Category Archives: Worldly matters

Here’s What I Don’t Understand…

Leave a reply

Twitter rather heavily trends toward people of higher socioeconomic status. They tend to be more educated and more financially secure than the general population and, if I recall correctly, more so than Facebook users overall, too. (No, that’s not a slam on Facebook; it’s just differing demographics and should not be read as me saying Twitter is better or its members are smarter.).

So, this being the case, why is it that with all the people who are relatively witty and insightful, and often pretty well-educated, on Twitter…well…why oh why does it happen that 95% of the time when a conservative attacks my views on Twitter that person is an utter idiot?

I’m not saying conservatives are idiots, though I have noted a disturbing trend in the right wing in recent years to denigrate education and cut down people who are “smarty pants.” I know for a fact that there are many intelligent, reasonable, level-headed and personable conservatives in my life, around me and online.

I even have a couple who follow me on Twitter.

But when I bring up some hot-button issues or strike a nerve on the right wing’s psyche on Twitter, I almost always get people who spout conspiracy theories, rely on rumor and innuendo, regularly dispute reality, and cite specious sources (or don’t cite any at all and tell me to Google it and then tell me I’m a moron when my Google results turn up no reputable or non-partisan sources to back their claims).

I welcome intelligent discussion, even when I disagree or get pissed off by it.

But damn it, actually show some ability to think. Saying “nyah nyah nyah” to me doesn’t cut it, and you’re embarrassing your conservative peers and making them look worse and less credible to me by your example.

Guest Post: A Look at Partisanship and Education

Leave a reply

I haven’t had much opportunity overall…and especially not lately…to have guest posts on the blog. However, I was recently contacted by someone with strong feelings on education in the United States, and since I don’t talk about education directly much (though I discuss several issues that intersect with it, such as race and religion), I’m happy to give her the floor. Thanks, Sofia!
________________________________________

Education in America: Pulled from Two Sides
By Sofia Rasmussen

At the mercy of both state and federal governments, the American education system is caught in a game of tug of war: as liberals and conservatives gain and lose power, the education system is pulled and pushed into policies and directions consistent with the party in power.  To be fair, some controversies have proponents and opponents within each party, e.g., the controversy surrounding the credibility of online doctorate programs.  But, most controversies are party-divided.  For example, as Arizona becomes more conservative, they have passed laws and legislation that outlaws the teaching of ethnic study classes in public schools. The exact language willfully obfuscates this fact, using language such as “…advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.” The intent, however, can’t be hidden behind a shield of words: the law itself reeks of vitriol and racism.

This is but one example of an education law where controversy is raised: there are many such laws throughout the United States passed every year. Many of these laws are passed in the south and southwest, where racial tensions are already high; many of these laws deal with conservative ideology, such as a debate raised over a law in Texas regarding the teaching of evolution in schools. The original law didn’t outright ban the teaching of evolution; rather, the law began by asserting that an intelligent design option be presented alongside the theory of evolution. At the time of this writing, several laws are in legislatures, or are already passed, that allow the teaching of creationism in schools.

One example is a law in Louisiana that opens the doorway for intelligent design to be taught aside creationism in schools. This law, again, is worded vaguely and willfully obfuscates its intent. Although there are quite a few laws like this on the state level, as far as controversy at the federal level goes, the examples are quite a bit fewer.

No Child Left Behind

Perhaps the greatest example of controversial education law is the passing of No Child Left Behind during the administration of George W. Bush. The law itself is quite lengthy, although the points of controversy are rather succinct: to wit, schools that demonstrate lower test scores and have students that are behind grade level on subjects such as reading, mathematics, and science, lose federal funding. This law raised the ire of thousands of liberals across America, and was lauded by their counterparts on the conservative side.

These laws are symptomatic of the problem facing education in America today: when you rely on partisan funding for your program to work, you must cater to their ideals. Ideally, the separation between education and politics would be much greater, allowing more teachers to educate our children without our ideals and political theory intervening. The reality is something completely different, something that educators everywhere are grappling with on a day to day basis: what our children can and cannot learn is dependent entirely on what the people in our legislature say. The quandary facing the educators themselves is one of personal decisions against what that legislature says: from both sides, can someone teach, impart knowledge, that they themselves do not believe? The tightrope walked by an educator is one of personal belief, sometimes faith, beliefs that can influence their decisions on what to teach to students, and what to abstain from teaching.

