...Is that EVERY ethic group, gender, and age group have been involved in terrorism. It's not just "young Middle Eastern men" like some idiots think. Pick any group that people clambering for profiling think should be excluded, and you will find a significant number of terrorists. For example:
Caucasians: Anyone else remember the Oklahoma City anymore? Largest terrorist attack on American soil prior to 2001?
Women: Russia. Algeria. Actually, my understand is that one of the big "OMG they're teh evilz!" wielded against guerrilla fighters in Algeria's 1950s war for independence from France was "they use women to carry out their terrorist attacks!" In other words, ladies have a long history in terrorism.
Eldery: Algeria again, and quite likely that Al-Qaeda will continue to user elderly operatives in other areas. There was also that nut who tried to commit a massacre at the Holocaust Museum but got stopped at the door; killed the security guard. (We do want to stop individual mass murderers and not just those with group backing, right?)
Christians: I bet the Irish would have something to say about this.
Even children too young to intiate terrorist action themselves have been used to carry weapons and explosives.
I think we can all agree that we do not want to identify only "most" terrorists and call it close enough. We want to catch all of them, and only them, before they kill people, right? Then profiling doesn't help, because there are no "safe" groups. If we want to go this route, then we need to go all the way to background checks for all passengers.
I don't understand why this is such a difficult concept.
Then again, let's be honest. Many people who say "I want profiling" really mean "I don't want to be personally bothered by this security stuff." Majority priviledge talking loud and clear.
Showing posts with label personal is political. Show all posts
Showing posts with label personal is political. Show all posts
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Sunday, January 24, 2010
An Abuse Culture and "That Awful Thing Women Do"
This post is about two issues: how traditional socialization of women promotes a culture in which domestic abuse flourishes, and the double standard between men's and women's behavior.
First, though, I'd like to put down a reminder that abuse can happen to absolutely ANYone -- and I'm not just saying that. Some people are more susceptible to it, but even the most confident, mentally healthy person can find themself on the receiving end of an abusive relationship. The psychology is very similar to that behind Stockholm Syndrome. To put it very briefly, the human mind is made to differentiate allies from enemies, and when someone you love (i.e. firmly planted in the "ally" category) starts behaving like an enemy on an unpredictable basis while still acting like an ally other times, that throws the brain for a serious loop. Does not compute.
As the abusive behavior gradually increases from "rare fluke" to "daily operation", a survival mechanism gets triggered, the one that says "I must keep this person happy, even at the cost of my own personality, in order to survive." Now, that survival mechanism doesn't seem to make sense from a modern standpoint. Wouldn't "run run run" make more sense? But if you consider that until about 150 years ago, slavery was an innate part of the human existence and still exists today, and also that women and children have been considered property for most of human history and even today often do not have financial resources under their sole control, well, it starts to make sense. For much of humanity over much of history, keeping someone happy even though you didn't like then and they didn't treat you well was necessary for survival, while escape would likely get you killed.
So in summary, abuse can happen to anyone no matter how healthy and confident, not just those somehow predisposed to it.
So, on to "that awful thing women do". I think all of us, man and woman, have been deeply ingrained with the large number of "horrible things women do". Let me take one example for this post: "women will get mad at you without telling you why".
I'm going to give an extreme example here to demonstrate why this "horrible thing women do" is not always unreasonable behavior. Imagine you're at a party full of your friends, and your partner for God only knows what reason suddenly screams the most vulgar insult you can imagine at you and hits you so hard he lays you across the floor.
1) Should you have to explain to him that this is utterly unacceptable behavior that has upset you?
2) Would you have the guts to do so under the circumstances?
Isn't the fact that he doesn't understand that insulting and hitting you will make you angry a problem in itself, in addition to the fact that he insulted and hit you?
I find this is often the case. There are some things that should not have to be explained as inappropriate and upsetting, and in some of those cases, giving the explanation can be dangerous. This idea that "it's horrible for women to be angry without explaining why" basically forces the victim to either suppress her justified anger, put herself in danger to explain it, or suffer the stigma of being a "horrible woman". All three options are very convenient to the abuser: either she doesn't get mad so what he did couldn't have been that bad, or he gets another opportunity to literally or figuratively beat her down, or he gets societal help convincing her she's horrible and worthless.
