http://www.wikio.com
Showing posts with label bad policies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bad policies. Show all posts

Sunday, February 25, 2018

American Gun Rights: Why are we fighting to keep guns in the hands of future criminals?


The idea that some person with guns is going to fight off the government isn't a sound one for arguing for gun rights. For one thing, the examples of Waco and Ruby Ridge should have pretty much summed up by now why that's a bad argument. If the government wants to take you out, they are taking you out. That in itself is a major problem that gun culture is not only NOT solving, its probably making worse by suggesting to people that having stores of weapons is somehow going to make them safe in a conflict, whereas we're probably just more likely to witness another standoff wherein children are put into danger and more often than not, killed.
In the same breath I hear "criminals don't follow laws so how is making guns illegal going to stop them", which lines "criminals" out like people that aren't any of "us" and that's ridiculous. Things that are perfectly legal in ONE state would make you a "criminal" in another. Criminality comes usually out of a place of desperation, lack of education and/or opportunity, existential threat, deprivation, etc. Most people are not born with a "criminal" mindset, and even the mentally ill are usually not specifically more dangerous to a society (some extremely rare exceptions do exist, but writing the mentally ill off as a whole is a careless and dangerous thing to do). A life circumstance beyond your immediate control could force you into engaging in "criminal" acts to save your life or protect your family. You know, like shooting a person (which is pretty much illegal).
For some, legal use of guns and legal gun ownership is considered more criminal than others. We have a law enforcement and judicial system that disproportionately impacts people of darker skin. Racism in relation to gun access and laws is a whole different Pandora's box of problems, as well. Philando Castile was not a criminal, informed an officer appropriately about having a gun that he was licensed to carry, and was shot to death as a passenger in a car in front of his girlfriend and her toddler. Had that jumpy ass officer aimed his gun so much as an inch to the right, he'd have SHOT that toddler in her car seat. More guns did not help that situation. Marissa Alexander was being abused and was in fear of her and her infant's life, so she fired a WARNING SHOT into the upper corner of a wall in her home to scare back her abusive husband and was GIVEN 20 YEARS in prison, while the next year in the same state George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin, whom he had literally stalked during the course of an evening and was told by law enforcement to stop following and he was let off on the same "stand your ground" defense that failed Ms. Alexander (whose conviction was thrown out on appeal after a few years, thank God). More guns are not helping in these situations either.
So, we have some incompatible ideas going on here. If you engage in a standoff against police (enforcement arm of government), that's pretty illegal and would be considered criminal behavior. Hell, I would think that planning for such an event in advance by its own nature would be considered conspiracy in regard to future criminal acts. Yet, I find that a commonality found with the pro-gun crowd is a pro-police mentality, yet at the same time, the pro-gun crowd tends to bandy about the idea that you have to have guns to fight off the government which would first be ..the police. So, you don't want "criminals" to be the only ones getting guns cause what.. if.. you.. need.. to do something.. criminal, too? I don't get it.
Rather, I do get it, but it's hypocritical as fuck and a dangerous mindset to feel that you're entitled to kill people but no one else is. Yet at the same time, lets make sure people have more guns.
Seriously, fuck this. Keep a lever-action rifle at home in case shit gets hairy or you have a maniac banging down your door. Tell me why you need to not only have guns, but an armory full of guns that can kill people faster than fuck, like rapid-fire weapons?
Who are these "criminals" again?

Yeah, they probably won't, dude..
yeah, they probably won't, huh?

The Feminine Context

Friday, October 18, 2013

This Week In Ignorant Fucks - 10/18/2013

Aw, goddamnit.... where do I start?

There was so much fucking stupid floating about the news this week, my head hurts just trying to round it all up.

We've had the ultimate in toddler-style temper tantrums going on with the government shutdown, in which Republicans simply can't get over the fact that they didn't get their way, so they responded by taking their toys (and continued pay) and going HOME. Never mind the fact that they took lots of other people's toys and paychecks home with them while they act like fucking jerks.

Because of the efforts of (my heroes!) Anonymous, information has come out about the Maryville teen rape, terrifyingly similar to Steubenville in its cover-up and dehumanization of the victims. Thank you, Anonymous, perhaps the only justice for women now comes at the hands of "vigilantes". As an open cry to Anonymous, please tell me here if there's anything I can ever do to help. Thank you for caring about young lives that our tragically dysfunctional social climate would allow to be cast aside as easily as garbage.

Let me try to lay out some links to some of the better examples of idiocy for this past week.. in no particular order..

Fox News pulls out the sleaziest fucking criminal defense lawyer they can possibly find, and airs a textbook example of victim blaming with great enthusiasm.


Did I fail to mention that this guy's main areas of expertise are in defending mafioso AND "white collar criminals" who are charged with multi-million dollar fraud?

