that it included some pretty risky behavior.)

...Or do you just hold the gun to your lover's head the whole time, in case he gets any funny ideas?

As far-fetched as the preceding scenario may sound, it's really not all that far from what occurs any time a woman is date raped, boss/co-worker raped, 'friend' raped or husband raped. And I would suggest that these subgenera of rape are more prevalent than the 'I got raped by a mugger, but I had time to pull a gun, if only I'd had one, darn the luck' variety.

"Your weapons are useless" against Life's random maliciousness.

I'm a Christian, which puts me on the outs with just about everyone. I'm perfectly OK with that. I further realize that my anti-gun stance also -- incongruently, based on the life and words of Christ -- places me on the sh*t-list of virtually every Neo-Christian. (NB: When the disciples brought swords to the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus got mad and told them to put them away; and when Simon Peter (1st Pope) actually lopped off a temple servant's ear, according to the conglomerated apostles' testimony, Jesus healed the guard, and said to Peter, "Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword". But, hey, that's the difference between my Lord and the lord of the 'pull it from my cold, dead fingers after I've been shot by somebody who only wanted my possessions and/or earthly body' Neo-Christians.)

Still, as a Christian, I believe that I am on the face of this earth for exactly as long as the Lord wants me here, no more, no less. I also believe that everything that happens to me, whether good or bad, is God's will and may or may not have anything to properly do with me (i.e., a bad or good thing that happens to me may be strictly for the edification of my children, grandchildren or a complete stranger whose path I cross). ...No man, woman or animal (bipedal or otherwise) will take me from this world until the Lord is finished with me. No medical treatment, healthy diet, regular exercise, or firearm I possess will delay my departure one second beyond my allotted time.

I really thought that my original:

Quote:
I strongly disagree with anyone who possesses lethal force, of any kind. My sentiment on this issue is not going to be welcomed by many, I know. But I strongly believe that violence begets only violence; that those who live by the sword die by the sword. I strongly believe that more handguns will not lead to less criminal activity, but to more more people being criminalized as they wield ultimate authority. Making a person the judge, jury and executioner -- in the blink of an eye, as a seemingly life-threatening event unfolds -- threatens that gun-toting individual more than the specter of violence does; possibly turning an innocent, potential victim into a very real murderer.

...was sufficient to replace the entire line of reasoning I post here. But, you misunderstood me to mean that 'victims should just lie down and take it', when in fact I was saying it's better to be a victim than a victimizer. I'd rather be raped than be a rapist. I'd rather be murdered than be even an accidental murderer.

Lookit. You've already made your choice. I'm not telling you to repent and surrender your gun. You need your gun, you've made that obvious. The world scares you. You fear for your life and your body, which are precious to you beyond compare. Your gun makes you feel safe and warm. You are the master of your destiny; no one can threaten you, now.

...But, I take exception with anyone who willy-nilly encourages people to arm themselves with lethal force, because it will prevent criminals from running roughshod over peace-loving people. A solution which makes those same peace-loving people carriers of lethal force, is not a solution at all. In particular, a handgun-armed populace at-large (meaning: in their cars, in supermarket parking lots, in a bar's parking lot for Christ's sake) is nothing more than a recipe for disaster. You may be mentally and emotionally capable of wielding lethal force (or not); but how can you possibly know that all those you are urging to arm themselves are likewise capable? And please, if you mention a state-administered qualification process, I'll lose all respect for you. Those are the same guys (and gals) who license people to drive. The only responsible handgun owner is one who has soberly and responsibly inspected themselves and decided that they might be able to pull this off without killing someone, ever. Whatever state you're living in couldn't pour piss out of a boot with directions on the heel, administratively speaking, and there's tons of evidence everywhere you look to support my assertion.

Read some history of the Old West before you leap to repeat it...

Respectfully,

zoid

P.S.
In the cases above wherein someone pointed a gun or a knife at me, I had a peaceful feeling come over me -- a palpable stillness -- and I looked them straight in the eye and heard the words come out of my mouth, "You don't want to do that." All surreally calm-like... In both cases, the men turned and ran away. I do not recommend this as a self-defense technique. But that's exactly what happened, no more, no less. I consider it a miracle that I'm still alive (or, perhaps, not; people sometimes do strange things when Reason enters the equation).

I also gave blood to one of our drummers when he got shot six times as he lay asleep in a strange girl's bed. His jealous girlfriend's weapon of choice was a .22 caliber pistol. He undoubtedly had it coming to him. He survived the attack and briefly played onstage with us again, before the incipient drug abuse dropped him out. The girlfriend probably should have upgraded her weaponry, right? Otherwise the entire exercise is futile. What's the point of trying to shoot a guy dead, ladies, if he survives because you're too squeamish to learn how to use a .38? (NB: Snub-noses are best, because they're so easily concealed in handbags, bedding, beneath car seats, in glove boxes, and in thigh or small-of-the-back holsters.)

