Joss Post at Whedonesque

POSTED BY: FireflyPassenger
UPDATED: Monday, June 11, 2007 08:49
VIEWED: 40228
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

FIREFLYPASSENGER

Sunday, May 20, 2007 1:49 PM

May 20 2007 Joss Whedon post on Whedonesque.
http://whedonesque.com/comments/13271#more

Let's Watch A Girl Get Beaten To Death. This is not my blog, but I don’t have a blog, or a space, and I’d like to be heard for a bit.

Last month seventeen year old Dua Khalil was pulled into a crowd of young men, some of them (the instigators) family, who then kicked and stoned her to death. This is an example of the breath-taking oxymoron “honor killing”, in which a family member (almost always female) is murdered for some religious or ethical transgression. Dua Khalil, who was of the Yazidi faith, had been seen in the company of a Sunni Muslim, and possibly suspected of having married him or converted. That she was torturously murdered for this is not, in fact, a particularly uncommon story. But now you can watch the action up close on CNN. Because as the girl was on the ground trying to get up, her face nothing but red, the few in the group of more than twenty men who were not busy kicking her and hurling stones at her were filming the event with their camera-phones.

There were security officers standing outside the area doing nothing, but the footage of the murder was taken – by more than one phone – from the front row. Which means whoever shot it did so not to record the horror of the event, but to commemorate it. To share it. Because it was cool.

I could start a rant about the level to which we have become desensitized to violence, about the evils of the voyeuristic digital world in which everything is shown and everything is game, but honestly, it’s been said. And I certainly have no jingoistic cultural agenda. I like to think that in America this would be considered unbearably appalling, that Kitty Genovese is still remembered, that we are more evolved. But coincidentally, right before I stumbled on this vid I watched the trailer for “Captivity”.

A few of you may know that I took public exception to the billboard campaign for this film, which showed a concise narrative of the kidnapping, torture and murder of a sexy young woman. I wanted to see if the film was perhaps more substantial (especially given the fact that it was directed by “The Killing Fields” Roland Joffe) than the exploitive ad campaign had painted it. The trailer resembles nothing so much as the CNN story on Dua Khalil. Pretty much all you learn is that Elisha Cuthbert is beautiful, then kidnapped, inventively, repeatedly and horrifically tortured, and that the first thing she screams is “I’m sorry”.

“I’m sorry.”

What is wrong with women?

I mean wrong. Physically. Spiritually. Something unnatural, something destructive, something that needs to be corrected.

How did more than half the people in the world come out incorrectly? I have spent a good part of my life trying to do that math, and I’m no closer to a viable equation. And I have yet to find a culture that doesn’t buy into it. Women’s inferiority – in fact, their malevolence -- is as ingrained in American popular culture as it is anywhere they’re sporting burkhas. I find it in movies, I hear it in the jokes of colleagues, I see it plastered on billboards, and not just the ones for horror movies. Women are weak. Women are manipulative. Women are somehow morally unfinished. (Objectification: another tangential rant avoided.) And the logical extension of this line of thinking is that women are, at the very least, expendable.

I try to think how we got here. The theory I developed in college (shared by many I’m sure) is one I have yet to beat: Womb Envy. Biology: women are generally smaller and weaker than men. But they’re also much tougher. Put simply, men are strong enough to overpower a woman and propagate. Women are tough enough to have and nurture children, with or without the aid of a man. Oh, and they’ve also got the equipment to do that, to be part of the life cycle, to create and bond in a way no man ever really will. Somewhere a long time ago a bunch of men got together and said, “If all we do is hunt and gather, let’s make hunting and gathering the awesomest achievemen

PENGUIN

Sunday, May 20, 2007 2:15 PM

I admire a man who not only talks the talk, but walks the walk. Joss is a great man because of that.

Women are strong. We should build them up instead of breaking them down. It takes an animal to beat down a physically weaker woman. It takes a real man to accept a woman as an equal.

King of the Mythical Land that is Iowa

REDHEAD

Sunday, May 20, 2007 2:56 PM

Please,after you read the essay, go and read the comments at Whedonesq. You will be proud to be a member of (as a whole
) such an intelligent, articulate group of fans. (Make sure you get to the 99th post--that's Joss again!)

Then, may I humbly suggest you go to Equality Now and donate what you can afford. We--not just those of us who are women but all of us, as humans--must support a change in attitude towards women.

Finally, Let us try to effect a change in our own attitudes. As women, let us strive daily to be as strong and courageous as we can be and those of you who are men, please support us in our efforts.

In memory of Dua Khalil, who {apparently) was destroyed for trying to be herself.

CHRISISALL

Sunday, May 20, 2007 3:18 PM

This is why Joss is my Hero; he is who I would want to be...a wee bit shorter and a much better writer.

"Men are the weaker sex..."- Max Chrisisall

FLYVOTE

Sunday, May 20, 2007 3:34 PM

My little, simple statement at Whedonesque:

I love my wife. She has weaknesses, I have weaknesses. We know each other's weaknesses. She has strengths, I have strengths. We know each other's strengths. At no time will I use my strengths to take advantage of her weaknesses. I use my strengths only to help her. She reciprocates fairly.

All I can ever hope is that more married couples start to behave this way, that more societies start to behave this way, that more countries start to behave this way.

[ edit ] Flyvote | May 20, 16:31 CET

---- ---- ---- ---- ----
FlyVote (version 2.6) Be a Big Damn Hero: http://www.usbmicro.com/misc For Windows/Linux/MacOS9/MacOSX
Vote for our Big Damn Heroes!

TDBROWN

Sunday, May 20, 2007 3:40 PM

Haven't been able to post on whedonesque, because it's so busy there... and rightly so.

We, as men, should not knock women down to unrealistic depths, nor should we build them up to unrealistic heights. We should walk beside them, sharing their nobility and strength, combining it with ours, so that we both might stand tall and truly free.

Thank you, Joss, for your courage and your conviction. We're with you, 100%.

"Might have been the losing side, still not convinced it was the wrong one." -Mal

CHRISISALL

Sunday, May 20, 2007 3:53 PM

The above two posts belong right up there with Joss' comments! I'm proud to be posting with the likes of y'all!

This is the REAL way to make better worlds Chrisisall

REDHEAD

Sunday, May 20, 2007 5:41 PM

Hey you all, I know this is a tangent but, if you've been keeping up on the commentary on whedonesque, what do you think about sansmercy being banned.