Clearly, Fox News was trying to put their best foot forward after the victim-blaming, slut-shaming, rape-culture inducing misogyny market was cornered earlier in the week by a WOMAN. Slate's Emily Yoffe, more commonly known as "Dear Prudence", heaped rape prevention back onto women with her one-and-a-half cents on the Maryville rape. Her choice of words was questionable, at best, starting with the pretty blatant title of "COLLEGE WOMEN:STOP GETTING DRUNK." Ms. Yoffe is actually defending her article, clearly convinced that we're all too stupid to understand that alcohol CAN be a factor in some rape situations, but obviously MISSING THE POINT ENTIRELY that the ghost of Jack Daniels doesn't come out of the bottle, angry erection in hand, and rape you himself at a certain point of female drunkenness. That, in fact, it's the man who thinks so little of you as a human being and so highly of you as a sexual opportunity who takes advantage of the fact that he CAN rape you, secure in the knowledge that some smug old bitch like Emily Yoffe will wag her know-it-all, admonishing finger at the victim afterward. Ms. Yoffe also has some weirdo idea in her head that what's actually causing all these rapes is that women think they are being all feminist by matching guys drink for drink. No, seriously. Like, as in, for real.. she SAID that.. here. From the post..

"Let’s be totally clear: Perpetrators are the ones responsible for committing their crimes, and they should be brought to justice. But we are failing to let women know that when they render themselves defenseless, terrible things can be done to them. Young women are getting a distorted message that their right to match men drink for drink is a feminist issue. The real feminist message should be that when you lose the ability to be responsible for yourself, you drastically increase the chances that you will attract the kinds of people who, shall we say, don’t have your best interest at heart. That’s not blaming the victim; that’s trying to prevent more victims."

What really sucks here is that the above paragraph is pretty much the only part of her piece that does, in fact, discuss how the perpetrators are responsible for their actions. At best, this is another disgusting, stomach-turning example of an educated, professional, adult woman who has been so indoctrinated with social sexism that she actually BELIEVES this is a progressive, proactive approach to the rape culture crisis we are all suffering from. I hate to break it to you, lady, but we all know that the world is dangerous. What all of us militant feminists are raging about is that we've TRIED ALL OF THIS SHIT AND IT DOESN'T WORK. You can get raped by any man, at any time, in any social setting, no matter what the theme or central activity is. The fact that women from all walks of life and of all personality types are getting raped is terrible enough, but the aftermath might actually be worse than the attack, and guess what? Emily Yoffe, you are now part of that aftermath. A woman suffering the trauma following a rape that was NOT HER FAULT, does not need to read this tripe about what SHE was doing, wearing, or where she was. The asshole who RAPED her needs to be questioned and scrutinized and shamed. There are dangerous people EVERYWHERE. When a crime or assault is committed against a man, we don't ask him what he was doing drinking at a party (you know, where people drink), or why he was wearing a certain kind of clothing, or why he was out late at night, or hanging out without some sort of chaperoning escort to ensure his safety... oh yeah, that's right. We treat men like people. How dare us silly bitches think we deserve the same courtesy.

From "How to write a rape prevention article without sounding like an asshole" by Erin Gloria Ryan, published in Jezebel, and using a direct quote from Ms. Yoffe's piece:

"DON'T write this paragraph:

'If I had a son, I would tell him that it’s in his self-interest not to be the drunken frat boy who finds himself accused of raping a drunken classmate. Surely this University of Richmond student, acquitted in one of the extremely rare cases in which a campus rape accusation led to a criminal trial, would confirm that.'

If Emily Yoffe had a son, she'd teach him how not to be accused of rape at a party. Not how to stay sober enough to remain vigilant and interfere with potentially alcohol-fueled rape situations, or how it's not okay to have sex with a woman who is too drunk to consent. Nope. Just how not to get accused of rape. Got it."

By the way, Ms. Ryan, if you read this somehow, please know that you make my everlovin' day, girl. I read your work all the damn time, and you're fucking awesome.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh SHIT, yeah

this shit totally fucking happened..


Danielle N. Lee, who has blogged for Scientific American for at least two years and refers to herself as the  "Urban Scientist" was asked by a content editor for Biology-Online.com if she would write for them, when she asked about compensation, she was called a whore. What the fuck, right? Her blog post on this matter, including screenshots of emails, can be found here.

For the record, Ms. Lee.. I wish you had been my biology teacher.
-----------------------------------

Ted Cruz - SHUT THE FUCK UP. Oh my God, you're a moron.

In Ted Cruz news this week...

Ted Cruz calls birth control "abortifacients" - Huffpost

Ted Cruz fails to disclose financial ties to Jamaican Holdings company- TIME

Ted, Jamaican me crazy, here..

Chris VanHollen, representing the 8th district of the State of Maryland in the U.S. House of Representatives and also writing for TheGuardian.com, brought this lovely little gem to light in his article "Republican Rule-Rigging Cause This Shutdown and Subverted Democracy". Here is an excerpt from that piece:

"There are enough votes in the House to pass the Senate's "clean" bill to fund government – and this already represents Democrats being willing to compromise to accept the GOP's post-sequester funding levels for the short term. It would have easily passed the House with a bipartisan majority – had the House Republican leadership brought it to the floor for a simple up-or-down vote. But House Republicans – many of whom have long had the goal of shutting down the government – effectively wrote the shutdown into law with just hours left on the clock.

If that sounds unbelievable and outrageous, it's because it is.

The chairman of the House rules committee conceded that, under normal procedure with clause 4 of rule 22, if the House amends a Senate bill and the Senate rejects the House's amendment(s), any House member has the right to bring the original Senate bill up for an immediate up-or-down vote in the House. But just two hours before the government was poised to shut down, House Republicans quietly rigged the rules in their favor. They changed that rule to ensure that only Republican majority leader Eric Cantor could bring the Senate bill to reopen the government up for a vote – something they have refused to do."