P.P.S.
I also wouldn't want to be a law enforcement officer in any state featuring CCH permits. I reckon I'd either wind up getting shot by or else mortally wounding a lot more law-abiding people than I'd be comfortable with.
_________________________________________________

Little Bill Daggett: I don't deserve this... to die like this. I was building a house.
Will Munny: Deserve's got nothin' to do with it.
[aims gun]
Little Bill Daggett: I'll see you in hell, William Munny.
Will Munny: Yeah.
[loud report from Henry rifle]
-Unforgiven

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 6:46 AM

Zoid,

With all due respect, I think I understood you perfectly. We just have a completely different set of values. And that's perfectly fine, as long as we agree not to force our values on each other.

I value my life as being something of my own creation, a unique thing in the 'Verse for which I'm completely responsible. I'm willing to use force to defend myself. I'm not willing to be a victim of force perpetrated by someone else.

I'm sad for you that you have such a prejudice against guns and self-defense in general. Facts have no ability to change your opinion or beliefs, and it's a shame.

I have only been a gun owner for a couple of months now, and it's remarkable how amazingly nice and kind and generous I have found gun owners to be! Completely the opposite of what you would expect, Zoid. I went to a pistol match on Mother's Day, and without exception, everyone treated me like a long-lost high school buddy. People loaned me their equipment, allowed me to fire their guns, gave me pointers, congratulated me when I shot well, and were just generally extremely kind and welcoming. I'm not exaggerating when I say that it was the nicest group of strangers I've ever encountered.

And if I were a cop, I'd never work in a state that didn't trust its citizens to concealed carry. Violent crime rates are uniformly lower in states where potential victims have the ability to shoot back.

-----
It's my job to incite powerful yearning in the hearts and loins of my clients. No, silly, I'm not a Companion...I work at an advertising agency.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 8:18 AM

ZOID

KayleeWannabee replied, in part:

Quote:
...I'm sad for you that you have such a prejudice against guns and self-defense in general. Facts have no ability to change your opinion or beliefs, and it's a shame...

I might also say that I'm "sad for you", in that you have such a materialistic outlook on life, that you have no sense of spirit within yourself...That "Facts" (in Australia) mean more to you than self-evident Human Nature...That "it's a shame" that the history of mass murderers means more to you than all those simple folk (and law enforcement officials) who became either killers or 'the deceased' at an alarming rate in our own history (between c. 1850 and the first decade of the 1900's).

But, I won't say "I'm sad for you" or that "it's a shame" that you don't see things the same way I do. That would be the same thing as saying that you don't think as well as I do. I believe you're thinking. I just don't know that you're necessarily projecting the potential future consequences fully enough. Having said that, you probably believe the same is true of my line of 'projection', and fair enough.

One of us may prove to be disastrously wrong. I fervently hope (and privately pray) that it will be neither of us. Hopefully, we'll both live out our days without either of our personal philosophies on self-defense being proved definitively wrong, for us or for anyone who believes as we do.

On the subject of home defense, btw, I have an oversized GSD, by the name of 'Cobb'. I pity the person who comes into my house uninvited. You see, unlike myself, Cobb has absolutely no conscience. He will not hesitate to hurt an intruder in the most horrifyingly effective way. He will not spend sleepless years struggling with ethical questions. He will simply do what he and his wolf forebears have done since Man invited them into the cave: He will protect the home and his masters to his last breath.

...And of course, another advantage a large dog (I prejudicially prefer male German Shepherd Dogs) has over an arsenal of personal weapons is that my GSD barks like the rolling thunderclap of Doom itself, while your handgun does not (until it's entirely too late to defuse the situation). Ergo, I 'project' an image of the perp creeping up to my darkened domicile and attempting to jiggle the door handle to see if he needs to negotiate the locks or not. From somewhere inside my darkened home -- very near the door, but where precisely? -- comes a booming and vigorous bark that might lead one to think that the house in fact contains a lion, instead of just a dog.

Criminals are not the most intelligent people. There, I've said it. But, even as dumb as your standard criminal may be, he ain't that stupid. Unless there's something he really needs inside my house, he's gonna go rob somebody else when he hears Cobb going off on the other side of my door. It doesn't take too much intellect to calculate one's chances of killing a leaping 150 lb. GSD, a hurtling cannonball of 1 3/4" fangs and 320 pounds per square inch of bite pressure -- in the dark. In addition to getting off the lucky/incredibly skillful one-shot kill (or else you've only terminally pissed the dog off), the report of the gun is gonna draw the police and other unwanted attention.

The most likely scenario though is that the burglar, rapist or would-be murderer would be unable to get off an effective split-second shot-in-the-dark, and is going to get incredibly f*cked up. ...And afterwards, while the EMTs are scraping what's left of the guy (or girl) into a baggie, I'm going to say, "Good dog, Cobb!" and buy him a steak. Cobb's way of saying, 'I'm armed and lethally dangerous' is much more effective than the way your standard human would express the same sentiment. With the dog, there can be no reasonable doubt that he is unflinchingly, deadly serious. If a would-be perpetrator ignores that warning, he/she does so at their own risk.

