I'm mightily averse lately to people who go about telling others to 'stop whining'.


Now, it's true, there's a time and a place to run your mouth  - or fingers - off to your heart's content, and a time and a place to shut up. You do not, for example, sit down next to someone with diabetes mellitus and complain about how hyperactive you are because you ate too much sugar. You get the point.


But I seem to see this phrase used mostly in two contexts lately. One is as a silencing tactic, the other is just plain old hypocrisy.


You've  probably heard or seen the first one flying around. People who able-bodied and well off will accuse disabled people of 'whining' when they expect basic decencies like wheelchair friendly access or non-stroboscopic alarm lights. White people tell black people to 'stop whining' when the latter express anger at racist behaviour. A 40 year old will complain of their lack of toilet paper or the fact that their healthy 15 year old son dyed his hair blue, but will accuse a younger person of 'whining' if they speak up about some issue that affects them.


It doesn't seem to occur to them that they are doing the very thing they lash out at others for doing...'whining'...and often, with much less cause. Apparently it's okay to kvetch, rant, and verbally vomit only if you are well-off, able-bodied, generally systematically more powerful and nothing is very wrong at all. 


This leads to the other one - plain old hypocrisy. It's obviously self-contradictory to cry and pee your pants about the fact that someone else vented about their life. It's whining dressed up as toughness - you get to throw a tantrum, but you get to do it under the guise of being 'tough', 'blunt', 'no bullshit' or some other self-congratulatory phrase these people will often give themselves. 


It's nonsense of course. If you want to complain then complain, but please don't hide behind the 'be tough and don't whine' meme, and for the love of DNA please don't use it as an excuse to abuse the people below you on the social ladder. 

Animal rights alert - please send email or letter to English home office

In a nutshell...the English Home Office plans to bring in a new law stating that in some conditions, stray and feral animals may be caught and used in medical experiments.


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/michelle-thew/government-opens-laborato_b_1535640.html?ref=uk-politics


Official document here:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:276:0033:0079:EN:PDF









I have written a sample letter which can be sent to the English Home Office. Please flood their inbox.

Email address: public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk

Hard copy to:

Home Office 

Direct Communications Unit
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF

Text:


Dear Sir/Madam,

I understand that new regulations on the use of animals in scientific testing may permit the use of ‘stray’ animals to be caught and used in laboratory experiments.

I appreciate that this is only under conditions in which ‘(a) there is an essential need for studies concerning the health and welfare of the animals or serious threats to the environment or to human or animal health; andb) there is scientific justification to the effect that the purpose of the procedure can be achieved only by the use of a stray or a feral animal.’

Nonetheless, moral appropriateness of using animals at all for experiments aside, I feel this is unacceptable as ‘stray’ could be used to mean any animal that is currently loose. It is normal for domestic animals, especially cats, to roam, and this new regulation could end up meaning that in such special circumstances a domestic animal could be taken and used simply because its owner let it out.

I would respectfully request that Article 11 be amended.

Yours sincerely,

'Stop Whining': The Battle Cry of the Overprivileged

I've noticed a pattern lately.


Certain demographics of people - usually white, middle-class and socially powerful - seem to feel that they should have unlimited rights to break social mores that are there for a good reason, transgress on others' boundaries and generally lash out at others. Their rationale? Those on the receiving end of their behaviour are simply 'oversensitive' and should 'stop whining', and, if male, 'man up'.


Ask them to stop making rape jokes, and they spit ten gigatons of vitriol over how heinous it is that someone dared spoil their fun and how you should simply get over it. Gently and kindly explain to them that for all they know the girl next to them has rape-induced PTSD, and they hack up their own lungs from the force of raging at you. Calmly explain further that maybe a private instant-message stream is the best place for these jokes and they all but urinate on themselves from outrage. 


This behaviour is not limited to any one -ism. These same people will happily pour venom on black people for speaking up against racism, lambaste young people as 'ungrateful brats' for speaking up on issues that affect them or call disabled people 'entitled'  for expecting common decencies such as wheelchair friendly entrances, all the while conceptualizing themselves as the victims for having to put up with all these 'oversensitive' less powerful groups. 