I’m Sorry, White America! I See the Truth Now!

Leave a reply

So, for a bit of time now in this blog and on Twitter, I’ve been taking many in the white segments of the American population to task for wanting to put blame on Trayvon Martin (the victim of a shooting) and dismiss the culpability of George Zimmerman (the shooter).

Now, via my association with The Field Negro (http://field-negro.blogspot.com and @thefieldnegro on Twitter) comes to me this story of a poll suggesting most white Americans don’t really believe Zimmerman is guilty of anything, despite the preponderance of evidence that he at the very least disobeyed police instructions and provoked a conflict with an unarmed black teen.

You know, even though even a casual reading of the facts of the case so far indicates that Martin was minding his own business and Zimmerman was at the very least criminally negligent, most of my fellow white folks apparently see some other truth.

So, it couldn’t be that they’re afraid of the specter of racism and are denying reality to rally around one of their own, right? I must be wrong. And so, I think I have finally figured out what happened that night. Black and white America…and everyone in between…you can thank me later.

The Real Story

George Zimmerman, dutiful neighborhood watch captain, is patrolling in his SUV and spots Trayvon Martin skulking through the area wearing a hoodie and menacingly brandishing a pack of Skittles and a soda as he leered at helpless and terrified citizens through the windows of their homes, mouthing threats to them silently through the glass.

Calling 911, Zimmerman reports suspicious behavior and is told that police will handle it and he shouldn’t continue to follow Martin.

Sensing something in the tone of the 911 operator’s voice that suggested possible collusion with the hulking Negro beast marauding in his neighborhood, Zimmerman continued to pursue Martin, knowing he was the only hope of his fellow residents against a fearsome threat fueled by candy and soft drinks.

Suddenly, Martin turned and saw his pursuer. Knowing it was a valiant neighborhood watch captain (for how could the youth even conceive the person following him in an SUV might be a molester, stalker or even a violent racist!), he snarled and began to lunge for the vehicle, scrabbling at Zimmerman’s windows and then cocking back a fist to plunge through the glass and pull the other man from the safety of his SUV.

Realizing now the terrible danger he was in, and suspecting perhaps the 911 operator actually had his safety in mind after all, Zimmerman backed his vehicle away, dislodging Martin and then preparing the leave the scene so that police could do their job properly.

But despite reaching speeds approaching 35 miles per hour in a residential area (and oh how Zimmerman dreaded doing such a lawless act!), Martin was keeping up with him, and used strange mental powers to open the locks on Zimmerman’s doors, pull him out of the vehicle and begin pummeling him.

With no choice, and his heart sick with the thought of it, Zimmerman pulled his pistol, and shot the horrid villain dead.

Now, the only reason we’re not getting this story, and instead getting an ever-changing and increasingly illogical tale from Zimmerman, his legal team and his well-connected judge father, is because of a vast conspiracy in the White House. Yes, “President” Barack Hussein Osama-bin-Obama is spending trillions to turn black youth into genetically enhanced, superpowered Muslim agents of destruction, and Zimmerman unwittingly discovered one of them.

I’m so glad that I know the truth now.

Again, my apologies, “White America.”

Whites Are Not an Endangered U.S. Species

Leave a reply

I can’t begin to tell you how sick I am of people, particularly those in the right-wing ideologically but also some left-wing and moderate people who seem to lack basic calculation skill, saying white people will be a minority in 2050.

Now, if that did happen, fine. I’m cool with that. Things change.

The problem is the nervous white people who already fear people of color (along with gays and strong women) getting all uptight and violent over such news and shrieking about how the white race is dying off and is going to lose power and…

…shut the hell up.

Whites will not be a minority in 2050.

Current projections say that by 2050, whites will be 47% of the population (compared to 72% now).

That won’t make them a minority. That will make them less than half the population.

If you don’t understand the difference, let’s take another figure from those 2050 projections. It is expected that Latinos will be 29% of the population.

Now, let’s add 49 and 29. I’m sure even the most ignorant racist right-wingers can handle a calculator. 49 + 29 = 78.

That leaves 22% of the U.S. population for black folks, Asians, Native Americans, Arabs, etc.

Combined. All of them have to fit into that 22%.

29 isn’t bigger than 47, nor is 22.

If the projections are correct and current trends hold out, whites will still be the single largest group in 2050.