...Just to let you know. I'm not saying, "Don't protect yourself." I'm not saying, "Disarm yourself." Rifles are fine. I'm saying, "Concealed handguns are a recipe for disaster."

You disagree. But I wouldn't insult your ability to reason by saying "I'm sad for you" or that "it's a shame" you're not as wise as me. I just disagree with your logic, and choice of supporting data as being askew (i.e., that the main reason to own a concealed handgun is to stop Hitler from killing off several million of his countrymen; rifles were confiscated too, and are the most effective military weapons, not handguns).

Still Respectfully,

zoid

P.S.
The Second Amendment had at it's focus the right to keep a rifle in the house, both for home-protection and for the very real possibility of a militia call-up to repel European invaders. Anybody who tells you it intended to ratify assault weapons and concealed handguns is either outright lying to further their own agenda, or else ascribing to our forefathers a clairvoyance of future technological advances, for which there is no direct evidence. Jefferson was undoubtedly a 'smart guy', but he never exhibited even a glimmer of ESP, regarding the future of multi-shot cartridge handguns and automatic weapons.

P.P.S.
Anticipating the question: Pepper spray, mace, taser. Better still, a more thorough awareness of one's surroundings than is generally the case with most humans. People still get out of their cars to feed the bears at Yellowstone. So, don't be a victim waiting to happen, and carry mace if your state allows it. Mace works like a champ on every stripe of animal...
_________________________________________________

"I aim to misbehave." -Capt. Mal Reynolds, Serenity, a.k.a. 'the BDBOF'

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 6:28 PM

Zoid...I used to be a gun control advocate myself, so I'm quite familiar with all the anti-gun positions and beliefs that you have. At one time we had a possibly identical opinion on this issue.

Eventually, it came to pass that the house next door to me was robbed, and the theives made off with the homeowner's entire gun collection, which he had locked up in a gun safe. It took them hours, but they managed to break into it.

I then realized criminals (and terrorists) don't mind breaking the laws against murder, rape, armed robbery, child molestation, etc., so they're not going to obey gun laws either. It was then that I realized that criminals and terrorists will always have weapons, always, no matter what.

That is what's real. I would love it if things were different, and if there were no evil people, and everyone obeyed all laws all the time, and no one littered, and Firefly had never been cancelled, and [fill in your own definition of Nirvana]. But that's not what's real.

And what's real is that there is a direct correlation between concealed carry of firearms by law-abiding people and reduction in violent crime. In none of the 38 states that allow concealed carry has there been an explosion of gun crime, contrary to the dire predictions of gun banners. Blood has completely failed to flow in the streets. Random gunfights have completely failed to break out. And would-be murderers fail to kill as many people, would-be rapists fail to rape as many people, and would-be armed robbers fail to kick in as many doors.

Concealed carry permit holders (who, in most cases, have to pass an FBI background check to get their permit) keep failing to break the law, just as they didn't break the law before they got their permits.

That's just the way it is.

It's a little insulting (actually, it's a lot insulting) for you to assume that an inanimate object (my gun) has the power to transform me into a reckless, crazy, out-of-control, psycho-bitch madwoman intent on destroying anyone who annoys me. It's a lump of metal (and polymer). It doesn't have special mystical powers. I'm exactly the same person I was seven weeks ago, except now I have a greater sense of personal responsibility and $400 less cashy money in my bank account. I'm no more a threat to you (or any other law-abiding person) today that I was before I had the gun.

See, I can even remain calm while respectfully disagreeing with you.

I think we both agree that honor killings are appalling, and that videotaping them with your camera phone adds an entirely new, completely rank layer of disgustingness. We disagree on what it takes to end violence against women (or any person, actually.)

Let's leave it at that. As I said, I've been on both sides of the "gun control" issue at one point or another. I've come to the conclusion that it's more important to deter criminals than it is to disarm the innocent. You have come to a different conclusion.

So let's agree to disagree, okay? Neither of us is going to change the other's opinion, and besides, we seem to have killed the whole thread!

Now, let us return to our regularly-scheduled Firefly love-fest!

-----
It's my job to incite powerful yearning in the hearts and loins of my clients. No, silly, I'm not a Companion...I work at an advertising agency.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 7:35 PM

BORIS

In reply to kayleewannabe Wo! I feel so lucky, My Dad is Sicilian. A culture where men behave like those you described. Not him though. He raised me to defer to NO ONE. I have Tourette's so I kind of stick out, and I got picked on when I was little. My dad taught me to defend myself verbally and physically from a young age. So I can look after myself, and I don't get intimidated by anyone. I don't know about using guns ... it seems kind of extreme, but I guess you do what you have to to feel safe( admittedly My dad taught me how to use guns, and knives ) there are a lot of self defence classes that teach effective skills for different situations, and the really good ones include empowerment strategies.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 10:30 PM