When I posted earlier about how proud I was of the articulate intelligent fans, I alluded to some being not so good. Two of the posts I was talking about being "less good" were sansmercy and caleb[edit, maybe not caleb--my memory is someone advocated going to another country and forcing them to conform to our belief set].

However, while I didn't like the violence and anger in either post, I also don't like that samsmercy who spoke out against Joss (wrongly IMO) was banned and anotehr who wholeheartedly(and somewhat violently) endorsed Joss apparently was not. Anyone else troubled by this?

edit: some of the later posts seem to indicate that sansmercy came back and made personal attacks. Can someone find this? My poor old eyes are aching and I can't find it.

YINYANG

Sunday, May 20, 2007 6:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by redhead:
edit: some of the later posts seem to indicate that sansmercy came back and made personal attacks. Can someone find this? My poor old eyes are aching and I can't find it.

Actually, I think it was right in her first post.

Quote:
How dare you link this to race.

This is the media's idea that honour killings don't happen in western countries ALL THE TIME, in christian households, in middle class households who have internet access, inside toilets and every advantage poor uneducated people in the middle of nowhere dont' have. That MOST domestic violence is about honour in some form, whether religious or cultural, and that mostly it is covered up for that same honour by men and women for the same reasons the woman in the video died.

You want religious encouragement of violence against women? check your bible. ANY bible. The vast majority of christians will choose not to use it, just like the vast majority of Muslims CHOOSE NOT TO. But it's there if you need it, if you're insane, if you live in an area that encourages fundamentalism as a way of life. If you're a woman there's no answer to it and if you're a man there's a nice excuse for you.

The problem with videos like this is that people watch them and have an excuse to hate entire cultures, vast portions of a map.

I'm also very very tired of people who need visual evidence shoved in their faces of human rights issues in order to feel something. You got so desensitised to violence that you need video footage of the starving, the downtrodden and the dead before you'll give money to a cause? screw you. There is *no such thing* as compassion fatigue. It's an infinite resource, like love. And if you're truly too stupid to realise that death and destruction are BAD THINGS that need to be stopped *without the video*, screw you twice. And I guess that screws over every poor country that can't afford the mobile phones to tape it.

Secret Message to Joss: it took THIS to break you? You weren't paying attention. (emphasis mine)

There was also the edited comment where she was mistaken in her belief that Joss linked to the video. There might have been personal attacks there we won't know about anymore.

---

"If I were a Nazi, someone would defend my constitutional right to hate Jews. If I were a Klansman, someone would defend my rights to hate blacks. It's a funny place, this world. Hate has rights. Love has none." - Jeff, Murphy's Boy

REDHEAD

Sunday, May 20, 2007 6:29 PM

I got that her first post contained personal attacks. And I got that she got a warning. Someone else though made a reference to her making another attack. (which I guess could have been reason enough to kick her off but the first time wasn't)

CROW

Sunday, May 20, 2007 6:32 PM

As a raging feminist who loves many men I have often pondered the issue. Joss's theory of "womb envy" seems too simple to me (although maybe my theory is just as simple -- it's hard to see these things from outside).

I have always thought that men resented the sexual power women have over them (I certainly have resented the sexual power some men have had over me). I think we all resent being compelled in a direction that isn't the one we might have chosen if given a choice.

So for example when I have a hormonal compulsion to some man who does not reciprocate, I resent my powerlessness in the face of that compulsion. I resent the inevitable humiliation which accompanies said compulsion and I resent the man.

Powerlessness in the face of anything is difficult, and many many times, we are also powerless to fight back. When you are put in a humiliating situation at work, you are often incapable of taking any action on your own behalf. But, in the case of men vs. women, a man can fight back and in fact release ALL of his frustrations about his earthly powerlessness on this one cause.

And, in that way all humans have, we have a tendency to group our resentments. That is, if one man humiliates me through rejection, I can ascribe his nastiness to all men and resent all men for having the potential power to humiliate me through rejection.

It is also quite difficult to reject our own DNA programming so that others do not have the power to belittle us through their rejection. God knows, I try hard not to be a DNA puppet, but there I'm also fighting a force that may be more powerful than I am.

Moved to musing,

Crow

YINYANG

Sunday, May 20, 2007 6:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by redhead:
I got that her first post contained personal attacks. And I got that she got a warning. Someone else though made a reference to her making another attack. (which I guess could have been reason enough to kick her off but the first time wasn't)

Quote:
edited to say Joss linked to EN.

[ edited by sansmercy on 2007-05-20 13:00 ]

Quote:
Bless me, I apologise wholeheartedly to poor Joss. I didn't click the link because it looks like it links to it - entirely my fault. :-D

I know most men are too busy being upset that they can't bear children and then beating their wives in frustration and jealousy to pay too much attention to where they link. Joss is clearly a highly evolved being.

Womb envy is such a burden on poor men. I blame women, for flaunting their tampon ads and suchlike in the face of mens terrible loss.

Really, womb envy. Brilliant deduction. Not economics or education or lack of power or cultural fear or any number of other possible reasons. No, in the end it all comes down to the fact that nice sensitive men want to make babies and have periods and people who can do that scare them. Okay.

::shrugs::

/tangent

---

"If I were a Nazi, someone would defend my constitutional right to hate Jews. If I were a Klansman, someone would defend my rights to hate blacks. It's a funny place, this world. Hate has rights. Love has none." - Jeff, Murphy's Boy

REDHEAD

Sunday, May 20, 2007 6:49 PM

Okay, sansmercy's rude, unpleasant, and childish. But, I still think she has the right to her opinion and that it shouldn't be squelched.

(and thanks for hunting that out for me. My eyes are blurring from searching through the posts.)

Hopefully, though, we (me, at least) won't get too distracted from Joss' point--We all need to do our part to promote gender equality.

THEONETRUEBIX

Sunday, May 20, 2007 7:29 PM

For what it's worth, Crow, Joss himself called the "womb envy" thing "a rather silly simplification, but I believe on a mass, unconscious level, it's entirely true".

GEEKMAFIA

Sunday, May 20, 2007 9:07 PM

A mod warned sansmercy to cool it after her first post. She then returned giving out that joss linked to the video (he hadn't she just presumed he had) and then came back ranting again. She was warned and went against it Twice. I think she deserves what happened. A mod caroline addressed the whole thing as follows

Quote:
Sansmercy didn't get banned for having a different opinion. She got a time out for being rude and aggressive about it, having already been warned once. That's not the way we talk to each other here, as most people who stick around this place know. They also know we do not discuss moderating policies on site.