Will they be outnumbered by all other racial groups combined? Sure. But when was the last time you saw all those groups agreeing with each other and forming a coalition to beat up on the honkies? You see many multiracial power blocs, whether in Congress, business, the media or a street gang?

The biggest difference between 2050 and 2012 if the numbers hold up is that it’s going to be a lot harder to get away with whites calling certain folks spics, wetbacks and all that.

Fine with me. It’ll be nice to see white leaders and power-brokers finally have to negotiate without a position of absolutely overpowering arrogant force. If I’m still alive then to see it, that is.

Hating the Wrong People

Leave a reply

I’m not planning to make this blog into a litany of endless social injustices, despite what it may seem like as I follow up two Trayvon Martin posts with one about Shaima Al Awadi. But her case is worth noting as well, as it also points to a sickness of racism that continues to run through the veins of America—not just toward those who are born citizens (like African-Americans and most Hispanics) but also toward those who come here to enjoy the same rights and freedoms we do, and to contribute to our society and culture.

For those who aren’t familiar with the case, go here and here for some brief news stories. But the jist is this: An Iraqi woman (a mother of four) was found beaten to death in her California home, apparently with a threatening note next to her body saying she was a terrorist and should “go home.” Reportedly, the family had received a threatening note before but had dismissed it as a prank. Short of an unlikely finding that some family member or other person close to her killed her and used the note as a cover-up, what we have here is another hate crime…a crime committed for no good reason but to vent rage at someone “different.”

There is a similarity here with her and Trayvon, in that he looked “threatening” to George Zimmerman  in part for daring to wear a hooded sweatshirt, and Shaima wore the traditional hijab of her Muslim faith. Trayvon was almost certainly seen as a thug for his clothing almost as much as his skin color, and Shaima was likely seen as a terrorist or sympathizer of terrorism for her clothing, which was a part of her religious faith. A religion, I might point out, is practiced overwhelmingly by people who don’t want terrorism any more than the average Christian or Jew does.

The painful irony of this situation is that apparently Shaima came to the United States to flee the brutality of the Saddam Hussein regime when he still lived and ruled in Iraq. And then, in a land build by repeated waves of immigrants, she is seen as an enemy instead of the next wave of contributors and citizens, and killed in an act of senseless violence.

I admit I’m not as personally offended on a deep, heartfelt level with this case as with Trayvon. If I got torn up about every sick and violent tragedy that makes the news I’d be a basket case. Trayvon’s situation strikes hard for me because I have a son and daughter who are biracial and a Black wife. I have Black in-laws. Many of my online friends are Black (probably more of my offline friends would be, too, if I wasn’t stuck in the whitest state in the nation). And African-Americans have been systematically shat upon for centuries in this country. But the Shaima case still hurts.

Even formerly reviled immigrant groups like the Chinese, Irish, Italians, etc. in American history pretty much have been embraced, but Blacks continue to be “other” in the view of society. I wonder if the overblown threat of terrorism (oh, I know it’s a real threat…but it’s still been blown up beyond what it is) means that Arabs may end up in the same boat as Blacks and in many places Hispanics…always seen as some “thing” that contaminates American purity.

It’s depressing. A woman beaten to death out of hate, when she wasn’t the enemy.

Just because she practiced a religion misused and twisted by terrorists and because she had the same ethnic background as many of them.

I wonder how my pale-skinned brethren would feel if Blacks just started beating on random Whites on Wall Street for wearing the threatening and oppressive three-piece suit or on small town Main St. for wearing a baseball cap that marks them as a potential racist redneck?

Of course, it wouldn’t be a learning moment for America; it would just be an excuse to go out and oppress, beat or kill the Blacks who didn’t do the evil. Nothing changes there, right?

May Shaima’s family find the strength they need to keep going on and move beyond this tragedy while also keeping the memories they need of Shaima. The same for Trayvon’s family.

It’s just a pity more Americans aren’t crying out for justice in this case or even Trayvon’s. I’m disappointed. We should be better than that, as a country that says it’s free and open and accepting. As a country that claims to be above petty abuses and unethical behavior.

But we aren’t. We’re fast becoming a nation directed by thuggery, and that’s not a place we should be.

Bottom line: If we can’t get outraged—from the halls of Congress to the meeting halls of Main Street America to the pool halls of the most sketchy neighborhoods in the cities—when our citizens start killing women and children for the perceived wrongs of other members of their racial/ethnic/religious/whatever group, we don’t have any damned business telling anyone else anywhere else in the world what to do.