And ask them why they do it or ask them to back themselves up with some sort of reasoning, and you'll be buried under yet more toxic outpouring.


Let's look at this again. Who, really, are the oversensitive ones here? Let's look at exactly what the 'Stop whining!' contingent are complaining about. They are not complaining about some serious issue of oppression. They are complaining about being expected to respect basic rules of behavioural decency like everyone else. They are complaining about not being able to use the world at large as their personal, exclusive, privately owned toilet. 


So who are the ones who ought to stop whining? The ones who are using the expression in the first place! It's a sharp reversal of reality to expect exclusive rights to behave how you want and then accuse others of being too sensitive and wanting too many accommodations when they assert basic rules of decency. It's like punching someone in the face and then accusing them of being violent.


If someone tells you to stop whining, think about why they're saying this. The chances are, it's actually they who need to take their own advice.

Why Being Objectified Is Not A Form Of Power

I've heard this sentiment before; that being sexually objectified, for women, is actually a form of power. 


I know some women really do feel this way, and consider the ability to be palatable to men 'empowering'. But in most cases, this view is diametrically opposite to reality.


Let's be honest. The average man is packing some 70-80kg of body weight, a goodly proportion of which is usually muscle. The average woman is usually about 55-60 and less of that weight is muscle. I don't know about you, but having someone this much bigger and stronger than me view me as a sex object does not seem very empowering. 


Margaret Wente, in a recent article, says this about the sexualized male gaze:

'In reality, it sucks. I’d give a lot for men to look at me like that again.'

She has the right to her own opinion, but I'd like her to ask herself why she misses being sexualized so much. Why is it so important that women be reassured that they are sexy, hot, or something to this effect? There are much more important qualities to have than men finding you attractive. I suspect her feelings are largely to do with social norms and messages. Women encounter, in some form or other, on a regular basis, the idea that one of the most important things in life is being sexy in order to attract and please men. I suspect that in a world that didn't push this so hard, she wouldn't care that men no longer expressed attraction to her, because this would simply not be high enough on her list of priorities. Her argument seems to be that because ageism is hurtful, the male gaze cannot be a bad thing. But her feelings do not mean that other women's boundaries are invalid.


She goes on at length to defend the action of merely looking at girls and women:


'Two weeks ago, Ian Brown wrote a marvellous, candid, brave account in these pages in praise of girl-watching. It was a paean to the power of young female erotic beauty, from the point of view of a middle-aged man. It was brave because men aren’t supposed to look, especially if they’re older (dirty old men!), and they certainly aren’t supposed to talk about it, unless they confess they’re deeply ashamed of themselves. Some of the reactions to his piece bordered on the hysterical. Readers accused Mr. Brown of moral turpitude. Some conjured up the bad old days when women ran a gauntlet of hooting males at every construction site. Some practically equated his (purely theoretical) appreciation of younger women with sexual assault.

I was ticked off, too, but for a different reason. In his essay, Mr. Brown referred offhandedly to a woman he knows who just turned 50, “and is still attractive.” Still? What a slap.'

Here's the thing. There is nothing wrong with literally just looking at someone - but there is a problem with making someone feel threatened or violated. If you can look at someone discreetly from behind your sunglasses, then fill your boots. If you can look at someone without making it an obvious, invasive gesture, then knock yourself out. But the second that behaviour segues into transgressing on someone's boundaries, you need to cut it out. 


There's more.


'The trouble with our repressed, Anglo-Saxon and drearily indoctrinated culture, where we’ve all had the evils of sexual harassment pounded into us for years and where even the mildest flirtation in the workplace has become impermissible, is that we’ve shut out an emotionally enriching part of life. '


Firstly, this is subjective. Not everyone finds sexualization emotionally enriching. Secondly, a workplace is for...you guessed it...working. Flirting or sexual advances, no matter how mild, do not belong in the workplace. 