From that it sounds like a temp ban anyway not a full time one.

The mods on whedonesque can come off as tough but they don't ban people for disagreeing.

http://midknight.wilson.googlepages.com/home

JWHEDONADDICT

Monday, May 21, 2007 3:25 PM

I apologize for my second post about this subject and I'd like to thank whomever posted this.

Yet another reason to add to all the other reasons of why Joss is IT for me. I truly do love and admire him as a person, not just a writer.

**************************************
"Drew isn't that talented. He just gets away with stuff because he's cute."--David Fury on Drew Goddard
"Our fate has to be our own, or we're nothing."--Angel
"In Joss We Trust."

CANTER

Monday, May 21, 2007 7:41 PM

I finally decided to join Equality Now and see if I can make a difference in my own country.

South Africa is a diverse mix of old and new and while I'm lucky to be in a position where I'm not faced with too much discrimination based on my gender, many here aren't so fortunate.

If I can make a difference, I'd take that as an honour.

Big Damn Browncoat Vote http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

REDHEAD

Monday, May 21, 2007 8:01 PM

Me, too, It would be interesting to see what was the result on Equality Now's site after Whedon's post.

MSG

Monday, May 21, 2007 8:23 PM

And this is why Joss is my hero!

"I'm not all that interested in the mental health of people who want to kill me. "- Leroy Jethro Gibbs

SASSALICIOUS

Monday, May 21, 2007 9:51 PM

Joss's post is spreading all over the internet and rightly so.

I actually saw it on the celebrity gossip blog I read before I got here.

I hate the injustice in the world. I hate the men that propagate this type of injustice and I hate women that allow them to.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wisconsin sucks. I don't want to be here.

~Forsaken Forever

CHINDI

Monday, May 21, 2007 10:33 PM

I agree. This is why Joss and his writings are so compelling; and why he attracts such intelligent and thoughtful (as in thinking) fans..

It is a profoundly disturbing story, event and situation. It is made all the more so, as there seems to be this resurgence against women world wide... thinking about the issue and discussing it is a good start! Shine that bright light into that dark corner... then as Joss asks, let us all try to take the NEXT step to action.

I too am proud to be a part of this community. And this is why Joss and all the 'Coats are so important to me personally.

Thank you for the discussion.

Chindi

MAZAEN

Monday, May 21, 2007 10:43 PM

Quote:
We, as men, should not knock women down to unrealistic them up to unrealistic heights. We should walk beside them, sharing their nobility and strength, combining it with ours, so that we both might stand tall and truly free.

Did you make that up? That is such a thought provoking and articulate quote.

I agree that the truly greatest men in the world are those men that are able to use their strengths to respect women and children. These men seem to benefit from the nobility and quiet strength that these women are allowed to show. These women go on to raise great sons like Joss.

ANGELDOVE

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 6:06 AM

I just found this an interesting connection between what Joss posted, and a quote from Early in Objects In Space:

Joss’ post on whedonesque:

Quote:
The theory I developed in college (shared by many I’m sure) is one I have yet to beat: Womb Envy. Biology: women are generally smaller and weaker than men. But they’re also much tougher. Put simply, men are strong enough to overpower a woman and propagate. Women are tough enough to have and nurture children, with or without the aid of a man. Oh, and they’ve also got the equipment to do that, to be part of the life cycle, to create and bond in a way no man ever really will. Somewhere a long time ago a bunch of men got together and said, “If all we do is hunt and gather, let’s make hunting and gathering the awesomest achievement, and let’s make childbirth kinda weak and shameful.” It’s a rather silly simplification, but I believe on a mass, unconscious level, it’s entirely true.

Quote by Early from OIS

Quote:
Man is stronger by far than woman.
But only woman can create a child.
That seem right to you?

And lastly, I know someone already posted the quote

Quote:
If nothing we do matters, than the only thing that matters is what we do.

- as an example of taking the time, whatever time, no matter how little, to do something, anything that can create a positive change in this world. I’d like to add another:

A quote from Joss’ response to sansmercy:

Quote:
One of the things that keeps people from doing anything constructive is the overwhelming feeling that it simply isn't enough. And the withering disdain of people like Sansmercy has a similar effect. It freezes people, makes speaking out or lifting a finger awkward and problematic...whenever a person decides to do something useful -- no matter how late or how little -- that's something useful.

Quote:
Nothing in the world is the way it ought to be. - It's harsh, and cruel. - But that's why there's us. Champions. It doesn't matter where we come from, what we've done or suffered, or even if we make a difference. We live as though the world was what it should be, to show it what it can be.

I believe we are the champions, and we are being called upon to 'show the world what it can be' (ok, yeah, sounds a little corny, so Queen like; couldn’t figure out another way to say it.)

And what I found truly amazing was those few comments on the site stating that Joss is just now ‘waking up to the problems in the world’ - have ya seen his shows, aside from the above quotes? seriously…you're on whedonesque, and you can’t figure out his shows are about girl power, really?

Nice to know I don’t have to worry about such ignorance (sorry was that harsh?) from my wonderful friends here.

"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I took the road less traveled by and they CANCELLED MY FRIKKIN' SHOW. I totally shoulda took the road that had all those people on it. Damn." --Joss

JWHEDONADDICT

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 9:03 AM

Angeldove: That's actually 2 of my favorite quotes not only from ANGEL, but the entire Jossverse.

The first one, especially, is one I use damn near every day of my life...or should. I suffer from severe depression and the worst days are usually brought on by money or family issues, the feeling that no matter what I do, it's never enough.

I've been so wrapped up in my own family issues lately that I barely am able to digest what's going on in the world even though I actually watch the news almost everyday. Thanks to Joss, I realize how little my problems really are in comparison. I hope there's something I can do to help even though I'm kinda broke.

**************************************
"Drew isn't that talented. He just gets away with stuff because he's cute."--David Fury on Drew Goddard
"Our fate has to be our own, or we're nothing."--Angel
"In Joss We Trust."

CERES

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 9:14 AM

I was flicking through ‘Are Women Human?’ which looked like a really interesting book on this subject although I haven’t had time to read it properly yet. Here’s the summary – ‘More than half a century after the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" defined what a human being is and is entitled to, Catharine MacKinnon asks: are women human yet? If women were regarded as human, would they be sold into sexual slavery worldwide; veiled, silenced and imprisoned in homes; bred, and worked as menials for little or no pay; stoned for sex outside marriage or burned within it; mutilated genitally, impoverished economically, and mired in illiteracy - all as a matter of course and without effective recourse?’