In case this hasn't reached you on Facebook, here is the video demonstrating this rule-rigging in action.


and last, but certainly not least.. Linda Oliver, the Mayor of West Union, South Carolina, had THIS to say (and then promptly delete) on her Facebook:

"What's it gonna take to get these queers to realize they don't need a piece of paper. God will not bless their union because he plainly speaks against queers in the Bible. Want to cover your queer with insurance? Buy a policy. Want your queer to get your stuff when you die? Make a will."

From HuffPost:

"The post quickly drew an onslaught of criticism from Facebook users. Meanwhile, a Facebook group titled "Recall West Union S.C. Mayor Linda Oliver" was also created in the wake of the controversy.

But Oliver says she anticipated the heated response, telling Fox Carolina, "All I can say is if people want to crucify me, that's fine. I know that following Jesus, I'm going to be crucified."

On the topic of same-sex marriage, she added, "I don't want it rammed down my throat."

Though she insists she'll now use "homosexual," Oliver also defended her use of the word "queer," noting, "The way I feel toward homosexuals is how I've been brought up.""

You IGNORANT bitch, Ms. Oliver. I hope there is, in fact, a Rapture. I can't wait til it takes you, and people like you, the hell off the planet.

The Feminine Context

Thursday, September 26, 2013

Pink Pepper Spray: Form and Function and Really Fucked Up

Couldn't help but notice this tweet from the awesome @Kiskolee yesterday and just HAD to investigate...

 photo pinkpepperspraytweet_zpsdaea3e41.jpg
She's got a point, you know..

So here I went onto the trusty ol' Google image search to see what I could find for the terms "pink pepper spray"..

Holy burning balls, Batman! That's a lot shitload of pink non-lethal self-defense items!

I thought maybe there would be a few pink-colored pepper sprays out there, but damn. As you can see (if you clicked on the link), there's an enormous variety of personal protection devices that all look like accessories for Barbie's Dream House (and Dream Car, and Dream Purse, and Dream Backpack, and Dream Laptop Case and Dream Office Desk, and Dream Hiding Place in the Dream Kitchen Cabinet, etc..).

Let's start with your basic pepper spray, which of course, comes in HOT PINK..

OMG IT'LL MATCH MY PHONE!
heh.. HOT pink. You got it, right? Cause it's PEPPER spray and its HOT...

I'm posting links directly to the places where you can buy these items, just in case you thought I was totally kidding.

Pink just got hotter with Hot Pink Mace Defense Spray!

From the website:

"Even when it comes to personal protection, girls want to look good and be in fashion. Now, you don't have to settle for a bland color that doesn't match anything. Spice it up!

Hot Pink Pepper Spray 

Fashionable 10% Mace Brand pink pepper spray"

You know us girls. Always wanting to look good and be fashionable. That's probably why we get raped so damn often, huh? I don't know about YOU bitches, but when I spray my attacker in the face, I want him to notice that I ACCESSORIZED before his eyes slam shut from the capsaicinoids assaulting his mucous membranes. That'll show him!

You don't want the cops to find your lifeless body and wonder why your nails and ineffective protection device DON'T MATCH! While they're busy wondering just what in the hell your silly ninny ass was doing out after dark by yourself, they might miss a doughnut or two because of your nausea-inducing lack of post-mortem fashion sense.


If that particular model will maybe make your ass look fat (HORRORS) in its slender design, perhaps you need something that offsets your greater-than-size-eight ham-hockedness! You know, like the control-top panties of pepper spraying accessories. ONE MUST ACCESSORIZE, GODDAMNIT!

Mace Pepper Gun Distance Defense Spray with LED, Hot Pink
 photo pinkmacegun_zps2170a07d.jpg

..and who says that companies aren't catering to plus-sizes?

Ye gods..

If something a little less blatant appeals to you, try this FASHIONABLE little number..

Covert Pink Heart Lipstick Pepper Spray

 photo heartpepperspray_zps50aa130e.jpg
For the lady who understands that its best that people believe you carry heart-shaped lipstick cases (as opposed to personal protection) wherever you go. It's much more feminine and lady-like to be maniacally-obssessed with one's appearance than to concern your pretty little head with defending yourself.

As much as I appreciate that the companies that make these things consider us girls so vain, vapid, and attracted to shiny, brightly colored things that even our last-ditch effort emergency life saving devices have to be "cute"... Well.. if you can make it PINK to appeal to my delicate sensibilities, why can't you bling it up a little bit to appeal to my stereotypical gold-digging whore sensibilities as well? DAMMIT, I'M A PRINCESS!

Oh shit.. I shouldn't have asked..

 photo ed333a45-5e8a-4dfd-bae9-9d0ff2f31d12_zpsf12b311c.jpg
There's a whole lot of shit going on here, but we're gonna start with what the website says.

Guardian Girls "Winged Edition: Black with Pink Crystals"

"Guardian Girls Winged Edition pepper sprays are individually hand crafted and adorned with Swarovski crystals. The Winged Edition pepper spray features a custom re-usable design allowing you to insert a water cartridge for practice or a pepper spray cartridge for when you are on the go.