She goes on to claim that:


'The worst injustice of being a woman is not the indignity of objectification by men. It’s the asymmetry of aging. Men are perfectly free to acquire younger mates and be admired for it. They’re blessed with nubile wives, second families and, later on, a faithful caregiver to spoon-feed them their Jell-O. But older women with younger mates remain a rare exception. In popular culture, at least, things usually end badly for the woman. Look at Mrs. Robinson in The Graduate. Or Demi Moore.'


This is again subjective. I don't think any one woman is in a position to decide for all women what the worst injustice is. Being sexualized may seem a nice idea to her, but it's small comfort when you are followed by several shouting males who are all bigger than you are. Wente however seems to take the view that because she, personally, finds something hurtful that this is an absolute and true for everyone.


'The reason for this cruel asymmetry is biology, of course. Once we’re past our child-bearing years, men are primed to lose interest in us. Our desire remains as strong as ever. But they stop desiring back. Curse Mother Nature.'


I'd be leery of assuming that any social phenomenon is down to nothing more than biology. There is also the fact that men are expected to be the 'dominant' one in a relationship - to earn more, even to be physically taller, and it's a little hard to be dominant to someone with much more life experience than yourself. 


She pours on the industrial strength bullshit near the end:


'When I gaze at the girls of spring, it seems like only yesterday that I was one of them. I wore long hair and short skirts, and sometimes men would pester me unpleasantly – far more unpleasantly than men would dare to do today, before the rules changed. But, on the whole, being gazed on was not at all demeaning. It was empowering. I was the one in charge, because the choice of how to handle any given male’s response was entirely mine. No matter how sexist or unfair it seems, no one in the world has more erotic power than a 20-year-old girl.'


I have no idea how she came to the conclusion that she was 'in charge'. What did I say about size and morphological differences? If anyone is 'in charge' of such an interaction, it's more likely to be the male, unless the girl or woman has a range weapon of some sort on her. 


I'd also point out that describing a young woman's end of things as 'power' is inaccurate and unfair. It's not power if it's you who is restricted by it. It's not power if you don't have a choice about it. Zoom out your mental perspective a little. Who has the power, the woman who must watch how she dresses*, where she goes, and how she moves in order to not receive unwanted sexual attention - or the men who choose to behave in this way towards her? 


More diarrhea follows:


'The trouble with the SlutWalk argument – that women should be able to dress as provocatively as they wish without being ogled or desired by men – is that these women want to have it both ways. They want to display themselves as sex objects without being regarded as sex objects. This isn’t going to happen. Women have a right not to be pestered, no matter how they dress. But if they really want to shut down the male gaze, they’d be better off to don the burka.'


There are two things wrong with this. Firstly she argues that women are asking for the right to be sex objects but not to be treated as such. This is incorrect. They are simply demanding the right not to be violated. Furthermore, she is assuming that women who dress in these clothes are doing it to 'display themselves as sex objects'. I don't know about you, but when I wear a piece of clothing...it's because I like that piece of clothing. The underlying assumption is that if a girl or woman is showing skin she is being sexual and therefore inviting the attention. Since when is any part of a woman's body, no matter how functional, automatically a sexual zone? We do not, for example, make this judgement of a man every time he wears a sleeveless shirt in the heat.


She also puts all the responsibility on women to take measures to avoid invasive behaviour. Where is the men's responsibility in all of this? Asking women to wear a burka if they do not wish to be inappropriately objectified is like asking people to live in a metal vault and be fed through a narrow window in order to not be assaulted'. 


I'm sceptical of the idea that women's dress causes this behaviour. Sexual harassment is frequently about dominance and entitlement, rather than attractiveness on the woman's part. 

URGENT - Please help protect child from violence and sexual abuse

Placer County of America has placed a child, Aaliyah, in the custody of her violent and sexually abusive father, Dustin Thompson.

http://www.saveaaliyah.com 

Here is what you can do to help.

Please use the following sample letters, or write your own if you have time.