I think just the title is thought-provoking although of course some men are also “impoverished economically, and mired in illiteracy”.

I’d agree with Joss too about “I’m not for a second going down the “women are saints” route – that just leads to more stone-throwing (and occasional Joan-burning)” as that seems to cause just as much discrimination.

...................................

You can question the meaning of life on a floaty
island of your own for a while.

BROWNCOAT1

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 11:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by redhead:
Hey you all, I know this is a tangent but, if you've been keeping up on the commentary on whedonesque, what do you think about sansmercy being banned.

When I posted earlier about how proud I was of the articulate intelligent fans, I alluded to some being not so good. Two of the posts I was talking about being "less good" were sansmercy and caleb[edit, maybe not caleb--my memory is someone advocated going to another country and forcing them to conform to our belief set].

However, while I didn't like the violence and anger in either post, I also don't like that samsmercy who spoke out against Joss (wrongly IMO) was banned and anotehr who wholeheartedly(and somewhat violently) endorsed Joss apparently was not. Anyone else troubled by this?

edit: some of the later posts seem to indicate that sansmercy came back and made personal attacks. Can someone find this? My poor old eyes are aching and I can't find it.

If Sansmercy was banned for personal attacks, fine, that sort of thing should not be tolerated on a messageboard and banning is justified. If Sansmercy was banned for speaking out or having a differing opinion than someone (even Joss), that is censorship and it is wrong.

I have never seen any sort of censorship at Whedonesque so I tend to think it was the former and not the latter.

__________________________________________
Holding the line since December '02!

[img]

[/img]

Richmond, VA & surrounding area Firefly Fans:

http://www.richmondbrowncoats.org

Color Sergeant

[img]

[/img]

http://76thbattalion.homestead.com/index.html

FIREFLYPASSENGER

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 4:08 PM

<>

I love this quote from Angel, I believe its from the episode Epiphany, I forget which season 2 or 3.

The only thing that matters is what we do. I love Joss' call to action. If we all take a step, ripples will come from that movement.

ANGELDOVE

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 4:11 AM

jwhedonaddict - I agree, those are my favorite quotes from the whedonverse as a whole (philosophy-wise anyway). It's a good thing you find solace in these things, and find a way to make it meaningful to you. I've been where you are, I know that doesn't help, I can't say I've been in the exact same place, but I've definitely been in one like it. The fact that you posted to this board is more than most will do, and as Joss said, just becoming knowledgeable about the subject so you can speak eloquently on its behalf is enough. It doesn't take money or the big win - remember, "even the smallest act of kindness can be the greatest thing in the world". Keep working on you, and keep the verse by your side. Use it for comfort, use it for inspiration, use it to get from day to day. What better use and tribute to his work could he ask for?

"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I took the road less traveled by and they CANCELLED MY FRIKKIN' SHOW. I totally shoulda took the road that had all those people on it. Damn." --Joss

AGENTROUKA

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 8:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Crow:
As a raging feminist who loves many men I have often pondered the issue. Joss's theory of "womb envy" seems too simple to me (although maybe my theory is just as simple -- it's hard to see these things from outside).

I have always thought that men resented the sexual power women have over them (I certainly have resented the sexual power some men have had over me). I think we all resent being compelled in a direction that isn't the one we might have chosen if given a choice.

So for example when I have a hormonal compulsion to some man who does not reciprocate, I resent my powerlessness in the face of that compulsion. I resent the inevitable humiliation which accompanies said compulsion and I resent the man.

Powerlessness in the face of anything is difficult, and many many times, we are also powerless to fight back. When you are put in a humiliating situation at work, you are often incapable of taking any action on your own behalf. But, in the case of men vs. women, a man can fight back and in fact release ALL of his frustrations about his earthly powerlessness on this one cause.

And, in that way all humans have, we have a tendency to group our resentments. That is, if one man humiliates me through rejection, I can ascribe his nastiness to all men and resent all men for having the potential power to humiliate me through rejection.

It is also quite difficult to reject our own DNA programming so that others do not have the power to belittle us through their rejection. God knows, I try hard not to be a DNA puppet, but there I'm also fighting a force that may be more powerful than I am.

Moved to musing,

Crow

I think your theory is very discouraging and also very probable.

Not that I completely discount the womb envy thing, because on a very fundamental level men really do not have much of a job in nature. The number of women determines the number of babies being born while - discounting genetic imperfections - it takes only one man. The rest are pretty expendable. On a purely biological level.

That can't not have an impact.

But the sexual resentment issue probably has a much greater infuence on how men deal with that. They could, after all, theoretically try to be as helpful as possible while having as much sex as possible, but coupled with the threat of rejection you describe, that doesn't really work toward a healthy sense of identity.

Men are human beings and shouldn't have a "helper" status any more than women should.

Not to mention the testosterone. Men are physically different. Not lesser women any more than women are lesser men.

I get that men feel the need to have a territory of their own. An independent and valid status that is somewhat defined by their differences to women, apart from anything biology dictates.

I just wish that it didn't have to be so complicated and full of superiority/inferiority and mutual exclusion that it creates such a distance as to make women objects in their eyes rather than peers in humanity.

Maybe if men weren't physically stronger than women, we'd all be happier. Rape and "I'm bigger so I'm right!" gender oppression wouldn't be much of an issue and we would be forced to solve our problems in a rational way.

I'm glad and grateful, though, that we strive for rationality enough that we have come this far in spite of those factors. All things considered, that's pretty amazing and encourages my hope that the rest will catch up, too.

JWHEDONADDICT

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 8:47 AM

Angeldove: Thank you for your words. I definitely will do my best to honor him by doing what I can for others.

**************************************
"What if you could have the power? Now? In every generation, one Slayer is born...because a bunch of men who died thousands of years ago made up that rule...
So I say we change the rule. I say my power should be our power...
Every girl who could have the power, will have the power. Can stand up, will stand up...
Make your choice. Are you ready to be strong?"--Buffy Summers, May 20, 2003

"In Joss We Trust."

LEXIBLOCK

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 11:55 AM

His thread over there and here, does nothing to covert me to anything - I find it unplesant, its like religious fanaticism. Sure its not about the usual supernatural being, but the fanaticism lurks there. Violence is wrong, the gender is irrelevant - and nobody is less equal that the human race.

CERES

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 12:21 PM

But isn't that his point? That it's obvious, in much of the world, gender does make a diffence and he's trying hard to understand why.