Available in a variety of color combinations, this beautifully decorated safety device is designed to provide dependable and effective self-defense allowing you to be safe & sexy."

Before I go any further, I DO want to recognize the Guardian Girls, their foundation and their blog, and specifically its founder, Yvonne Anderson. Ms. Anderson is a single mother who has firsthand experience dealing with a stalker. She chose to take the terror of that experience, turn it around and do something positive for other women. Guardian Girls' foundation helps to support a variety of charity organizations that improve the lives of women and their families and should be commended. Guardian Girls are able to support their good works for women via the sale of items like these, so I'm happy to give a link and shout-out to them. The thing is, its not Ms. Anderson or her organization that I take issue with.. its the market in which they have to compete and the social climate that breeds the market.

Personally, I find it horrific that we're literally trying "doll-up" these things we really shouldn't HAVE to be carrying just because we're women and we are expected to be ornamental at all times, apparently even in moments of extreme peril. We are so very conditioned to being adorned, accessorized, and fashionable that we're even seeking to make a WEAPON "girly" and "fun". With all due respect to Guardian Girls, the practice of Barbie-fying literally every product aimed at female consumers isn't merely sexist, but it contributes to the overall infantilization of women in society.

Just in case you think I'm overreaching here, THIS is what Google gave me as a definition for the word "infantilize".
 photo infantilize_zps42242496.jpg
Little GIRLS have pink, fluffy, sparkly shit marketed to them constantly. As for me, that's a whole different rant for a whole 'nother day on how that affects children insofar as shoving them face first into sexual/gender roles that aren't right for them. "Princess" overload can negatively impact girls, giving them messed up ideas on what it is to be female. One might say that the ripple effect of Princess indoctrination can be easily seen in adult women who endured it as girls, manifesting as a lack of confidence in self and capabilities. For now, I'll pass that one over to Jessica Bennett from The Daily Beast, with her article "Disney Princesses and the Battle for your Daughter's Soul".


 photo crystalipad_zpsd33707f7.jpgI'll put it to you this way..

what good is that blinged up pepper spray if it doesn't match your iPad??

Oh.

Mah.

GAWD..



Girl! How dare you spritz your fancy "liquid-haul-ass" into that assailants' eyeballs when it doesn't even match....





 photo crystalshoes_zps07dfff2b.jpg

YOUR GODAWFUL BARBIE PINK SHOES!!!!!!!!

You know!

The ones that are literally destroying your feet, your legs, and your back BUT DAMN YOU LOOK GOOD!









Now if you're just sick of fussing about with your personal attackers, trying to aim just right, stop fucking around and get this bad boy, all GIRLED up just for you AND your girlyparts!

Taser C2 Fashion Pink w Laser


"The TASER C2 is our newest product designed for personal protection. Utilizing the same technology as our proven law enforcement models, the C2 has incredible take down power."

I will AT LEAST hand it to this company that while they felt compelled to stick the term "fashion" on it (cause you know, the ladies will look at anything as long as it has "fashion" glued on there somewhere), at least they don't fuck around with the "sexy" and "cute" shit ad-nauseum. Plus, no one is ever going to willingly fuck with you again if you taze them.

 photo pinktaser_zpsf7216f00.jpg

Wednesday, September 25, 2013

Tuesday, September 24, 2013

Reality TV star goes to unreal lengths justifying spousal abuse

What in the holy fuck, yo?

'Real Housewife' Melissa Gorga's New Book Advocates Marital Rape - Jezebel

Let me just get it out of the way.. I DON'T WATCH A LOT OF TV.. specifically because I have no desire to see Kardashians, Hedonistic Housewives, or any other kind of television show that follows women around to watch them shop, be catty for the sake of cattiness, bolster the validity of the worst kind of female stereotypes, or otherwise celebrate wastefulness and selfishness. Sorry people, Rome is burning and as such, I could care less about the window treatments, catfights, or in-home mani-pedi that some polished, plucked, spritzed, painted banshee is screeching about in her excessively expensive home.

As I get older, and see more and more people struggling to just fucking FEED themselves and their children on a daily basis, I can't help but find myself vomitously disgusted by these "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" throwbacks. But I digress...

NOW, as if ovary-bearing individuals are not slogging their way through enough problems with prevalent rape-culture, street harrassment, and slut-shaming, we've got a new bible for the apologetic battered housewife.. "Love Italian Style: The Secrets of My Hot and Happy Marriage" - by Melissa Gorga

Not only does this book divulge personal details of this woman's systematic abuse and subjugation in her marriage at the hands of her husband, Joe, it goes on to profess that his temper, selfishness, and controlling behaviour are merely "manly" traits that should not only be tolerated, but cherished and lovingly acknowledged as true romance shown from a man to a woman.

In fact, he's so lovingly helicoptering this woman ALL the fucking time, that she wasn't permitted to so much as write the book HERSELF.. oh no.. there are sections written ENTIRELY BY JOE in HER book, to the point that it would appear he is interrupting and shouting over her in printed word as much as we can surmise he does in person.

Here's a real gem by the aforementioned Joe, wherein he appears to find sexual assault both hot and a husbandly duty:

"Men, I know you think your woman isn't the type who wants to be taken. But trust me, she is. Every girl wants to get her hair pulled once in a while. If your wife says "no," turn her around, and rip her clothes off. She wants to be dominated.