Put up or shut up, America.

Trayvon: The Beat Goes On (Beating On His Character)

Leave a reply

So, it took weeks, but the right-wing nutjobs and the racist asshats in Florida finally have begun to weave together enough material to begin to assassinate the character of a murdered youth.

He had been suspended from school…so the hell what? As I understand it, he was suspended for chronic tardiness to a particular class, not for bad behavior or thuggery. I haven’t heard anything so far that indicates he was anything but a mostly good student.

There was marijuana residue in his backpack. Residue. Maybe he smoked pot, or maybe he let a pot-smoking friend borrow his backpack. Point is, there were no drugs in that backpack and from what I’ve heard so far, tests on his corpse showed no drugs. And even if he did like to smoke pot now and again, let me make a couple things clear. First, I was an honor student, and I hung out with other honor students, and being a good student doesn’t mean you don’t ever imbibe or smoke things you aren’t supposed to. Ergo, doing such things doesn’t automatically make you a bad person or a bad student. Also, when was the last time you saw a violent pothead? People who smoke marijuana are generally peaceful folks, unless they’re putting a whole lot of other things in their body in addition to the pot.

Oh, and he listened to gangster rap? Oh myyyyyy. How…how…you know: who cares!!! I have gangster rap in my music collection. Plenty of his white classmates listen to it, too, I can guarantee. Listening to country and western doesn’t mean you’re an idiot redneck either. Nor does listening to punk rock make you a punk.

Finally, there is evidence that perhaps George was roughed up a bit? That Trayvon might have reached for his gun?

Oh, really?

Let’s recap:

  • George was in a vehicle, following Trayvon (which would creep me out and make me feel threatened and in danger if I was a youth)
  • George called 911
  • 911 told George they didn’t need him to follow the “suspect” and police would take things from there
  • George didn’t follow directions
  • In addition to continuing to stalk Trayvon against official instructions, George chose to exit his vehicle, carrying a weapon.

So, George was acting creepy as hell, and didn’t stay in his nice, safe vehicle, and that’s Travyon’s fault? We don’t know exactly what went down when they were both on the street together, and we never will…but I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if George scared the hell out of Trayvon (for no reason and with no authorization or authority) and Trayvon thought (justifiably) that his safety was in danger and perhaps his life. Maybe a fight started then, but Trayvon didn’t make it happen. He didn’t reach into George’s vehicle and drag him out of it.

There was only one armed person who picked a fight. That was George Zimmerman. A man with a history of questionable behavior and vigilante tendencies. He’s a murderer and Trayvon’s a victim.

Period.

Where’s the Outrage?

Leave a reply

You know one of the things that most pisses me off about the murder of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman in Florida?

The response from conservatives.

Where’s the outrage?

Most of them only got publicly outraged about President Obama’s words of empathy and sympathy for Trayvon’s parents, accusing him of opportunism and fanning the flames.

So far, the only one I know about calling attention loudly to the injustice of Trayvon’s killing is U.S. Rep. Allen West of Florida, a high-profile conservative and one of two African-American Republicans currently serving in Congress, who lambasted local authorities for their mishandling of the Trayvon Martin case thus far. Other conservative folks seemed too intent on trying to suggest Trayvon was a “bad kid” even days after it became clear he wasn’t one…or they’ve been too busy trying to defend Florida’s insane laws that helped make this killing happen…or they’ve been blaming Trayvon for wearing a hooded sweatshirt.

But you know what? Trayvon did the kinds of things conservatives keep telling black folks that they need to do to “be safe” and “fit in” and “be respected.”

He did all those things and got good grades and had big dreams and laudable goals for his future adulthood. George Zimmerman, disobeying police instructions and making himself judge, jury and executioner, took all that away.

Why aren’t conservatives outraged that a “good” black kid who did “all the right” things was murdered? Why aren’t they mad that they lost one of the potential “respectable” black people who might grow to appreciate the GOP? Why aren’t they angry that a promising young person had his life stolen away? Why are they more interested in defending a vigilante who was out of line instead of a kid who did “what he’s supposed to”?

I’m sure it isn’t racism. Or hypocrisy. Or pig-headed lack of compassion. Or maybe even just plain evil.

No, it isn’t any of those things.

It’s ALL of them.

If you aren’t taking Trayvon’s side in this matter, fuck you…fuck you hard…and fuck you forever. You’re as dead to me in spirit as Trayvon is corporeally.