To Judge Alan Pineschi, who will be judging the upcoming hearing on April 20th as well as as a seven day jury trial beginning on April 23rd:

Address:

APineschi@placer.courts.ca.gov

Text:

APineschi@placer.courts.ca.gov

Dear Mr. Pineschi,

I am writing regarding the upcoming hearing on April 20^th and seven day jury trial on April 23^rd of the case of Ms. Connie Bedwell whose ex-boyfriend Dustin Thompson was awarded custody of her daughter Aaliyah.

I understand that this child reports very serious abuse from Thompson. She describes being affected by ‘Daddy’s worm’. I understand that Thompson has attempted to refute this and recast her problems as a fear of worms in general. This is clearly untrue. Aaliyah describes being forced to put ‘Daddy’s worm’ in her mouth, being choked and having to wipe her mouth clean afterwards. This is clearly a child attempting to describe oral rape using the only language available to her. I also understand that Thompson has tried to frame this as the child being coached to tell lies. This is also clearly untrue. The child was asked no leading questions of any kind. She has also shown no signs of ‘read from a script’ as a child would if they were simply repeating something they were coached to say.

I understand that Thompson has shown violent behaviour towards both Bedwell and her daughter including throwing heavy objects and soiled diapers at them as well as threatening them with physical mutilation such as ‘ripping your pretty little eyeballs out’. I also understand that he has actually physically assaulted both Bedwell and the child including an incident in which he slammed Bedwell’s head in the trunk of a car and another in which the child returned home from Thompson with a large bruise on her back reporting that he had kicked her and knocked her over resulting in her striking her head against a table. I understand that Thomson was ordered by the court to go to a program for violent offenders to address his behaviour, but refused to attend.

This is obviously not an individual who is fit to have custody of a child. I would like to respectfully request that custody of Aaliyah be removed from her father for both her physical and mental safety.

Yours sincerely,

 To District Attorney Charlotte Bailey, also at the hearings (mostly identical text)

Address: CBailey@placer.ca.gov

Text:

Dear Ms. Bailey,

I am writing regarding the upcoming hearing on April 20^th and seven day jury trial on April 23^rd of the case of Ms. Connie Bedwell whose ex-boyfriend Dustin Thompson was awarded custody of her daughter Aaliyah.

I understand that this child reports very serious abuse from Thompson. She describes being affected by ‘Daddy’s worm’. I understand that Thompson has attempted to refute this and recast her problems as a fear of worms in general. This is clearly untrue. Aaliyah describes being forced to put ‘Daddy’s worm’ in her mouth, being choked and having to wipe her mouth clean afterwards. This is clearly a child attempting to describe oral rape using the only language available to her. I also understand that Thompson has tried to frame this as the child being coached to tell lies. This is also clearly untrue. The child was asked no leading questions of any kind. She has also shown no signs of ‘read from a script’ as a child would if they were simply repeating something they were coached to say.

I understand that Thompson has shown violent behaviour towards both Bedwell and her daughter including throwing heavy objects and soiled diapers at them as well as threatening them with physical mutilation such as ‘ripping your pretty little eyeballs out’. I also understand that he has actually physically assaulted both Bedwell and the child including an incident in which he slammed Bedwell’s head in the trunk of a car and another in which the child returned home from Thompson with a large bruise on her back reporting that he had kicked her and knocked her over resulting in her striking her head against a table. I understand that Thomson was ordered by the court to go to a program for violent offenders to address his behaviour, but refused to attend.

This is obviously not an individual who is fit to have custody of a child. I would like to respectfully request that custody of Aaliyah be removed from her father for both her physical and mental safety.

Yours sincerely,

To the Commission on Judicial Performance - NOTE: THIS MUST BE PRINTED AND SENT AS A HARD COPY. THE COMMISSION DOES NOT ACCEPT COMPLAINTS VIA EMAIL OR TELEPHONE.

Text, address included - PLEASE COPY AND PASTE TO USE AS LETTER:

Commission on Judicial Performance
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 14400
San Francisco, CA 94102

USA

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to complain regarding the case of Ms. Connie Bedwell, her daughter Aaliyah and her ex-boyfriend Dustin Thompson who was awarded custody of the aforementioned child.