Women don't realize how easy men are. Just give us what we want."

DAMN, ladies! Just give them what they want and whenever they want it! Why didn't WE think of that? Probably because our ladybits make us overly emotional and illogical. Thank GOD for men like Joe and the brain-adjusting semen injections they can provide for us! However could we become the ideal dishwashing, brainless, babymaking, bedroom vamping, foundation-plastered automatons we ALL desire to be without all the dick that guys like Joe insist on giving us whenever they feel like it? ALL HAIL THE DEMANDING MAN AND HIS BLESSED SEXUAL AGGRESSION! Didn't you know that toddler-style temper tantrums and demands are COMPLETELY ACCEPTABLE out of grown men? The only difference is that when boys grow into men they are BIG and STRONG and can rip your clothes off to get the "cookies" as is the right of the husband and....

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST ON A CRACKER ARE YOU SERIOUS? REALLY?? SOMEONE ACTUALLY PUBLISHED A CONTEMPORARY BOOK MAKING MARITAL RAPE SOUND NORMAL???

Also, gals... did you know your husband is not supposed to be aware of the bodily functions you and he have in common? Melissa says that women don't shit.

Seriously.

"Girls don't poop. Me, never have. Never will. It just doesn't happen. Or, that's what Joe thinks! We've been married for nine years, and he has never once seen or smelled my business. How have I pulled this off? I don't do it when he's around or awake. In an emergency, I have my ways of pooping so he won't hear, smell, or see. It's a challenge."

Thanks a pantload, Melissa Gorga. .. er.. or not.

This might be where we've all gone wrong, girls. If you're not playing "Hide and Shit", your relationship is doomed. I gotta say, though.. if that is, indeed, "what Joe thinks", Joe is not the sharpest tool in the shed. He's a tool, sure.. just not a very sharp one.

More husbandly advice from the magnanimous Joe..

"To be on the same level, everyone has to get off the high horse. I don't care if the woman makes more money than the man, if he's a janitor and she's the president. After a fourteen-hour workday, if a man comes home and there's no dinner on the table, and his wife is on the phone, watching TV, or on the computer ignoring him, he won't feel respected."

So... leader of the free world best be home early makin' you a steak, huh? What a douchebag..

Oh, and this (from Joe):

"I don't feed babies, or change the diapers. My father never wiped my ass, and I don't wipe my babies' either."

Damn, Melissa.. how do you let him leave the house? I'm sure the bitches are lining up READY to pounce on this one! Sarcasm aside, its really this paragraph from the first chapter that kills me. Basically, a foreword that explains how she got into this mess in the first place..

"I was envious of girls with daddies to turn to. They could make a call, and their fathers would swoop in to fix their car brakes, give them a loan, or make them feel treasured and special. I missed that closeness. I found myself drawn to a certain kind of man, a father figure who made me feel protected and would tell me right from wrong. They weren’t older than me per se. It was the authoritative and instructive personality type—someone who could take charge—that attracted me. I know a lot of women wouldn’t like that. But I responded to it."

If that isn't heartbreaking enough, she later tells of Joe's "instruction" in their married life together, outlining a pattern of abuse that first assures her that there is something wrong with her that needs to be "corrected" and how validating his controlling behaviour is essential to the health of their marriage.

"His style was to make corrections and to teach me from the beginning days of our marriage exactly how he envisioned our life together. Joe always says, "You got to teach someone to walk straight on the knife. If you slip, you're going to get cut." Even if something didn't bother him that badly, he'd bring it up. He wanted to make sure that I knew, for example, if I ran out to CVS and he came home from work to an empty house, he didn't like it. He'd call me and say, "I don't care if you're out all day long. But I don't want to come home to an empty house."

... you know.. God forbid she see herself as an individual person. According to Joe, she isn't. She's a WIFE, and therefore property meant to feed, breed, clean up after, and sexually serve him.

Someone got the big balls and wanna try some "feminism is outdated/unnecessary" shit with me today?


The Feminine Context

Thursday, December 1, 2011

Kentucky Church Works To Maintain State's Public Image As Butt Of Hick Jokes

From HuffingtonPost.com


"In a move to "promote greater unity" among its body and the Pike County community it serves, a small Kentucky church voted to ban interracial couples from membership and from participating in certain worship activities" 


click HERE for the rest of this story..


Oh, good godDAMN, people.. What about interracial worship? Does the church allow anything other than white people? Is it that the pastor is having vision problems and mixing up the colors in the aisles confuses him? This is ridiculous. 


Maybe this is a good time for all the Caucasian gay/lesbian pairings to break the news to the church. I mean, this might be their "IN"..


It must be hard to breathe in a place with that much stupid in the air...


The Feminine Context

Tuesday, November 1, 2011

Occupy Humanity: Can Empathy Be Saved?

Like most Americans these days, I have worked a variety of jobs over the years. Somehow I have managed to maintain a common thread of occupational skills between jobs, because almost all of the positions I've held have been associated with caregiving. Each new employer could look back on my resume and see that I had been charged with the responsibility of caring for living beings that whose very survival depended on me in one way or another. Whether I cared for children, older adults, disabled persons, or animals, the rules are pretty much the same.