Zombies and the Right Wing

Leave a reply

All right, despite the fact it was a week-and-a-half ago that I wrote a silly piece related to a series of zombie movies…and now my first post since then also talks about zombies…I promise this blog isn’t going to become “Zombie Sh!+ from Deacon Blue.”

But zombies do play an important role in me making a point which, as usual, I will get to in a highly roundabout manner.

A couple weeks ago, I made some (theoretically) humorous response to something my wife said in which I referenced “the coming zombie apocalypse.” Rather than laugh (which often doesn’t happen where my jokes are involved anyway), my wife asked very seriously and gravely, “What is it with you and zombies?”

It was asked in a manner along the lines of, “Why would you hit yourself in the face repeatedly with a meat tenderizer?”

Now, it should be noted that my wonderful wife is a bit of a literalist. She likes fiction in video and written form, but she deals with concrete, real-world things. Fantasy and science fiction rarely appeal to her at all; if it doesn’t relate to things she can see and imagine in her day-to-day, she often won’t understand the appeal. She’s been trying very hard to continue to create an atmosphere for our daughter to believe in magic and let her imagination soar, but she’s somewhat less willing to sympathize with my love of things fantastic and out there in fiction.

After explaining to her that I’m not personally all that much into zombies except with some specific tales out there, I did my best to point out that zombies are a meme, and a metaphor for a lot of things in society. Yadda yadda yadda. She still doesn’t understand, and I now avoid using the term “zombie apocalypse” in her presence.

But it did get me to thinking: Why are zombies such a big thing right now in novels, TV series, movies, etc.?

Sure, they’ve been around since “Night of the Living Dead” made such an impact on our collective psyches and launched an entire franchise for George Romero on the big screen. But in the 1980s and 1990s, a lot of zombie stuff wasn’t apocalyptic. It tended to be a problem that was solved by the end of the movie, with just one zombie surviving to create a sequel in which the same pattern led to another sequel…and so on. But zombies rarely destroyed civilization entirely.

So that got me to thinking about apocalyptic fiction. That’s also nothing new. But in the past, a lot of it was around the idea of nuclear war, at a time when we were either still reeling from the aftermath of having nuked two cities in Japan just to be assholes or…more importantly…when we were in the midst of the Cold War with the Soviet Union.

But even then, the apocalypse was rarely the focus. It tended to be a backdrop to let folks like Mad Max run around in leather shooting bad guys.

Today’s apocalyptic fiction and film (with zombies or without) seems to me something entirely different. Because now it’s often about civilization collapsing and people having to fend for themselves and try to survive when there’s little hope around them.

Gee, sounds a lot like the state many of us are in here in the United States right now, especially since the economic meltdown.

And that brings me to my right-wing ranting. It brings me to the thought of how conservatives with money are all too willing to let the entire nation suffer for their own gratification and the mutual support of the wealthy and privileged, and damned be the consequences. They seem willing to let everything burn down or collapse around all of us just so that they can get their way or make a point or come out ahead.

And that is why people have the zombie apocalypse on their minds.

Because deep down, most of us know that the people in Washington, D.C., who control so much of our lives (and on Wall Street, for that matter) are self-centered rich assholes who don’t care whether we live or die as long as they make a profit. The conservatives are most guilty of this heartlessness, but there are “moderates” and “liberals” aplenty who also don’t really care about much past their own comfort and their own wallets.

The thing is, many of them would be happy to see the world end. They’d be happy to seal themselves in well-stocked bunkers with soldiers and key staff to support their needs and rub their feet and suck their dicks while zombies are devouring the last few decent people left wandering about. They would be thrilled to know that they no longer have to deal with anyone needy or unattractive or poor or who isn’t white.

A safely sealed world to themselves, with few women trying to exert influence and no damned minorities and where they can eat, drink and be themselves without consequence.

The right wing wants shit to fall apart, as long as they still have access to the guns and resources.

That way, when they come crawling back to the surface, they can rebuild the world they want, with an angry, loveless, narrow-minded God at its center and all the non-white, non-male folks safely in their places playing their assigned roles.

And providing the distractions for the occasional zombie still left wandering around, while the fat cats waddle back to the safety of their bunkers for a little while longer.