I understand that this child reports very serious abuse from Thompson. She describes being affected by ‘Daddy’s worm’. I understand that Thompson has attempted to refute this and recast her problems as a fear of worms in general. This is clearly untrue. Aaliyah describes being forced to put ‘Daddy’s worm’ in her mouth, being choked and having to wipe her mouth clean afterwards. This is clearly a child attempting to describe oral rape using the only language available to her. I also understand that Thompson has tried to frame this as the child being coached to tell lies. This is also clearly untrue. The child was asked no leading questions of any kind. She has also shown no signs of ‘read from a script’ as a child would if they were simply repeating something they were coached to say.

I understand that Thompson has shown violent behaviour towards both Bedwell and her daughter including throwing heavy objects and soiled diapers at them as well as threatening them with physical mutilation such as ‘ripping your pretty little eyeballs out’. I also understand that he has actually physically assaulted both Bedwell and the child including an incident in which he slammed Bedwell’s head in the trunk of a car and another in which the child returned home from Thompson with a large bruise on her back reporting that he had kicked her and knocked her over resulting in her striking her head against a table. I understand that Thomson was ordered by the court to go to a program for violent offenders to address his behaviour, but refused to attend.

I understand that despite this record of sexual abuse and violence, Judge Jeffery Penney ordered that Aaliyah be placed with her father. I also understand that Thompson requested an unconstitutional restraining order over Bedwell to prevent her from speaking to the public, the media or posting on the internet about her experiences and that Judges Frances Kearney and Michael Smith placed this order.

I am appalled at this choice to put a child in the custody of someone who is violent, sexually abusive and clearly a danger to her. I am also disgusted at the decision to silence Bedwell from speaking about how she was treated and respectfully request that appropriate action be taken to prevent further such failures of justice.

Yours sincerely,

To the County District Attorney:

Scott Owens

County District Attorney

10810 Justice Center Drive Suite #240

Roseville, CA 95678

USA.

Dear Mr. Owens,

I am writing to complain regarding the case of Ms. Connie Bedwell whose ex-boyfriend Dustin Thompson was awarded custody of her daughter Aaliyah.

I understand that this child reports very serious abuse from Thompson. She describes being affected by ‘Daddy’s worm’. I understand that Thompson has attempted to refute this and recast her problems as a fear of worms in general. This is clearly untrue. Aaliyah describes being forced to put ‘Daddy’s worm’ in her mouth, being choked and having to wipe her mouth clean afterwards. This is clearly a child attempting to describe oral rape using the only language available to her. I also understand that Thompson has tried to frame this as the child being coached to tell lies. This is also clearly untrue. The child was asked no leading questions of any kind. She has also shown no signs of ‘read from a script’ as a child would if they were simply repeating something they were coached to say.

I understand that Thompson has shown violent behaviour towards both Bedwell and her daughter including throwing heavy objects and soiled diapers at them as well as threatening them with physical mutilation such as ‘ripping your pretty little eyeballs out’. I also understand that he has actually physically assaulted both Bedwell and the child including an incident in which he slammed Bedwell’s head in the trunk of a car and another in which the child returned home from Thompson with a large bruise on her back reporting that he had kicked her and knocked her over resulting in her striking her head against a table. I understand that Thomson was ordered by the court to go to a program for violent offenders to address his behaviour, but refused to attend.

This is clearly not an individual who should have custody of a child and I would urgently request that action be taken to protect this child’s safety.

Yours sincerely,

Please take action as well as circulating this post to others.

Hormones do not social problems make.

I've heard this lazy argument a lot: that problematic human behaviours can be reduced down to hormones and thus are immutable and that trying to change these behaviours would be a waste of effort.


The icing on the cake was a cracked.com article entitled '5 ways modern men are trained to hate women'. In some respects, this article does a good job of explaining how faulty socialization gives boys, and the men they subsequently grow into, the wrong ideas about how to behave. But on the other hand, its biodeterministic leanings warrant some criticism.