No matter who or what you are responsible for, you must treat them with respect and attempt to maintain the dignity and comfort of that individual. I don't care if you're caring for a sick, aggressive pitbull, or a sick, aggressive older man with dementia; you keep BOTH your prejudice AND "values" the hell out of the room and treat either scenario with the same amount of respect and concern. If you think you can treat either the dog or the man with less respect than the other, then you obviously have no business caring for the one who (due to your bias) receives less of your respect. When it comes to caring for that other living person, their rights are up there nearer to the ceiling, whereas yours are somewhere down below the sewer lines.

That's not an exaggeration or veiled complaint. It has to be that way. Placing the utmost emphasis on the needs of the being who is dependent on you is the only way to ensure that you meet those needs appropriately. Working within this structure of "them before us" prevents neglect, and oddly enough, high turnover of caregiver employees. If you can complete the tasks necessary for your job, do them correctly, and adhere to the standards expected from someone in your particular position, it's a lot easier to "leave it at work" and feel good about what you've done. Those who can achieve some level of "job satisfaction" are a lot more likely to remain in their line of work.

Certain things really came into focus for me when I became certified as a nurse aide. I decided that I eventually wanted to become a registered nurse. Having researched the field of nursing, I became aware that in a hospital or nursing home, nurse aides perform basic nursing tasks under the direction of registered nurses. RNs have more education and authority than nurse aides, and are paid better because of it. It makes no sense from a financial standpoint to pay for a floor's worth of RNs when you can pay a few of them to supervise a team of aides who are trained for basic nursing tasks. I got that part. What I didn't understand is how anyone thought they could be a good supervisor when they'd never done the actual job of the person below them. Thus, I decided to learn the "grunt work" and become a certified aide. I figured if I could get through physically challenging part of nursing, I could get through the academic parts a lot easier, PLUS I'd be a much more effective supervisory nurse than one who'd never had to work as an aide.

I realize now that I had identified a need to develop empathy.

At the time, I just figured it would be in my best interest to be prepared, and that the discipline of learning the job that "real nurses" didn't want to do could only help me in my studies later on. In retrospect, I think there was some part of me that wasn't quite "ripe" yet, and even then, young and stupid, I knew it. I was trying to develop a part of me that could extend the necessity of my career beyond simply meeting my own needs. An ever nagging, "pragmatic" part of me kept whispering in the background, "This is a waste of time. You're practically a straight-a student and you're dicking around with this diploma when you could be putting time into a degree". The "pragmatic" voices outside of my head, namely two friends who were (respectively) a dentist and a doctor, were both pretty busy calling me a fool for not pursuing a degree that would lead me to medical school. They treated my decision to become a nurse like a mental illness, or some sort of self-destructive habit. Upon finding out that I had chosen to first become a nurse aide and not even a full nurse, they began avoiding me whenever possible. My dad, who I'm sure wanted nothing but the best for me, wanted me to do something with my mad computer skills, but the idea of sitting on my ass working in an office (and the few times I had done so) made me sick. Sometimes I wonder if he didn't get some sort of 1980's power-suit idea in his head, and likened that and the presumably accompanying business/marketing/information technology degree to "success". In short, the thought of me changing bedpans seemed to make him feel like I was pursuing a diploma program as a scullery-maid, or worse, scullery-maid trainee. He thought it was "beneath" my capabilities, which didn't exactly make me feel great about my chosen career when things were tough. I took a little bittersweet solace in the fact that almost every one of my friends who had gotten degrees in those aforementioned fields had ended up working jobs in coffee houses or in offices that I, without a degree of that kind, could easily talk my way into. Even though I felt bad for my friends, whose own dads had clearly won the day, at least I knew I'd have a job eventually taking CARE of their dads.

I think it's kind of funny, in a dry sort of way, to recall that all the disapproving people in my life were politically conservative. I'll get back to that in a moment, though.

During the course of my later work in elder care, I realized that by putting my opinions and feelings on hold while I was on duty, I was actually able to not only do my job, but thrive in it. I've met a lot of "retired" CNAs who are working in other fields, usually due to their decision that caregiving work was "too depressing" for them. It's not like these women are making any more money than they were as aides, but the idea of being around people who were either actively dying or just irreversibly on their way to death, was more than they could bear. I had been taught a lot in my courses and a few rules still stick out, even after all the time that's passed between then and now. Notably..

1 - Certain things are never to be brought in to your working hours with someone you are taking care of, specifically your germs and bacteria, your negative emotions, your religion (or lack thereof), your political opinions, and details of your personal life.

2 - Certain things are never to be brought out from your working hours with someone you are taking care of, such as their germs and bacteria, their negative emotions, their religion (or lack thereof), their political opinions, and details of their personal life.

3 - Thou shalt never violate, and always remain alert and in timely practice of the laws of the land. It is your place to adhere to them, not bend, alter, or disrespect them. In remaining vigilant in adherence to legal and ethical standards, the client and caregiver shall both be protected.

4 - Lots of things are simply none of your business. No, really, most things are none of your business. That doesn't mean you get to be snippy and make a comment, gesture, or other flippant, passive-aggressive action that indicates your opinion while somewhat satisfying the job requirement that makes this issue none of your business. If you cannot work with someone without making things your business that shouldn't BE your business, you should call your agency, explain YOUR failing, and ask to be assigned elsewhere (if they still want someone like you to work for them).