Of course, the stereotype is of a women going around pouting to punish the guy because he left the toilet seat up again, or some other triviality. Personally, I've rarely seen that. When I have seen it, the problem was not really the toilet seat, it was the disrespect shown by the problem repeating again and again despite her previously stating how much it annoyed her, and the "pouting" is not for punishment, but out of fear, or frustration, or quite often, social conditioning.
After all, if she did say that she was angry every one of the 20 times the toilet seat was left up during the week, she'd be doing that other "horrible thing women do", nagging. Pick your horrible, ladies, because you can't win. It basically comes down to "women aren't supposed to be mad at men". We're not supposed to say when we're mad, but we're also not supposed to not say when we're mad, so apparently we're just supposed to flip the switch that turns those emotions off entirely and not be mad at all.
Also, this "horrible thing women do" of going around obviously mad but not saying why? I've seen men do it. I personally have seen it more often and more blatantly from men, usually out of frustration and their own social conditioning. You know, the guy is stomping around, slamming doors, kicking things, and if you ask "what's wrong" you get no response, or a grunt, or the dreaded "Nothing" or "It's not important to you." You get exactly what women as a collective gender are accused of doing as a "horrible thing". But when a guy does it "It's OK. He's a guy. They don't talk about their problems."
"It's OK. He's a guy."
The behavior is "horrible" when women do it, but when a man does, "It's OK, because he's a man." Definition of double standard, right there.
First, though, I'd like to put down a reminder that abuse can happen to absolutely ANYone -- and I'm not just saying that. Some people are more susceptible to it, but even the most confident, mentally healthy person can find themself on the receiving end of an abusive relationship. The psychology is very similar to that behind Stockholm Syndrome. To put it very briefly, the human mind is made to differentiate allies from enemies, and when someone you love (i.e. firmly planted in the "ally" category) starts behaving like an enemy on an unpredictable basis while still acting like an ally other times, that throws the brain for a serious loop. Does not compute.
As the abusive behavior gradually increases from "rare fluke" to "daily operation", a survival mechanism gets triggered, the one that says "I must keep this person happy, even at the cost of my own personality, in order to survive." Now, that survival mechanism doesn't seem to make sense from a modern standpoint. Wouldn't "run run run" make more sense? But if you consider that until about 150 years ago, slavery was an innate part of the human existence and still exists today, and also that women and children have been considered property for most of human history and even today often do not have financial resources under their sole control, well, it starts to make sense. For much of humanity over much of history, keeping someone happy even though you didn't like then and they didn't treat you well was necessary for survival, while escape would likely get you killed.
So in summary, abuse can happen to anyone no matter how healthy and confident, not just those somehow predisposed to it.
So, on to "that awful thing women do". I think all of us, man and woman, have been deeply ingrained with the large number of "horrible things women do". Let me take one example for this post: "women will get mad at you without telling you why".
I'm going to give an extreme example here to demonstrate why this "horrible thing women do" is not always unreasonable behavior. Imagine you're at a party full of your friends, and your partner for God only knows what reason suddenly screams the most vulgar insult you can imagine at you and hits you so hard he lays you across the floor.
1) Should you have to explain to him that this is utterly unacceptable behavior that has upset you?
2) Would you have the guts to do so under the circumstances?
Isn't the fact that he doesn't understand that insulting and hitting you will make you angry a problem in itself, in addition to the fact that he insulted and hit you?
I find this is often the case. There are some things that should not have to be explained as inappropriate and upsetting, and in some of those cases, giving the explanation can be dangerous. This idea that "it's horrible for women to be angry without explaining why" basically forces the victim to either suppress her justified anger, put herself in danger to explain it, or suffer the stigma of being a "horrible woman". All three options are very convenient to the abuser: either she doesn't get mad so what he did couldn't have been that bad, or he gets another opportunity to literally or figuratively beat her down, or he gets societal help convincing her she's horrible and worthless.
Of course, the stereotype is of a women going around pouting to punish the guy because he left the toilet seat up again, or some other triviality. Personally, I've rarely seen that. When I have seen it, the problem was not really the toilet seat, it was the disrespect shown by the problem repeating again and again despite her previously stating how much it annoyed her, and the "pouting" is not for punishment, but out of fear, or frustration, or quite often, social conditioning.