Rape and Blame Games

7 Replies

This is perhaps the most potentially volatile post I have ever risked. I fear it will be misconstrued or not read thoroughly, and that I will anger many women (and some men). But it’s been on my mind off and on the past few months, and stories I’ve read recently on rape and victim blaming has finally set me over the tipping point to post.

First off, let me be crystal-clear before I begin my thoughts, rants, etc. …Rape is a reprehensible, horrible act and one of the most heinous crimes around, sharing the top slots with such acts as child sexual abuse, torture and murder. Rape is a crime, and victims of that crime are victims—they didn’t ask for it, they didn’t provoke it, they didn’t deserve it and they shouldn’t be blamed for the crime perpetuated against them in any way. Given the percentage of women who are sexually assaulted in life, which is frighteningly high, the number of women who “invite” rape is so vanishingly small one might as well consider it zero percent.

That said, I don’t like the trend lately for people speaking out against rape to lash out at articles, campaigns, online interactions or other efforts that provide caution and advice for women to lessen their chances of being raped and/or to survive the crime.

I realize there can be a fine line between good advice and victim-blaming, but I don’t think that rape-minimization tips (for lack of a better term…obviously, one cannot really avoid or prevent rape, though those two words are often used) are by nature the latter. While the line may sometimes be thin, it still exists, and I don’t like the increasing tendency to cast all (or nearly all) such advice as a subtle form of blaming the victim.

I comprehend why the protesting voices do what they are doing, because it is only when we stop seeing women as being a cause of their own rape that we will start to put more force behind actually charging and punishing rapists appropriately and working toward fewer rapists being created to begin with.

So, when well-meaning advice is offered, the critics often see it as an attempt to say “You could have prevented your rape if you did this” even when such isn’t the intent. They complain that even suggesting that a woman might have been able to do something will fill her with feelings of failure, shame, self-loathing and more.

But I can’t support the kind of thinking that says: “Don’t warn people to be cautious lest they end up being blamed or blame themselves somehow.”

Why?

Because common sense isn’t so common.

For decades, criminals have stolen cars, broken into cars to take things or simply reached through an open window to grab a purse or a stack of DVDs. Why? Because people insist on doing things like leaving their doors unlocked, windows open and purses inside while they’re somewhere else. People will still leave the doors to their homes unlocked even though there are robbers, rapists, killers and more aplenty out there who love not having to climb through a window. There are tourists and business travelers who still insist on drinking and then wandering down little-traveled streets in neighborhoods they don’t know and get beaten, mugged, raped, killed or all of the above. People still drive on the roads not paying attention to the other drivers, as if their own driving is all that matters…or they drive doing unsafe things assuming they are such good drivers that they can do what everyone else is warned not to do for safety’s sake.

And I have seen many an article warning people of all those types not to do those things. Not because it will guarantee their safety but because it will reduce their risk.

No, there is no woman who can prevent a rapist from attacking. But if the woman looks like she might put up more of a fight or seems more aware of her surroundings than the average woman, the rapist will be more wary about picking her as his chosen target.

The advice that is unwarranted would be things like “don’t dress sexily.” That’s the biggest piece of idiot advice, because it’s pretty much been shown that rapists don’t attack women because they look sexy but because they simply want to overpower them and force them into sexual situations against their will. Age and appearance of the woman are often irrelevant.

But advising women to keep track of their drinks so no one slips them a roofie is good advice. Hell, I don’t let my drinks out of my sight for fear of some numbnut spitting in it or slipping me some acid as a prank, and I’m not at much risk of being raped unless I get sent to prison for some reason.

Reminding women that they should probably avoid being alone in unknown places or should refrain from getting totally wasted when out alone at bars isn’t bad advice any more than reminding people not to drink and drive would be. You remind them of these things because people like to think they are invulnerable, especially teens and young adults. When my wife, who knows I’m a very good driver, says “Be careful out there” when I head out to drive, especially at night or on a drink-oriented holiday, I don’t snap at her: “I’ve been driving for nearly 30 years now; I know what I’m doing” or say: “It doesn’t matter how safely I drive if some other idiot isn’t paying attention.” No. I say “OK” or “thanks” or “I will.” Because it does matter if I’m cautious and it does reduce my risk and getting a reminder sometimes makes me more mindful and less complacent.

People “know” that they shouldn’t take up a habit of smoking but that doesn’t stop us from putting warning labels on packs and running articles about the unhealthy aspects of smoking.