Its section 'We think you're conspiring with our boners to ruin us' describes men as endocrinological robots who cannot help making sexually based, messy decisions due to their testosterone. Now for one, this is insulting and judges all men by the foolish, impulsive ones. Do you really think all the men you know are nothing more than monkeys? Really? Secondly, while there are those who do behave this way, if you look closer at the behaviour, it's often less due to raw hormone-induced derangement and more to do with subtle social issues such as the urge for dominance. Furthermore, I'd wager that most of the times these behaviours come from socialization, not hormones. Look at how boys learn early on the 'boys will be boys' paradigm - where getting into trouble just means you're a 'proper boy' and respecting rules and boundaries is optional (and makes you a wimp). To blame this on testosterone is like shooting someone up with crystal methedrine and then shrugging your shoulders and claiming they are just naturally hyperactive. 


Its later section 'We feel like manhood was stolen from us at some point' similarly falls down. It purports to explain how aggression, stupidity and emotional immaturity are hardwired parts of being men.


One little problem. 


The testosterone that so many like to blame monkeyish male behaviour on is not an 'antisocial' hormone at all.


Testosterone is not a 'single issue' hormone. It does vastly more than thicken you up with muscle and make you assertive and impervious. Testosterone is, among other things, a status seeking hormone, a social hormone and a decision making hormone. There's even evidence that it improves certain social skills, not degrades them. Participants given testosterone in one experiment showed greater fairness and altruism when asked to share out a set amount of money. It's true that in certain situations ,testosterone behaves as an 'accelerant' for aggression or anger, but let's put that in perspective - other hormones do exactly this, too. If you inject someone with adrenaline and induce him or her to get angry, you'll see a far greater intensity of anger than an unaffected subject. But if you give him or her that same adrenaline injection and create a situation to induce euphoria rather than anger or fear, you'll see heightened euphoria, too*. Should we demonize this molecule, too? 


So it seems fallacious to blame social problems on hormones. Firstly, many men choose NOT to behave this way, despite having plenty of the much-maligned testosterone. Secondly, to reach for the simplistic explanation of hormones is often to dismiss the real and complex causes of these behaviours and how they might be solved. While you're blaming a steroid that is part of normal, healthy human functioning, these problems are being socially constructed and reinforced - and we can choose to change that.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1946632,00.html


http://www.holah.karoo.net/schachterstudy.htm

'Looking Suspicious' - Why this is racist and illogical

I keep seeing, in news articles and discussions about the murder of Trayvon Martin, a very inappropriate and offensive phrase that absolutely should not be there.

'Looking suspicious'.

Why is this so wrong? Firstly, the obvious reason - even if he were doing something suspicious looking, which he was not, this clearly would not make it morally acceptable to shoot him dead. You don't have the right to kill people because they might do something wrong. 

Secondly, let's look at exactly what people mean by 'looking suspicious'.

Trayvon Martin was not threatening anyone. He was not behaving in an aggressive or disorderly fashion, carrying anything that might be a weapon, or loitering near any areas marked private. He was walking home, carrying his shopping, minding his own business.

How can you possibly construe peacefully carrying shopping home as 'looking suspicious'? You can't. Even the stupidest person alive would see that to be suspicious, you have to actually do something threatening, disturbing or otherwise inappropriate. 

No, what this phrase would seem to actually mean is 'going about one's business while having black skin'. The fact that he was walking around at all made him 'suspicious', not because of anything he did wrong, but because of his melanin. In other words, what this phrase actually says is that shooting a young black man is okay because by definition, whatever he is doing, he is being 'suspicious'. It's rather akin to the reasoning of misogynist men who argue that simply by being out in public, women ask to be raped, because simply by being there they are 'provoking' the perpetrator's urges or 'manipulating' men (actual language I have heard from such men). Simply going about one's business is recast as causing someone else's actions. 

Morally disgusting. Don't use this phrase in front of me.