After all, if she did say that she was angry every one of the 20 times the toilet seat was left up during the week, she'd be doing that other "horrible thing women do", nagging. Pick your horrible, ladies, because you can't win. It basically comes down to "women aren't supposed to be mad at men". We're not supposed to say when we're mad, but we're also not supposed to not say when we're mad, so apparently we're just supposed to flip the switch that turns those emotions off entirely and not be mad at all.
Also, this "horrible thing women do" of going around obviously mad but not saying why? I've seen men do it. I personally have seen it more often and more blatantly from men, usually out of frustration and their own social conditioning. You know, the guy is stomping around, slamming doors, kicking things, and if you ask "what's wrong" you get no response, or a grunt, or the dreaded "Nothing" or "It's not important to you." You get exactly what women as a collective gender are accused of doing as a "horrible thing". But when a guy does it "It's OK. He's a guy. They don't talk about their problems."
"It's OK. He's a guy."
The behavior is "horrible" when women do it, but when a man does, "It's OK, because he's a man." Definition of double standard, right there.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Death is a funny thing.
Funny strange, not funny ha ha, of course.
I hope I've waited long enough to not be completely insensitive with this post, too.
Isn't it amazing how people's opinion of a person can change on a dime when that person dies? I mean, may I politely suggest that if you had asked the average person on the street what they thought of Michael Jackson, you would have gotten a very different answer on June 20th than you would have gotten on June 30th? Literally overnight, Michael went from being "Whacko Jacko" to being "The King of Pop" again.
That's... odd. And frankly, kind of sad. Instead of being cruel to the living and idolizing the dead, would it really be that hard to try to see people as people?
Then again, it's easy to idolize the dead. They don't do anything to piss you off anymore.
I hope I've waited long enough to not be completely insensitive with this post, too.
Isn't it amazing how people's opinion of a person can change on a dime when that person dies? I mean, may I politely suggest that if you had asked the average person on the street what they thought of Michael Jackson, you would have gotten a very different answer on June 20th than you would have gotten on June 30th? Literally overnight, Michael went from being "Whacko Jacko" to being "The King of Pop" again.
That's... odd. And frankly, kind of sad. Instead of being cruel to the living and idolizing the dead, would it really be that hard to try to see people as people?
Then again, it's easy to idolize the dead. They don't do anything to piss you off anymore.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
An observation
Have you ever heard the saying that the best measure of a person's real character is what they would do if they knew they'd never get found out?
The Internet is one big exercise in that, isn't it?
The Internet is one big exercise in that, isn't it?
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Of Buddies and Bullies
I am in the midst of reading Baby Be-Bop on the "recommendation" of the West Bend Citizens for Safe Libraries, to whom I should send a thank you note. It's a quick read, but I also have very limited time, so I'm not done with it yet. I'm enjoying it very much, but it does leave me teary-eyed in places. Now, part of it is that it isn't hard for a story to leave me teary-eyed, but part of it is that it also reminds me of my friend Tom.
Tom was a friend of mine in high school. He was one of the nicest boys I'd ever met (which unfortunately, in my school was a crime in itself :P), and very bright. We were on the Scholar Bowl team together. He also wanted to be a writer. I remember being on the team watching these horrible "Art Lady" videos. I don't remember it that was actually part of the name, or just what we had spontaneously screamed in the agony of "not another Art Lady video!" But, their purpose was to briefly go over the major players in various art movements, and featured the most painfully cutesy mnemonics delivered by a woman who sounded like a kindergarten teacher who was exceptionally bad at her job. I can still remember her saccharine voice repeating "Dot. Seurat." I remember that, and I remember that Tom wanted to be a writer as well, because at that point we turned to each other and made a solemn oath never to write anything so painfully stupid. We had a lot of good laughs and a lot of good times together.
Tom was also gay.
Somehow, this came out during our Senior year. He suffered for it. A lot. His house was subjected to vandalism, and he was beaten up at least once. That's just what I knew about, and I know that there was a lot more that happened and a lot more he feared. The bullying got so bad that he left school, planning to get a GED immediately and use it to get into college.