I don’t like seeing victims of rape be blamed because they didn’t follow the “rules.” That’s not fair and it shifts the guilt to the wrong party. But neither does it serve anyone to blame people for giving what is, frankly, good advice that should be followed by people and often isn’t.

What also bothers me is when critics of rape-minimization advice to potential victims say, “We should teach our boys not to grow up to be rapists instead of telling women how to not get raped.”

Mind you, I’m not irritated by the notion we should teach boys and men to avoid raping folks. What bothers me is that in most of the cases I’ve seen people rail against safety advice to women, they spend a very small amount of time talking about reducing the number of rapists but spend gobs of time ridiculing the safety advice.

It seems to me that most of the energy should be spent on telling people why it’s good to educate male folks about not raping and explaining the positive benefits to society of doing so…as well as explaining to people why you don’t blame victims of crimes…rather than spending so much time blaming the safety tip providers for creating an atmosphere of blame. The safety tips don’t produce the toxic atmosphere of blame; people’s fucked up attitudes and twisted notions and evil tendencies do that.

The safety tips aren’t the problem in terms of vicitim-blaming, any more than porn is a cause of rape (in neither case does one lead to the other). Yes, safety tips can be used as guilt bludgeons and yes, a very small percentage of porn glorifies rape but that doesn’t make them the problems. The former is an example of misuse; the latter is an example that there is always someone who can eroticize anything. We don’t blame the cars for running down pedestrians or blame the knife for a stabbing.

We also need to remember that we can never, ever eliminate rape. Even when we tell our kids not to steal and not to be mean to others and not to use violence to solve problems, there will always be some who grow up to be thieves, bullies, killers and whatnot.

That said, we should do a better job of teaching boys and men that being a stand-up guy means not taking a woman just because they can and being a decent human being means stopping when she gives a clear “no.” It also means teaching men to remain in control of their faculties and not, for example, to get drunk if one is prone to violence when under the influence. We need to teach responsibility.

That is something we haven’t promoted enough. That is true. But it needs to be in addition to, and in conjunction with, good safety advice to women. Because the fact it that we do need to be careful out there.

And all of us need reminders of that.

Of Anecdotes and Ideologues

2 Replies

No one loves an anecdote more than someone with a strong ideological agenda.

I mean, don’t get me wrong—most everyone likes a good anecdote. There’s nothing wrong with that.

But it’s like the lifeblood of an ideologue to have a ready collection of anecdotes to make their points and to show you that their beliefs are true and that you should agree with them and not question them. Or argue. Or point out completely obvious logical fallacies.

Whether liberal or conservative, religious or atheist, environmentalist or land baron…whatever. Stories are the key.

And that’s what anecdotes are, of course. Stories. But like folklore or fairy tales or any other story, they don’t equal truth. Truth may be in them. If they are tales of something that happened, the tale itself might be true in general terms. But tales don’t equal truth.

Yet that’s what people at the extreme end of a belief would have you believe. That’s why they whip out anecdotes like pedophiles give out candy to children to lure them into their vans.

For the conservatives, it’s so often the mythical “prosperous welfare cheat,” who in most stereotypical form is portrayed as black, female, parent to several kids, operating some under-the-radar business, driving a really nice car and living the high life in public housing while collecting food assistance, free healthcare and actual money from the government, too.

Never mind that if such people exist, they exist in numbers far too small to make an impact on the system. I know that conservative folks, especially the rich at one end and the blue collar/pink collar ones at nearly the other end, like to believe this is a real problem. It isn’t. Sure, there are lazy people on public assistance, but they don’t live any kind of “high life.” I’ve seen too many of them through my wife’s work in social services. Most people don’t want to be on the dole. It sucks and it doesn’t get you anywhere (though it might keep you alive).

Also, what the conservatives fail to point out when they trot out their often-racist welfare cheat anecdotes is that the vast majority of people on public assistance are white. In fact, many of them are Republicans and live in states with Republican majorities.

But why let facts and real truth get in the way of a good story?

I could go into the lovely anecdotes about abortion, “curing” gay men, how African-Americans and Latinos are more dangerous than whites and things like that, but why beat a dead horse when I’ve rolled out the gold standard already? And yes, I know liberals have their own misleading anecdotes, too. But you know what? Even their most outlandish ones are way closer to the truth than the conservatives’ are. Feel free to argue with me on that if you have some good examples, but I doubt you’ll get very far with me unless you abandon logical arguments.