.............................

You can question the meaning of life on a floaty
island of your own for a while.

SCHMOE

Thursday, May 24, 2007 5:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by lexiblock:
His thread over there and here, does nothing to covert me to anything - I find it unplesant, its like religious fanaticism.

Quote:
Originally posted by ceres:
But isn't that his point? That it's obvious, in much of the world, gender does make a diffence and he's trying hard to understand why.

I have to agree with Lexi, I wouldn't express it the same way, but in my mind, Joss's thoughts represent overly simplistic thinking.

Everyone tends to solve problems differently, but I don't think anything gets resolved in a constructive manner when we resort to victimology, or trying to ascribe victims to a “class”. We almost always get side-tracked with feelings of guilt that cause our response to become emotionally disproportionate with whatever it is we are trying to correct.

That being said, bigotry of any variety is wrong, but everything needs to be dealt with on a case by case basis and not an assumption derived from personal reflection. As Lexi said "violence is wrong". Violence between races, genders, whatever, is wrong and is also entirely equivalent. It is impossible to live in a society of equality when one considers violence disproportionate when based on different genders or race, etc.

Anyway, back to my proportionality argument, his whole train-of-thought would eventually lead to overcompensation. Generally speaking that is why I have a big problem with "advocacy" groups -- I don't care if we're talking pro life/choice or any other realm of argument. The groups can take an issue that isn't morally ambiguous and tarnish it by reflexively trying to combat an opposing force (when the opposing force logically shouldn’t be related). Another problem is that those emotionally attached to their issues tend to become locked in all sort of logical pitfalls.

For example, many women in the mid-east are content with their situation (conversely many are not). There is a logical problem -- either we respect others, and how they think, or we admit we are culturally superior and feel it necessary to impress our beliefs upon others. This is mutually exclusive. One has no need to argue with another unless they are convinced the other’s choices were in error.

The perpetrators involved in this middle-east incident need to spend a lifetime in prison, but unfortunately I don't think that the circumstances that created the incident can be addressed. Action causes resentment, and I hate to admit, but resentment is a powerful motivator for hurting others. And perhaps I'm being a little selfish here, but I'm not so noble as being willing to die for someone else's cause. And unfortunately that’s the broader world we live in -- we’ve reached a time when the death of others is a seemingly rational response to an otherwise philosophical disagreement.

If someone can figure out how to solve the problem of resentment without creating even more resentment... Well, they would deserve a lifetime supply of Nobel Peace Prizes.

Granted all of you may disagree. But that’s the beauty of the situation... I really couldn’t care less if you do, thus I don’t harbor any resentment to anyone who thinks differently.

QUANDOM

Thursday, May 24, 2007 5:42 AM

The problem is with Islamic civilization, not men. The treatment of this unfortunate woman would have been unthinkable one thousand years ago in Christian Europe - it was and is typical of Arab and the successor Turkish empires' culture. The Men of the West owe no apologies, but I hope we can all agree that whatever contributions it has made to the arts, the Muslim world is morally degenerate. In the coming clash of civilizations, I require from Whedon and every man living - which side are you on? I bid you stand, Men of the West!

LITTLEALBATROSS

Thursday, May 24, 2007 5:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by quandom:
The problem is with Islamic civilization, not men. The treatment of this unfortunate woman would have been unthinkable one thousand years ago in Christian Europe - it was and is typical of Arab and the successor Turkish empires' culture. The Men of the West owe no apologies, but I hope we can all agree that whatever contributions it has made to the arts, the Muslim world is morally degenerate. In the coming clash of civilizations, I require from Whedon and every man living - which side are you on? I bid you stand, Men of the West!

Either I'm completely missing the sarcasm here or something because if you're seriously claiming that there is no gender-based violence in the Western world than I have to ask which rock you've been hiding under.

And no, we cannot all agree that the Muslim world is morally degenerate.

REDHEAD

Thursday, May 24, 2007 6:04 AM

Did I miss something or are you, Quandom, really condemning a whole civilization? There are aspects of some Islamic cultures (it is not a monolithic culture as Christianity is not monolithic) I abhor. However, there are aspects of my own culture, I also abhor.

Quote:
The treatment of this unfortunate woman would have been unthinkable one thousand years ago in Christian Europe -

.

Please don't forget the burning of Joan of Arc among many other unfortunate women.

I am sure you didn't realize but you sound as intolerant as those you condemn.

Be intolerant of cruelty but not of entire civilizations. I understand your outrage. I feel it myself but please don't direct it at a whole people--for their opinions may be no more of one cloth than yours and mine

BORIS

Thursday, May 24, 2007 6:23 AM

Its good to know that people are so disturbed about human injustice they want to speak out or act against it ... But not only women are treated badly, people with disabilities or from diverse racial backgrounds, children, gay people...people from minorities in general, are subjected to equally unspeakable acts,and this happens in western countries as well. Sadly there are plenty of women who either instigate or allow such behavior, you cannot blame it all on men. (I am a woman that has worked in community services for years so I have seen the things I am talking about)Unfortunately those of us who know this behaviour is wrong, are also a minority.

Rose and boris

BORIS

Thursday, May 24, 2007 6:30 AM

In response to the anti islamic rant, and please exscuse any unintentional agression: Ugh!What history accounts have you read? or have you just chosen to be selective. Violent things happened to Christian women, and still do, but because Christianity is part of Western culture, it,s not as widely reported...take your blinkers off!!! Read more widely, be better informed step away from your safety net and see what is happening right in front of you, and then be someone who stands up and helps! dont just rant maniacally about things you dont understand

CROW

Thursday, May 24, 2007 12:35 PM

Oh yes, that wee little gendercide the burning of the witches was carried out by Martians??? Lowest estimates 50,000 dead (populations were rather smaller during those centuries) - highest estimate 9 million burned alive - discrepancies like that speak volumes to me...

SAHARA

Thursday, May 24, 2007 1:40 PM

Joss' post was mentioned on Defamer.com yesterday.

http://www.defamer.com/hollywood/short-ends/

Sahara
Blackbird fly into the light of the dark, black night.

BROWNCOATSANDINISTA

Thursday, May 24, 2007 4:27 PM

Quandom have you forgotten the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, Chastity Belts? Christianity, for all of the good it has done, has more blood on its hands than any other religion in history. I truly hope that I am missing your sarcasm here. Islam on the other hand, is responsible in large part for medicine, engineering, mathematics, and the bulk of Greek and Roman Writings, which can hardly be considered nothing other than art.