It didn't pan out that way.
The last I heard from friends who were closer to him than I was, his parents had kicked him out of the house. He was living with a man 5 years older -- which at that age is a huge gap, and I didn't get a real warm fuzzy about that relationship from the friends relaying it. College was looking like a far-away dream. He was desperate to find a job, leaving no time for study, and the schools he was interested in would have taken a GED earned before he could have gotten a diploma (a sort of fast-track diploma, if you will) but wouldn't accept one earned after the normal graduation period.
Now, that made me think of the bully responsible for driving him from school, Aaron B. I actually remember that guy's full name, which makes him one of 3 enemies for whom that is true. (Of the other two, one almost broke my leg, and the other pulled a stunt so sad and pitiful that she pulled herself out of complete memory oblivion to cement herself firmly in my mind as The World's Most Pathetic Person. I can't think of her without laughing.)
Aaron B. If ever there was a person who actually, honestly deserved a beating, it was Aaron. Interestingly enough, the reason I remember him is because he is one of only two people in my childhood to drive me to the point of intentional violent retaliation -- this boy pushed me to the point where I beat the crap out of him.
Now, to really put this in perspective, please understand that in elementary school, I was the absolute bottom of the social totem pole. My name was an insult so firmly entrenched as meaning "social pariah" that other grades used it without ever having met me. In middle school, where I first met Aaron, I was one student above the bottom. There was not a day in the first 9 years of my public schooling when I did not suffer some form of verbal abuse from my classmates, and there were literally dozens or even hundreds of students delivering it over that time, because again, I was at the bottom of the hierarchy.
But it was not the case that that Aaron was at the wrong place at the wrong time and caught the explosive brunt of, at that time, 8 years of teasing. No, not at all. He was so far beyond those dozens or hundreds of others that he drove me to violence where no one else had before.
Now, you know what they say about bullies really being big huge wusses? Well, I don't know about generally, but Aaron got his ass kicked by a very short, slightly overweight nerd girl who couldn't lift 20 lbs. I guess I can't honestly say I beat the crap out of him, because I was pulled off before it got to that point. I did, however, draw blood. I know, because I was sent to the bathroom to go wash it off, and it wasn't mine. He didn't even land a blow. (I would just like to thank him for pushing that final button on the day we had a substitute teacher. Ms. D would have had my ass in the principle's office before Aaron figured out which way was up, but that poor sub never knew what had happened. She just sent me to the bathroom to clean up and calm down with a "gosh, Ms. D told me you two didn't like each other, but I had no idea!")
You know how you can look back at some of your classmates and go "Well, so and so was a complete dick at the time, but I can see where he might have grown into a decent human being"? I can look back at Aaron's best friend and say that. But Aaron himself, I look back on and think "well, I can see where he might have grown into a... used car salesman." I'd say there's better than average odds that at least one person in this world refers to Aaron as "my abusive ex".
That person there, he put concentrated effort into destroying my friend's life. Oh, he didn't do it alone. He was more the kingpin. Other people helped him beat Tom up, and to trash Tom's home -- but Aaron was the instigator. Aaron didn't make Tom's parents kick him out -- but he was likely responsible for them finding out about the closet, and the vandalism certainly made denial difficult. It just seems to unfair to me my sweet, kind, smart, creative friend had everything he planned to do ripped apart in front of him, his whole future stomped on by bigots, while the head asshole responsible for it got to go on and live a normal life. Worse, some of the other people involved, I bet at least some of them now regret what they did. But Aaron? Unless he is an entirely different person now, I very much doubt it. He's probably proud of it.
Tom, wherever you are, I hope things are going well for you.
And Aaron, wherever you are, if the guilt doesn't get you, I hope the Rule of Three does.
Tom was a friend of mine in high school. He was one of the nicest boys I'd ever met (which unfortunately, in my school was a crime in itself :P), and very bright. We were on the Scholar Bowl team together. He also wanted to be a writer. I remember being on the team watching these horrible "Art Lady" videos. I don't remember it that was actually part of the name, or just what we had spontaneously screamed in the agony of "not another Art Lady video!" But, their purpose was to briefly go over the major players in various art movements, and featured the most painfully cutesy mnemonics delivered by a woman who sounded like a kindergarten teacher who was exceptionally bad at her job. I can still remember her saccharine voice repeating "Dot. Seurat." I remember that, and I remember that Tom wanted to be a writer as well, because at that point we turned to each other and made a solemn oath never to write anything so painfully stupid. We had a lot of good laughs and a lot of good times together.