5 - It IS your business to care enough about the things that are important to your client (religion, politics, family) to listen, learn, and be able to carry on a conversation that addresses THEIR need for camaraderie, NOT YOURS. If it has to be an act, be Oscar-worthy for it.

6 - If you are treated unkindly or with disrespect, you are never to respond in kind. It is your place to avoid those sorts of outbursts. If your client is too hostile and you cannot seem to resolve the issue OR work with it anymore, contact your supervisor for advice or another assignment. Additionally, consider another line of work. Clearly, something about you that you cannot help is too agitating to your client for you to remain caring for them, OR you're not adhering to rule #1, and/or #2.

These rules are probably read as simply "common sense", but when they have to be put into practice, one finds that most people don't have the discipline to follow them. Worse still, most people do not possess the empathy needed to obviate the need for discipline. If you can empathize with others as well as you need to in order to take full care of another living thing, then it shouldn't be so difficult that you NEED strong discipline to adhere to these fairly simple rules. If this empathy is what it takes to look after someone as their caregiver, then it is reasonable to assume that other positions of authority require the same. In fact, these rules could very easily apply to occupations like teacher, policeman, doctor..

.. politician.

It's really starting to concern me as I watch the ability to empathize, a necessary skill for those in a position of authority or as a representative of others, is not only difficult to discover in our "leaders", it is now something that some of us are beginning to treat with derision. The current crop of hopefuls for the GOP nomination are promoting the poorer sides of human nature to such an extent that public displays of it are not only being accepted, they are being celebrated. Public displays like booing our soldiers for asking questions that someone doesn't want to answer, laughing at the idea of someone dying due to lack of medical treatment, and making rape victims legally and permanently responsible for the ramifications of their attackers actions. Since when did our public opinion change from "Oh how awful, we can't let that happen if we can help it" to "serves them right"?

The "53%" rails against those who "don't pay taxes" because they're old and retired or they are literally so poor that they wouldn't survive if they did pay taxes on the mere pittance they make. The "53%" forget sales tax, payroll tax, and property taxes that everyone pays. Tax refunds are NOT "free money". Tax refunds are exactly that, a refund, of money that very poor people had ripped out of their paychecks over the year, causing strain and hardship to the family hanging on tooth and nail for that paycheck. Worse still, the "53%" have been so indoctrinated with hate, fear, and anger directed at their "opposition", they won't even stop and look at the fact that they are essentially fighting for the right to live a way that THEY don't even want to.

Empathy is defined as "the ability to understand and share the feelings of another", which is something that politicians typically make grand attempts to feign, if nothing else. Historically, this has been done because the ability to empathize is typically demonstrated in those people we feel to be the "best" of us. Empathy is the reason your mother knew why you were sad, even when you didn't. It's why she still hugged you and loved you, even when you knowingly broke her rules. Empathy is the reason your friends call, make efforts to comfort, and listen to you cry when they never liked the stupid boyfriend who ended up breaking your heart exactly the way they KNEW he would. Empathy is the reason the best of your friends don't start off with "I told you so".

A massive load of "us against them" is being heaved upon our society, and the core premise is that the dirty, unwashed "them" is stealing undeserved resources from the noble, moral pockets of "us". Through misdirection of fear and anxiety, some (like the" 53%") are blinded to the fact that there's an effort to divide the ACTUAL "us", and apparently it's working. The truth is that there's only about 1% of "them", and they're doing all they can to bleed "us" dry and cast us into a million tiny factions until we don't recognize anyone else as one of "us". Worse still, "they" are claiming to be devout followers of Christianity, which requires empathy and love for others. "They" profess faith in an effort to make themselves appear moral, ethical, and inarguable. Real "faith" dictates that charity, tolerance, love, and concern for others is what makes you a morally upright human in the eyes of your God. Clearly "they" have no faith whatsoever in God, or they would trust that He would do His works and that their micromanagerial efforts here on Earth were not only unnecessary, but possibly an affront to Him.

With a bit of empathy for those that share your humanity, it's not hard to see that most of "us" are all suffering under the same tyranny brought about by just a few of "them".

The Feminine Context

Friday, October 28, 2011

Topeka, Kansas. America's #1 Bitch-Slapping City

A budget war in Kansas between the city of Topeka and Shawnee County has resulted in city officials making good on a threat they'd issued in an effort to try and get their way. Because Topeka's leaders don't want to get stuck with the bill for arrests, jailing, and prosecution of misdemeanor cases, a law has been repealed and those suspects previously arrested on misdemeanor charges (over half of whom were suspects in domestic violence cases) are being set free without charges.

Many states are committed to jailing individuals who are arrested for domestic violence, and even when they are released they are often let go under "no contact" orders in the interest of protecting victims. A great number, if not most states, do not allow for victims to drop charges, instead taking the authoritative role and pressing charges against the accused as the state itself. This is ALSO done for the protection of the victim.

Domestic violence is a crime of arranged opportunity, for lack of a better description. Violence in these cases is most often precipitated by long periods of abusing the victim in ways that demoralize, isolate, and demean. By way of methods that slowly alter the perception of reality of both the victim and the abuser, an opportunity to control and perpetrate violence toward the victim is afforded to the abuser. In turn, the codependency of the relationship between the abuser and the victim sends BOTH PARTIES spiralling into a dangerous living situation that can result in long-term damage to their emotional and mental well-being, if not a deadly outcome for one or both of them. The most painful yet helpful method of breaking this cycle is to separate the abuser and the abused for some period of time, if not permanently. Unfortunately, the secrecy due to shame and guilt on the part of both parties makes it often NECESSARY that law enforcement intervene.