As to the content of Joss' post - Though I doubt it is the root cause of gender inequality "Womb Envy" does seem to be a logical argument. Men tend to be physically stronger than women, and therefore feel they should be dominant. They also wish to propogate, but know that to pass on their genes they require a woman and that they came from a woman. This confuses them, because it gives women power over them, even though they are physically stronger. Thus, men subjugate the women to maintain this dominance the only way they know how, leading to inequality. After centuries of this dynamic, women have developed a case of stockholm syndrome, identifying with their subjugators' "Right" to dominate them. Now I must say that I am a man, and do not advocate dominance by women just as i do not advocate dominance by men. We're just two halves that make a whole baby and carry on the species. Also, I have no real Sociology training and therefore my ramblings are based entirely on speculation and possibly the "truthiness" of my arguments, which is dangerous in and of its self. But know that I am simply commenting on the topic, and not trying to insult anyone or force anyone to my way of thinking.

As to those who would attack Joss for "Just waking up" to the problems in the world ((Have they ever seen his shows?)) - Better Early than late, but better late than never. I think that is the main thrust of Joss' argument. Should we fight over when someone "Saw the Light" and decided to do something to change the injustices or should we celebrate that they've made the decision and help them in their actions?

"I'm not going to say Serenity is the greatest SciFi movie ever; oh wait yes I am." - Orson Scott Card

SPACEYCOWBOY

Thursday, May 24, 2007 8:11 PM

Firstly, i commend joss on his position and how he chose to bring this issue to the minds of so many. I would not expect anything less.

Secondly, this is a very complex issue and like most problems that we all face, their is never a single solution, however their is always determination. the determination of a truly inspired few to make the necessary changes that shape our world. What am i saying? simply this. the negative treatment of women has always been a part of all civilizations since the foundation of the earth. particularly civilizations that have a patriachical structure. no one can understand why women have always been seen as inferior but what we can determine is that the fault lies with mankind as a whole (sorry to disappoint those of you who blame christianity, islam, or religion as a whole for all the problems of the world, particularly those of you who have never read any of the sacred texts and apply your biased interpretation to suit your own needs). This detestable incident that happened to Dua was not because of the religion those people belonged to, it was because they are human. you see, as humans we have always had an unknown and innate reason to dislike outsiders. whether it be women, blacks, whites, jews, muslims, christians, e.t.c.

But how do we do it? we use mediums (this is where religion always comes in it to take the blame). our once infallible religions become a medium (a tool,) used by fallible human beings to propagate their message (remember also that the school sytem was being used in the early 1900's to teach young white children that they were superior to blacks). Anyway as those who have read and understood sacred texts will tell you, not one of them tells you to hate women, jews, e.t.c. we as humans twist and interpret these texts to suit our needs and it is truly sad that so many have bought into false ideas and behaviors and not known why nor thought to seek out the truth.

What do we do? For there to be any change, we as humans need to fight and defeat that innate compulsion in us to be better than. you all know what i mean, you feel that compulsion everyday, you take pride in it. "at least i'm better off than..." "i should be better than..." this kind of unhealthy competition if you look closely is the reason for the hate that people have toward each other. this also may be a simplification of the issue, but it is what i am able to put forth.

It is truly regrettable what happened to Dua. May her soul rest in Peace.

SPACEYCOWBOY

Thursday, May 24, 2007 8:11 PM

Firstly, i commend joss on his position and how he chose to bring this issue to the minds of so many. I would not expect anything less.

Secondly, this is a very complex issue and like most problems that we all face, there is never a single solution, however there is always determination. the determination of a truly inspired few to make the necessary changes that shape our world. What am i saying? simply this. the negative treatment of women has always been a part of all civilizations since the foundation of the earth. particularly civilizations that have a patriachical structure. no one can understand why women have always been seen as inferior but what we can determine is that the fault lies with mankind as a whole (sorry to disappoint those of you who blame christianity, islam, or religion as a whole for all the problems of the world, particularly those of you who have never read any of the sacred texts and apply your biased interpretation to suit your own needs). This detestable incident that happened to Dua was not because of the religion those people belonged to, it was because they are human. you see, as humans we have always had an unknown and innate reason to dislike outsiders. whether it be women, blacks, whites, jews, muslims, christians, e.t.c.

But how do we do it? we use mediums (this is where religion always comes in it to take the blame). our once infallible religions become a medium (a tool,) used by fallible human beings to propagate their message (remember also that the school sytem was being used in the early 1900's to teach young white children that they were superior to blacks). Anyway as those who have read and understood sacred texts will tell you, not one of them tells you to hate women, jews, e.t.c. we as humans twist and interpret these texts to suit our needs and it is truly sad that so many have bought into false ideas and behaviors and not known why nor thought to seek out the truth.

What do we do? For there to be any change, we as humans need to fight and defeat that innate compulsion in us to be better than. you all know what i mean, you feel that compulsion everyday, you take pride in it. "at least i'm better off than..." "i should be better than..." this kind of unhealthy competition if you look closely is the reason for the hate that people have toward each other. this also may be a simplification of the issue, but it is what i am able to put forth.

It is truly regrettable what happened to Dua. May her soul rest in Peace.

SPACEYCOWBOY

Thursday, May 24, 2007 8:15 PM

oops. sorry about the double post.

BORIS

Thursday, May 24, 2007 11:56 PM

Yeah Chastity belts...Weren't they a Christian thing? Another thought Don't members of the KKK and the IRA and the Sicilian Mafia regard themselves as Christian? do they represent the rest of us Christians any more than radical violent Muslims represent Everyone practising Islam?

rose and boris

SASSALICIOUS

Friday, May 25, 2007 12:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by quandom:
The problem is with Islamic civilization, not men. The treatment of this unfortunate woman would have been unthinkable one thousand years ago in Christian Europe - it was and is typical of Arab and the successor Turkish empires' culture. The Men of the West owe no apologies, but I hope we can all agree that whatever contributions it has made to the arts, the Muslim world is morally degenerate. In the coming clash of civilizations, I require from Whedon and every man living - which side are you on? I bid you stand, Men of the West!

Someone is a bigot, but I can't decide if you hate Islam or the Middle East.

There exist many Islamic countries AND people that don't demonstrate this sort of behavior. "Honor killings" aren't part of the Koran. A lot of Christian sects treat women like crap as well. Possibly not as violently, but equally bad. Does the "rule of thumb" ring a bell for you? For a reference, written by a woman who believes the nonsense, see "Lies Women Believe: And the Truth that Sets them Free" at http://www.amazon.com/Lies-Women-Believe-Truth-that/dp/0802472966/ref=
sr_1_1/002-7662270-7283233?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1180052493&sr=1-1. My favorite lie that I believe is "I have rights".