Tom was also gay.
Somehow, this came out during our Senior year. He suffered for it. A lot. His house was subjected to vandalism, and he was beaten up at least once. That's just what I knew about, and I know that there was a lot more that happened and a lot more he feared. The bullying got so bad that he left school, planning to get a GED immediately and use it to get into college.
It didn't pan out that way.
The last I heard from friends who were closer to him than I was, his parents had kicked him out of the house. He was living with a man 5 years older -- which at that age is a huge gap, and I didn't get a real warm fuzzy about that relationship from the friends relaying it. College was looking like a far-away dream. He was desperate to find a job, leaving no time for study, and the schools he was interested in would have taken a GED earned before he could have gotten a diploma (a sort of fast-track diploma, if you will) but wouldn't accept one earned after the normal graduation period.
Now, that made me think of the bully responsible for driving him from school, Aaron B. I actually remember that guy's full name, which makes him one of 3 enemies for whom that is true. (Of the other two, one almost broke my leg, and the other pulled a stunt so sad and pitiful that she pulled herself out of complete memory oblivion to cement herself firmly in my mind as The World's Most Pathetic Person. I can't think of her without laughing.)
Aaron B. If ever there was a person who actually, honestly deserved a beating, it was Aaron. Interestingly enough, the reason I remember him is because he is one of only two people in my childhood to drive me to the point of intentional violent retaliation -- this boy pushed me to the point where I beat the crap out of him.
Now, to really put this in perspective, please understand that in elementary school, I was the absolute bottom of the social totem pole. My name was an insult so firmly entrenched as meaning "social pariah" that other grades used it without ever having met me. In middle school, where I first met Aaron, I was one student above the bottom. There was not a day in the first 9 years of my public schooling when I did not suffer some form of verbal abuse from my classmates, and there were literally dozens or even hundreds of students delivering it over that time, because again, I was at the bottom of the hierarchy.
But it was not the case that that Aaron was at the wrong place at the wrong time and caught the explosive brunt of, at that time, 8 years of teasing. No, not at all. He was so far beyond those dozens or hundreds of others that he drove me to violence where no one else had before.
Now, you know what they say about bullies really being big huge wusses? Well, I don't know about generally, but Aaron got his ass kicked by a very short, slightly overweight nerd girl who couldn't lift 20 lbs. I guess I can't honestly say I beat the crap out of him, because I was pulled off before it got to that point. I did, however, draw blood. I know, because I was sent to the bathroom to go wash it off, and it wasn't mine. He didn't even land a blow. (I would just like to thank him for pushing that final button on the day we had a substitute teacher. Ms. D would have had my ass in the principle's office before Aaron figured out which way was up, but that poor sub never knew what had happened. She just sent me to the bathroom to clean up and calm down with a "gosh, Ms. D told me you two didn't like each other, but I had no idea!")
You know how you can look back at some of your classmates and go "Well, so and so was a complete dick at the time, but I can see where he might have grown into a decent human being"? I can look back at Aaron's best friend and say that. But Aaron himself, I look back on and think "well, I can see where he might have grown into a... used car salesman." I'd say there's better than average odds that at least one person in this world refers to Aaron as "my abusive ex".
That person there, he put concentrated effort into destroying my friend's life. Oh, he didn't do it alone. He was more the kingpin. Other people helped him beat Tom up, and to trash Tom's home -- but Aaron was the instigator. Aaron didn't make Tom's parents kick him out -- but he was likely responsible for them finding out about the closet, and the vandalism certainly made denial difficult. It just seems to unfair to me my sweet, kind, smart, creative friend had everything he planned to do ripped apart in front of him, his whole future stomped on by bigots, while the head asshole responsible for it got to go on and live a normal life. Worse, some of the other people involved, I bet at least some of them now regret what they did. But Aaron? Unless he is an entirely different person now, I very much doubt it. He's probably proud of it.