Often, the abuser has gone so long unchecked by anyone, that they bear very strong opinions and often feel persecuted themselves due to the power-imbalance that has existed in their homes for far too long. An abuser KNOWS their actions are incorrect, and the guilt often causes their reactions to conflict to become MORE excessively violent and paranoid as they develop exaggerated defense mechanisms. The abuser's guilt mounts, and s/he seeks to justify their actions by seeing a threat or insult in almost everything the victim does. The fear of exposure for their mounting misbehavior grows more intense as time goes on, making them, paranoid, jumpy, hyper-aggressive, and the abuser will sometimes turn to drugs or alcohol to cope, leaving them now mentally imbalanced AND inebriated.

The victim of the abused usually begins accepting and tolerating the abuser's behavior out of a place of love and concern. Excuses are made for their loved one's abuse, such as "He's under stress", or when things begin to escalate further, "He's not well. I can't leave someone who's sick or having a problem. If I stick it out, I can help them". Domestic abuse suffered as children translates into a higher tolerance for it in an adult relationship. For example, if your father was abusive, to condemn or judge your partner unworthy for engaging in the same actions your father did, means to some degree that you are also condemning the father that you know, love, and accept. The abuser will shift blame to the victim when he is wrong, just as most people shift blame (when remotely possible) when they are wrong.  Before it becomes a physically or sexually violent relationship, the abused person has most often become conditioned by the hostile environment to the extent that they may feel they deserve the abuse or that it's "not that bad". As the abuse escalates, so increases the victims' likelihood to excuse or rationalize it.

This is why law enforcement is SUPPOSED to step in and separate the victim from the abuser. The two parties have become so adept at and codependent in rationalizing horrendous behaviors and a lifestyle that emotionally healthy people would find abnormal and alarming, that they literally need to be forced apart before death or major physical injury occurs (or occurs AGAIN). Both the victim and the abuser are so isolated from healthy relationships, that they will seek to cling to each other AND their unhealthy lifestyle because everything outside of it has become foreign and terrifying.

That's why states and cities have to protect the victim long enough that some mental and emotional clarity can be found, and a healthy decision about the relationship can be reached. This protects not only the victim, but the ABUSER. If the abuser is not stopped, held, and given adequate time to collect him/herself, the anger at being exposed and challenged may often be enough to result in a murder, suicide, or both. Its not uncommon for abused persons to feel wracked with guilt over asking for help and getting their abusers into trouble. Remember, over time, the victim comes to see the abuser as the central figure in their whole world, and maybe the only person they have had to even talk to in a long time. Remove that from someone's life abruptly, and it's going to be like losing a limb.

This might not be a popular opinion, but there is something to be said for protecting the abuser as well as the victim. The person who abuses another is still someone's child, brother, relative, or most likely the much-loved partner of the very person that domestic violence laws are enforced to protect; the victim. There's no EXCUSE for abusing another person, but there should be an expectation that the abuser is not playing with a full deck if they've managed to convince themselves that what they are doing is justifiable. That in mind, this isn't someone you can turn loose, expecting them to make appropriate decisions without any chance to get their heads straight.

Someone who gets caught committing an act of physical injury to someone they live and share a life with needs to be punished for it, certainly. What's the purpose of punishment, though? Are we, as a society, about causing harm for harm, or are our punishments going to be enacted in a more thoughtful way as to try and rectify the problem that eventually warranted punishment? Forcing an accused abuser to spend a night in jail and calm down doesn't hurt them. Sure, it's embarrassing and it can probably make them more angry, but that's what that whole aforementioned "no contact" order is for.. so that the angry person cannot go an exact revenge upon someone who they blame for their embarrassment and anger. It's also to allow that person a chance AWAY from the individual who, in their altered viewpoint, they see as responsible for causing them so much anguish.

It's a win-win to enforce these laws for both parties, abused and abuser, even though at the time that the situation comes to a head and law enforcement has to become involved, everyone (victim included) is going to feel violated, exposed, hurt, and desperate. Sometimes you just have to rip off the bandage if you want a wound to heal, rather than leaving it covered and festering. In most (if not all) states that STATE charges are brought against an accused abuser, pre-trial intervention (PTI) programs are offered for first time offenders. This program requires offenders to plead "no-contest" and agree to random drug screenings, counseling and anger management classes, and some amount of community service. This is offered as an alternative to trial, jail time, and fines. PTI programs, when completed successfully, also allow most offenders an opportunity to get their offense eventually expunged from public record.

But if the state, city, or county can't be bothered to maintain enforcement of laws to properly handle domestic abusers and their victims, who is anyone supposed to call for help? I sincerely doubt that police would let a relative off the hook for enforcing "vigilante justice" (potentially at the barrel-end of a shotgun) to protect a loved one. So where are abused persons in Topeka going to go for help?

PSA:

If you believe that you or a loved one may be suffering in an abusive relationship, take a look at this site for a start.

LoveIsRespect.Org