ANY group that propagates sanctioned inequality and injustice is morally degenerate to some degree. Am I including America? Yes. I'm also including Israel/Palestine, and some tenets of Buddhism (and I love the Buddhism, but male monks are treated far better than female monks (when the exist) which is hilarious because in traditional southeast asian society women commanded far more power and respect than men).

And if you think for a second that the problem doesn't lie with men at all, then I challenge you to dress up as a female and walk down a street at night. You might be surprised at what happens and who the shady characters are.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wisconsin sucks. I don't want to be here.

~Forsaken Forever

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, May 25, 2007 11:19 AM

Quote:
ANY group that propagates sanctioned inequality and injustice is morally degenerate to some degree. Am I including America? Yes. I'm also including Israel/Palestine, and some tenets of Buddhism (and I love the Buddhism, but male monks are treated far better than female monks (when the exist) which is hilarious because in traditional southeast asian society women commanded far more power and respect than men).

And if you think for a second that the problem doesn't lie with men at all, then I challenge you to dress up as a female and walk down a street at night. You might be surprised at what happens and who the shady characters are.

Sorry for picking on you Sass, cause I like ya, but you're the last one to write on this thread and I don't have the attention span right now to go back to the beginning of this huge post. But.....

1) When you find a society that doesn't propogate sanctioned inequality and injustice, let me know, and I'll buy you a house there.

2) Though I won't argue the bigotry remark, to say that this is a male problem is just as sexist as what quandom said is racist, so I fail to see the fundamental difference in yours and quandom's seperate, but eerily similar ways of thinking here.
________________________________________________

And to everyone else:

As for Joss's problem with Elisha saying "I'm Sorry" in "Captivity", and the fact that this is a female thing as opposed to a torture thing, I call bullshit. Anybody who is tortured says "I'm Sorry" at one point or another. They even begin to believe that maybe something they've done, perhaps all of the bad things that us evil little humans do in life, has somehow made them diserve the torture they're going through and their own guilt for things completely unrelated to the current torture surfaces. Watch "Resevior Dogs" and tell me if the look in the cops eyes wasn't sorry all over when Mr. Blonde was slashing his face and cutting off his ear. Only difference is he had tape on his mouth and couldn't even scream, let alone say "I'm sorry".

If there should be any problem with this movie, I would think it's the fact that anybody would even go to see it in the first place. Just because nobody really died in the making of it doesn't mean that the children and 20 somethings aren't really watching anything more than a fucking snuff flick. I want to know why the two are any different? Guys go and watch this filth and get hardons because they're watching Elisha looking all sexy and then she gets tortured for an hour and (without having seen it) presumably killed. Shouldn't the fact that they know a large enough of us want to watch this shit that they'll make it but they pass on "Serenity II" be the real problem and topic of discussion here?

This post of Joss' was nothing more than another reason why he is as popular today with young women as Oprah is with their mothers. That's just Joss appealing to his prime demographic. "I'M SORRY", but I'm not going to feel like an asshole for having a penis. I nearly had the life beat out of me by 4 guys and took a knife in the back standing up for a girl I only met one time prior. That was torture and the worst part about it is that I kinda did feel sorry for trying to help afterwards. The saddest thing is that I don't think I'd ever do it again, should a similar situation arise....

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

SCHMOE

Friday, May 25, 2007 2:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

And to everyone else:....

I couldn't have said it better. We might be the minority here, but it's better than not agreeing with anyone. I summed up my feelings in my prior post.

Not sure the circumstances about your getting attacked, but I'm really sorry to hear that. Hopefully there weren't any long term problems besides the memories. I unfortunately have a colleague who was in a similar situation.

SASSALICIOUS

Friday, May 25, 2007 10:26 PM

Can I have a houseboat instead of a house?

And yes, I realize it's not completely a "man thing". I'm currently in a man-bashing mood though and so that's the irrational train my thoughts are taking for the moment, which probably directly relates to finding out another person I know has been sexually assaulted.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wisconsin sucks. I don't want to be here.

~Forsaken Forever

CHRISMOORHEAD

Friday, May 25, 2007 10:55 PM

I've always wondered, if women really are as strong as men, why have they been able to be subjected to men in nearly every reach of the known world?

Here's what I've seen, in everything ranging from specicies to races to religions. Someone/thing is going to hate you and/or try to prevent you from prospering at some point. It just happens. Maybe it's not "fair" in the sense of the word that we've been taught, but anything worthy of surviving and being at the top carved it's own way into the equation, not only adapting to it's enviornment, but forcing it's enviornment to adapt to it.

What Joss is writting about reminds me slightly of "White Guilt". Convincing any group, ethnic, sexual, or otherwise that they're entitled to something is not empowering them, it's taking power away.

[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.

REDHEAD

Friday, May 25, 2007 11:43 PM

Chris, you have some valid points.

Quote:
Originally posted by ChrisMoorhead:
I've always wondered, if women really are as strong as men, why have they been able to be subjected to men in nearly every reach of the known world?

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.

Quote:
What Joss is writting about reminds me slightly of "White Guilt". Convincing any group, ethnic, sexual, or otherwise that they're entitled to something is not empowering them, it's taking power away.

What you are saying is at least partially true. However,if you were unaware that a rattlesnake was at your feet and I pointed it out to you, that would not be taking power away. It would be giving you information and empowering you. Perhaps I have forgotten part of Joss's post, but at no point did he say that women were entitled to anything but respect and freedom from abuse.

What I most worry about is that many people posting here have forgotten what was surely the most important point Joss made. No one, male or female, deserves what happened to Dua Khalil. But because she was female, this stoning of a young helpless girl happened. And it is wrong. And we need to take it as a call to action--be that as simple as donating money or as difficult as changing our behavior. Or our minds...

6IXSTRINGJACK

Saturday, May 26, 2007 12:35 AM

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

CHRISMOORHEAD

Saturday, May 26, 2007 3:51 AM

[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.

REDHEAD

Saturday, May 26, 2007 4:55 AM

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.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Saturday, May 26, 2007 6:30 AM

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

REDHEAD

Saturday, May 26, 2007 3:06 PM

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.

AGENTROUKA

Saturday, May 26, 2007 3:34 PM

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.