Tom, wherever you are, I hope things are going well for you.
And Aaron, wherever you are, if the guilt doesn't get you, I hope the Rule of Three does.
Friday, February 20, 2009
I can has yummy tea!
I got myself a nice toy which was delivered a few days ago: an electric kettle. My stovetop kettle takes half an hour to boil water, and doesn't whistle reliably. That makes it a bit of an ordeal to make tea or hot cocoa. The new electric is awesome. Flip down the little switch, and in five minutes I've got water at a rolling boil. Or I can turn it down if I'm making green or white tea. I can actually have tea in the morning before work now. It's a happy thing.
It also let me test a theory that certain people are stupid assholes. Y'all know the McDonald's Coffee case. As a quick reminder of my opinion on it, 3rd degree burns, skin grafts, debibement, an 8-day hospital stay, 700 previous injuries and a refusal to fix the problem due to corporate insistence that the coffee is used in a way that their own market research showed it was not: I do not call this a frivilous lawsuit. Now, the issue here is that homemade coffee is served at 140F (60C), restaurant coffee is often 150-ish F (a little over 66C), and McD's was 190F (88C).
Well, I have seen certain people insist that 140F number is BS and a normal person would consider that cold coffee, that 190F is a perfectly reasonable temperature, and tea is about that temperature when it's served because it's made with boiling water.
Now, I don't know about you, but I let my teabag sit in the water for a few minutes. You know, kind of steep? And while my cup is sitting there steeping, it does this little thing called 'cooling'. So, I decided to make an experiment. I made echinacea tea this morning, which has a 6-minute steep time. The water I poured in the cup was at a rolling boil, which means that it was 212F (100C). Now, when I took the tea bag out, it was hotter than I care to drink it, but I measured it right then, before I even put in my honey.
154.4F (68C)
I didn't measure it when it got to drinking temperature, but it was undoubtably somewhere in the 140s. So nyah. :P
It also let me test a theory that certain people are stupid assholes. Y'all know the McDonald's Coffee case. As a quick reminder of my opinion on it, 3rd degree burns, skin grafts, debibement, an 8-day hospital stay, 700 previous injuries and a refusal to fix the problem due to corporate insistence that the coffee is used in a way that their own market research showed it was not: I do not call this a frivilous lawsuit. Now, the issue here is that homemade coffee is served at 140F (60C), restaurant coffee is often 150-ish F (a little over 66C), and McD's was 190F (88C).
Well, I have seen certain people insist that 140F number is BS and a normal person would consider that cold coffee, that 190F is a perfectly reasonable temperature, and tea is about that temperature when it's served because it's made with boiling water.
Now, I don't know about you, but I let my teabag sit in the water for a few minutes. You know, kind of steep? And while my cup is sitting there steeping, it does this little thing called 'cooling'. So, I decided to make an experiment. I made echinacea tea this morning, which has a 6-minute steep time. The water I poured in the cup was at a rolling boil, which means that it was 212F (100C). Now, when I took the tea bag out, it was hotter than I care to drink it, but I measured it right then, before I even put in my honey.
154.4F (68C)
I didn't measure it when it got to drinking temperature, but it was undoubtably somewhere in the 140s. So nyah. :P
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
If it pisses off the bigots, it's gotta be good!
1) The "Conservative Knitters" group on Ravelry might as well be renamed "Bigots R Us." (Stumbled into it by accident via another member's profile.)
2) Although not directly related to that, they made me laugh quite heartily with their hypocrisy, too. Direct quote: "No surprise that she is a nasty lefty (but that’s redundant). She isn’t satisfied with talking about her book, she has to go insult conservatives." Look me in the eye and tell me you didn't snert.
3) This is the book that has them all a fluster. You can see just how horrible and insulting it is. (Hell yes I want a copy.)
2) Although not directly related to that, they made me laugh quite heartily with their hypocrisy, too. Direct quote: "No surprise that she is a nasty lefty (but that’s redundant). She isn’t satisfied with talking about her book, she has to go insult conservatives." Look me in the eye and tell me you didn't snert.
3) This is the book that has them all a fluster. You can see just how horrible and insulting it is. (Hell yes I want a copy.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)