PROPHETESS89

Saturday, May 26, 2007 6:01 PM

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...

KAIN

Saturday, May 26, 2007 7:45 PM

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

Kain

KAYLEEWANNABEE

Saturday, May 26, 2007 11:53 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 g

6IXSTRINGJACK

Sunday, May 27, 2007 1:15 AM

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

CYBERSNARK

Sunday, May 27, 2007 1:42 AM

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.

SIRI

Sunday, May 27, 2007 2:08 AM

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

6IXSTRINGJACK

Sunday, May 27, 2007 2:14 AM

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

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

6IXSTRINGJACK

Sunday, May 27, 2007 2:16 AM

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

KAYLEEWANNABEE

Sunday, May 27, 2007 2:47 AM

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.

CHRISMOORHEAD

Sunday, May 27, 2007 5:38 AM

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]
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.

REDHEAD

Sunday, May 27, 2007 7:51 AM

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 o

6IXSTRINGJACK

Sunday, May 27, 2007 10:25 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 popula

KAYLEEWANNABEE

Sunday, May 27, 2007 10:50 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.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Sunday, May 27, 2007 10:56 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

KAYLEEWANNABEE

Sunday, May 27, 2007 11:08 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.

KAYLEEWANNABEE

Sunday, May 27, 2007 11:12 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.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Sunday, May 27, 2007 11:20 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

AGENTROUKA

Sunday, May 27, 2007 11:35 AM

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?

KAYLEEWANNABEE

Sunday, May 27, 2007 12:02 PM

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.

REDHEAD

Sunday, May 27, 2007 5:25 PM

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.

SIRI

Monday, May 28, 2007 2:55 AM

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

PONYXPRESSINC

Monday, May 28, 2007 9:05 AM

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).

F

KAYLEEWANNABEE

Monday, May 28, 2007 12:52 PM

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.

CHRISMOORHEAD

Monday, May 28, 2007 12:57 PM

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]

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.

SIRI

Monday, May 28, 2007 2:59 PM

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

SIRI

Monday, May 28, 2007 3:17 PM

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

REDHEAD

Monday, May 28, 2007 3:26 PM

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.

PONYXPRESSINC

Monday, May 28, 2007 3:45 PM

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.

PONYXPRESSINC

Monday, May 28, 2007 3:55 PM

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

)

REDHEAD

Monday, May 28, 2007 4:10 PM

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.

PONYXPRESSINC

Monday, May 28, 2007 4:25 PM

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

J1M

Monday, May 28, 2007 6:56 PM

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

CHRISMOORHEAD

Monday, May 28, 2007 8:25 PM

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]

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.

PONYXPRESSINC

Monday, May 28, 2007 10:00 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.

AGENTROUKA

Tuesday, May 29, 2007 8:30 AM

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.

ZOID

Tuesday, May 29, 2007 9:11 PM

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 maki

KAYLEEWANNABEE

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 5:16 AM

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 chambe

ZOID

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 4:14 PM

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 i

KAYLEEWANNABEE

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 4:46 PM

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.

ZOID

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 6:18 PM

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

KAYLEEWANNABEE

Thursday, May 31, 2007 4:28 AM

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.

BORIS

Thursday, May 31, 2007 5:35 AM

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.

KAYLEEWANNABEE

Thursday, May 31, 2007 8:30 AM

Hi Boris,

I think it's great that your dad taught you not to take any crap off anybody.

Quote:
boris wrote: I don't know about using guns ... it seems kind of extreme, but I guess you do what you have to to feel safe

Using a gun isn't "kind of" extreme, it's as extreme as you can get. And my concealed carry permit doesn't allow me to USE a gun (except under very specific circumstances--i.e. I'm in danger of being killed or seriously injured), it only allows me to CARRY a concealed handgun. Should I ever have occasion to draw it, the situation would be, by definition, extreme. As I said in a previous post, I expect that just pulling it out would be enough to deter the majority of would-be perps.

Oh, and I'd rather BE safe than FEEL safe.

Quote:
(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.

Yes, I'm going to be researching self-defense classes. My ex-boyfriend (the one who taught me to shoot) is an expert at hand-to-hand combat and has shown me a few things. The most important of which is situational awareness--always being aware of your surroundings, not putting yourself into positions where you're vulnerable to ambush, etc. Having a plan of what you'd do in various circumstances. That's even more important than having a weapon--knowing how to avoid situations and prevent incidents in the first place.

This point was driven home to me just 2 nights ago. I was leaving a vacant house I own (I'm getting it ready to sell) at about 11:30 p.m. As I stepped off the front porch to walk to my car--about half a block away--I realize there's a guy coming down the sidewalk toward me, and he's yelling. He was Hispanic and he was very angrily ranting about "f-ing whites" and saying things like "we own this country, you f-ing belong to Mexico, you stole it," etc. Well, everybody is entitled to a vicious rant (I suppose). What scared me was when he yelled, "you want a piece of my c*ck, bitch? You want some of this? I'll give you some of my f-ing c*ck, m-ther f-er!!" It was too dark for me to see if he was just screaming, or if he was screaming at me. And he was getting closer and closer to me as he was screaming this stuff.

I was very disappointed in myself because I froze up for a second while I tried to figure out what to do. This was a big guy--maybe 250 lbs. He could have easily overpowered me. I didn't want to go back into the vacant house...but my car was half a block away. I had pepper spray in my purse, but it was dark and I didn't want to fumble around for it. I did not have a gun with me.

So my decision was to run for my car, lock myself in, and get the hell out of there. That's what I ended up doing. It worked--but I wasted valuable time because I didn't already have a plan. The guy got within 6 feet of me before I could get the door locked and start the car.

I think it's possible the guy was drunk or crazy, but I couldn't tell. I just knew he was pissed off, and I didn't want to be the gringo woman that he took his anger out on.

I'm now working on my own list of "lethal force scenarios." Those situations in which I will resist with a gun if necessary. One is, if a perp tries to force me into his car. 95% of women who are transported away from the initial crime scene are later killed. So I'm not getting into anyone's car. Another is if the perp tells me to get on my knees facing away from him (classic execution pose). Another is to protect my loved ones from being killed or seriously injured. I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I stood idly by and watched someone kill my parents, for example.

There's a lot of soul-searching involved in this.

Anyway, I'm working on having a plan and getting more training. As the Boy Scouts say, "Be Prepared."

Boris, it sounds like your dad really did you a service by preparing you to deal with a sometimes hostile world from a young age.

-----
It's

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE