Here's something I bet you didn't see coming...

Just watched an interview with a phone sex operator about her experiences - she had to listen to a pedophile talk about the "horrible things that he wanted to do to his seven year old daughter". While I feel absolutely terrible for her - I'd rather he call her and deal with his urges that way than actually abuse his daughter. While I don't think that a person who is sexually attracted to children should put themselves into situations that can cause temptation I do have to give the guy props for trying to be better than his desires.

People don't want to talk about pedophilia because of the ick-factor but we need to realise that pedophilia is basically a fetish or something akin to a sexual orientation. These people don't usually chose to be attracted to children - they just are. There could be some psycho-social reason that they sexualise children or something could be wired wrong in their brains.

One Side:

Some act on their desires - and this is wrong. Children are not able to consent because they are not emotionally aware of the consequences of having sex - especially with a much older person* - nor are the emotionally capable of really understanding what sex is. And in some really horrible cases - they weren't able to consent because they weren't old enough to talk yet. As for whether these people deserve punishment or reformation - I am conflicted. I suppose that it depends on the nature of their crime. (Gods, that makes me sound so horrible). 

I'm trying to differentiate between a psychopath and not a psychopath. Can the person control their desires with help? Does the person understand that what they did was wrong? Do they have empathy? Was this a really horrible mistake or pre-meditated? Will this person make the same decision in a new situation? Can we even answer those questions? Those answers are going to make the decision as to whether this person can be reformed. I think the biggest mistake that we make in Canada is assuming that all criminals can be reformed. And while I don't know about you I'm not willing to be my niece's life on the fact that a psychopath pedophile can be reformed or not so if there is any doubt - Fuck 'em. I'm sorry, you screwed up in a really big way and I can't decide if you're not a psychopath that means you lose. Oh wait, I'm not sorry. Have a nice life in prison. 

*Assuming that they're old enough to even know what sex is - For example a 12 year old.

---

The Other Side:

As hard as it may be to grasp - some pedophiles never act on their desires. They know that their desires on wrong and have the potential to ruin not only their life but the life of a child. And for all intents and purposes these are good pedophiles and just like us, they're human. This means that since they're not asexual, they have a sex drive. I'm not even going to pretend to understand how these individuals go about their lives and create sexual relationships. I'm assuming that it would be something akin to living on the "down low" but even more problematic if it gets out. 

(At least in most places in the world. There are still some places where homosexuality is still illegal. And you thought the States were behind the times in voting on gay marriage?)

I want there to be something in place for these individuals so that the temptation to act on their desires is as close to zero as we can make it. If these means that sex phone operators have to listen to someone for four hours talk about what s/he wants to do to a child than so be it. (I also want that person to have access to crisis workers to help them deal with the fall out because I bet there will be.) If that means we can create computer generated child-porn that hasn't taken advantage of any child in anyway shape or form - then so be it. 

Yes, it turns my stomach.

However, I would rather those individuals have access to an outlet for their desires that does not include children. 

But BJ, why not just chemically castrate them? Because I believe in autonomy. They need to make that decision for themselves. If they haven't broke the law by molesting a child and they never will, I don't care how they decide to deal with their desires. There's numerous choices:

• Go to Therapy
• Get chemically castrated
• Ignore the desire and try to live "normally"
• Fantasize about it
• Call a phone sex operator
• Look a weird creepy porn that doesn't have real children in it

I don't care. Whatever gets them from day to the next. I don't have to like it. You don't have to like it. Liking it has nothing to do with any of it.

What we do have to do is help find better ways for them to manage their desires that do not conflict with society.

---

Finally, with all that being said, it is important to remember that our feelings around pedophilia are socially constructed and that some cultures have different views. Ancient Greece practiced pederasty; Muhammad married one of his wives at 6, consummated the marriage at 9; and apparently some cultures in Papua New Guinea it isn't a big deal. (Proto-societies I guess, I'm not sure, and I find that what I found on the Inter-webs a little suspect but apparently it's legit.)

---

Also, if reading this entry made you go "ewww" or "icky" - just remember that writing it made me do the same thing. Comments, as always, are appreciated but please remain civil and think critically before you post.

Comments that are derogatory or dick-ish will be removed.

Why am I doing this?

OK, you know what. I'm going to go out on a limb here and defend someone that I'd rather not defend - Richard Mourdock.

For those of you who do not know Mr. Mourdock is the Republican senator candidate in Indiana. I dislike the man. He supports ObamaCare being repealed, he's pro-life, and he's a Tea Partier. If that weren't all he also supports tax cuts in a country that's so far in debt they aren't going to see the end of it in several generations. He's <sarcasm> brilliant </sarcasm>.  

He also recently got himself into hot water over this little comment at a senatorial debate. Please go watch it now if you don't already know the comment. The rest won't make much sense from here if you don't.

...

...

...

Ok... If you don't already know, I'm pro-choice. I believe that NO-ONE can dictate to me what I can and can't do with my body. I believe in absolute autonomy. It's rather sticky some times. 

I also believe that people who blame the victims of rape are idiots and they are going to a special level of hell. How I dress and how I act does not condone the fact that some asshole can't keep his dick in his pants or her cunt under her skirt. If you can't do that then maybe you shouldn't leave the house. However, I also think that we need to have a better dialogue with rapist. We need to know why they are raping so we can better educate our children. Apparently that makes me come off as a rapist sympathiser. Fine, whatever. I still say it. We need to know why these people think that rape is ok, or why they thought that what they were doing wasn't rape. And I'm talking about the "fluffy" rapists here, not the scary ones. There is a difference - usually one shows remorse while the other doesn't. Doesn't make it right but it does show that maybe they're not completely terrible people.

Ok, back to the topic at hand. Everyone seems to have taken Mourdock's comment completely out of hand and out of context. I cannot believe that he's in the same boat as Akin with the "legitimate rape" comment. Akin is idiot because he doesn't understand science. It's hilarious. He's being completely serious.

Mourdock sounds like he's about to start crying when he says his comment. He says that rape is horrible. (Finally! Something we agree on!) But he also says that God intended for the life to begin - not that god intended for the rape to happen - and that means that because he believes in the sanctity of life that abortion in cases of rape should be illegal.

So I'm begging the liberal world to stop being fucking idiots. Stop trying to make it sound like he said God wanted the rape to happen and focus on the fact that he believes that abortion should be illegal in most cases, expect for where the mother's life is in danger, because he's trying to take away your right to autonomy.

Gossip Rags and Double Standards

You know what pisses me off? 

People.

Yes, I said it - People piss me off. People drive me up the wall. People make me want to pull my hair out!

What bothers me the most about people is that we're so gods damn inconsistent. What's got my panties in a twist this time? Double standards. 

Double Standards.

OK - I'll admit it. I was browsing the gossip rags - The Examiner no less, when I happened on this "happy" article. Go read it. It'll take like five minutes tops. It's not like it's got substance to it. I'll wait. 

...

...

...

Told you it wouldn't take long.

These people really piss me off. I am not going to say that Stewart was in the right, but in no way shape or form does she deserve treatment like that. 

I feel like we hold celebrities up to this unnatural standard of perfection. We expect them to better than all of us because they're celebrities and because they're celebrities they're better than all of us. An over-simplification I know, but it works. Never mind that we're expecting them to live their private lives in public. If any "normal" person had to go through what most celebrities do everyday with regards to the paparazzi, there would be mayhem. No one would stand for the invasion of privacy and yet we expect celebrities to politely acquiesce to it. When they don't we get up in arms about the freedom of the media and press. Celebrities are being charged with harassment and assault for trying to fend off people that I can only describe as "Stalkers with Cameras".

It's bullshit, straight up bullshit. 

That's not the only double standard in this cluster fuck. The other side of it involves words like:  

Slut 

Trash

Bitch

Skank

Homewrecker

My favourite is homewrecker. In the context that it is used it implies that it is Stewart's fault that Sanders fucked around on his wife. It implies that she drove his family apart. It drives me nuts! Ok - if she and Pattinson never get back together because of this then, yes, I could be convinced that homewrecker could be applied to that situation. Her actions with Sanders would have effectively broken up the family that she had created with Pattinson. However you will never convince me that she broke up Sanders' family. 

Why?

It's simple. She wasn't the only one in the "affair". Sanders was there too and yet somehow he has manged to escape the "vitriol and venom" that is being spewed at Stewart. If anyone is responsible for breaking up his family - it would be him, not her.

I swear if feels like every time I see something online about an affair it's always the woman's fault. What's worse is that it usually other women that are doling the hate! What is with this woman on woman hate?

I won't even being to say that I'm not guilty of it myself - that would be lying. I'm sure we've all said or done something at one point that was hateful for no other reason than being petty. Petty comments are derived from feeling insecure about something in ourselves. We feel insecure so we push someone down to make ourselves feel better. If you want a better explanation I suggest watching this.

Finally, I just want to point this out - as food for thought. We do not know what happened between Stewart and Sanders. Only they do. In fact, we can never know what happened because we weren't there and all we can do is take their word on the situation. We can make our own interpretations about a situation based on the knowledge that we have.

---

Statutory Rape by an Authority Figure

Statutory rape by an authority figure is the unlawful sexual penetration of a victim by the defendant or of the defendant by the victim when:

The defendant was, at the time of the offense, in a position of trust, or had supervisory or disciplinary power over the victim by virtue of the defendant's legal, professional, or occupational status and used the position of trust or power to accomplish the sexual penetration.

Statutory rape does not mean that it was physically forced or that there was no consent. It can be "unforced and consented" to if the person believes that they must consent or have reprecussions.

Director:

A person who supervises the creative aspects of a dramatic production or film and instructs the actors and crew.

---

I am NOT MAKING an accusation here. As I already stated - we can never know what happened between Stewart and Sanders. I would never accuse a person of rape unless I knew for absolute FACT that they had committed it. Rape is a serious crime that should never be taken lightly. Not only is it terrible for actually victims/survivors of rape but for people falsely accused it can be a debilitating sentence since they are now branded as a sexual preditor.

However, I did want to point out that there are many possible explanations for what happened between Stewart and Sanders. We shouldn't be so quick to judge. 

Embracing my Inner-feminist

I have never identified with being a feminist. 

In fact, I could go so far as to say I've never identified with being any kind of activist. I had this "un-natural" biased against activism that I couldn't quite articulate beyond the idea that some (not all mind you) activists seem to have this superiority complex. If you don't believe me I would suggest the PETA website as some "light" reading. 

Note: I'm not going to get into my feelings about PETA here. Suffice to say that I usually find them overly pretentious especially concerning their views about vegetarianism and veganism and that not everything they do is completely horrible. Maybe I'll get into another day - I always like sharing my opinions.

However, I like to imagine that I have grown a little from that young girl I was even five-six years ago. The last 2 years have really shown me just how much I have grown up. Apparently, somewhere along the line I became an adult. I'm not entirely sure when it happened, but it is indisputable that sometime in the last three years I became an adult. I'm betting on being on EI is when it happened. I was on EI for ~12-18 months minus the four months that I was doing temp work in 2011. 

Aside: I haven't worked in a permanent position since October 2010.

You never realise how much responsibility you have until you don't have the resources to actually be responsible for them all. You don't realise how important money is until you're trying to make the decision to pay rent/bills or buy groceries so that you can feed yourself. For those months I lived under the poverty line and if not for my parents I would have been visiting the Food Bank so I could eat. You don't realise you're an adult until all the freedom you've been enjoying as an adult is taken away from you by your own choice. I made the choice to move in with my parents in August 2011 because I had no savings left, no job prospects, and my EI would be out that November. Desperate situations call for desperate measures and living with my parents meant I could afford all my bills and make some savings since I didn't have to pay for food and rent while looking for a job. I still didn't have a job by the time my EI was out and that's when I decided to go back to school. I registered full time in the program that I had been taking part time since September 2010 and basically started all over again.

I will graduate from Grant MacEwan University with my second diploma - Human Resources Management - in April of 2013. I will be pursuing my BComm from either Grant MacEwan or the University of Alberta; I haven't decided yet, though I won't be starting that degree until I've worked for a couple years again. I'm aiming for 5, but we'll see how long that goes. I'm definitely a career student. In fact, if I won the lottery I would work as I pleased and go to school. 

Part of being a lifelong learner is looking for ways to better yourself - both inside and out. My educational pursuits are outside ways that I better myself, but it was through introspection and self-examination that I began to realise that maybe the bias I held toward activism was childish and immature. I mean just because some groups are overly ridiculous doesn't mean that the whole concept of activism is a bad thing. 

That is what allowed me to admit that maybe I'm a feminist. I'm still twitchy about it though. If only because a few feminists have hi-jacked the movement for their own twisted purposes. The raving man-hater feminists scare the crap out of me and personally the idea that women are better than men flies in the face of any equality that we have gained through the movement. It's one step forward and two steps back. It's disappointing. It's this group that makes me not want to identify as a feminist. Are most feminists like this? No, but there are enough of them that there is a stereotype of the "raging bulldyke feminist".

Note: Stereotypes are based on biased, prejudice, and misunderstanding toward something - usually a group of people. So while the "raging bulldyke feminist" is a stereotype there is still the basis for it, as it had to come from somewhere.

Personally, I really like men and I mean asides from the obvious "I'm straight and sexually attracted to them 'like men'" concept. Men have done as many wonderful things for the world as they've done bad and if women had been in charge the same damn thing would have happened. We would have done just as much good for the world as we would have done bad. Why? Because regardless of gender we're all human and some people are good and some people are bad. Would have the same events happened? No, for instance Hitler wouldn't have brought the world to war. However, I'm betting that someone else would have. 

Anyway, I'm getting away from what I was trying to say.

Basically, I was trying to say that as I grew up, I became less focused on the bad aspects of a group and more focused on the good that group created. Without the feminist movement I wouldn't be able to vote in the next election, I wouldn't have the control over my own ability to reproduce, and I wouldn't be considered an equal citizen. I wouldn't be able to have this conversation with you without repercussions because I wouldn't have the same rights that I enjoy now, like freedom of expression. I would just be another piece of property, currently my father's, because I am unmarried. 

The feminist movement has done a lot for the world but I'm glad that it's still around if the situation in the States is any indication of where we're going. Laws forcing medically unnecessary and invasive ultrasounds (they use vaginal ultrasounds, not abdominal ones) on women that "want", for whatever reason, to have an abortion is abhorrent. 

As I have not experienced an abortion I cannot even begin to fathom how I would decide or feel about needing one, though it makes my heart ache and my head hurt just thinking about it. If I got pregnant right now I know without a shade of a doubt that it would be the right decision to have one, but that does not mean that it would be an easy one.

Add to that the knowledge that now you have to have an ultrasound wand stuck up your vagina to show you just what you've decided abort. For those of you who don't know most abortions take place during the first trimester, or the first twelve weeks of a pregnancy. Most women find out that they are pregnant between 4 and 6 weeks. By this time the embryo is more or less recognisable but still a little alien looking.

Add to that again that the wait time that is needed to get an appointment at a clinic and you're looking at not getting an abortion until 7-8 weeks on the inside. This is what a fetus looks like by then:

Fetus at the end of 7 weeks

Fetus at the end of 8 weeks

I'm sorry. I don't want to know that if I'm getting an abortion. It's hard enough to come to grips with the idea that it's happening anyway - but looking at picture. I don't want to know. I want to imagine that I'm just removing a parasitic invasion that has lodge itself in my uterus, something that still looks like a clump of cells not a person. 

How many women are going to change their mind because of this? I am not arguing for the pro-life side here, but it looks human and if you put someone who is already in a fragile mental state - and you cannot tell me that deciding to have an abortion doesn't put someone in a fragile mental state - you might break them enough that they decide to not have the abortion regardless of the good reasons that they decided to in the first place.

I don't know about you, but to me making a woman go through that ultrasound reeks of assault and abuse.

If for these new backward laws only, I am feminist. Because NO ONE has the right to decide what I do with my body except me. If I need to get an abortion for whatever reason I want to know that I am going to be able to do that without jumping through anymore hoops than absolutely necessary, like making the hard decision to actually do it and then following through with it by booking an appointment and finally, dealing with emotional fallout because of my decision.

Enough women suffer emotional distress afterward that it has a name, though it is not officially recognised: Post Abortion Stress Syndrome (PASS). And after some basic reading, it kind of sounds like Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) with less flashbacks to me. 

How this is not a recognisable medical issue feels like a smack in the face to me, never mind the women that are actually going through it. How are Post-Partum Depression (PPD) and Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder (PMDD) real and not PASS? Essentially, PPD and PASS are the exact same thing, except that one woman birthed a baby and the other decided that the responsible thing to do was to not go through with the pregnancy. That's the only difference. It's the same hormones making them both crazy; it's the pressure that is exerted on them by society that if they didn't do it right they're terrible people. To use a colloquialism that I was rather fond of in high school: It's the same shit, different pile. 

Note: I'm not getting into PMDD but if you want to know it's basically just a new pre-packaged name for pre-menstrual syndrome, and can now be treated with drugs instead of "STFU, this is what being a woman means". I have mixed feelings on the treatability because while I'm happy that people that suffer from bad symptoms of PMDD are getting help, I also think that we're WAY OVER MEDICATED. Another blog, another day. I have so many ideas, why do I never follow through with them?

Why are PPD and PMDD recognised and PASS is not? Abortion. It's wrapped up in politics, wrapped up in the "moral right", wrapped up in religion. Kiss my ass. It means that women that are suffering are not getting the help that need. (I don't mean just drugs - I mean therapy and drugs if necessary.) It means that these women cannot claim it on their insurance because "they're just sad that they had an abortion". Grow the giant fuck up. Of course they're depressed, but it doesn't mean that they shouldn't be able to receive the help that they need in order to become productive members of society again. 

What does it say about us as a society and culture that we are denying helping someone just because they chose to have an abortion instead of going through a pregnancy that would have been more problematic and possibly abhorrent for them than the abortion was? Because I can promise you that for me going through a pregnancy that was the product of rape would be more abhorrent than the abortion to end it early. And while that may be an extreme example we can never know what is going on in the mind of any woman that has decided to go through with an abortion and we should be able to be there for her without shaming her for her decision.

Slut Shaming and Victim Blaming

The following conversation/debate was spawned by this picture:

---

Me

I'm gonna get up on my high horse here for a second. I get that this is just s'posed to be a funny little thing to make us all giggle but it just serves to piss me off instead because it perpetuates slut-shaming and furthers the idea that it's "my" fault because I dressed like a whore. I should be able to dress as immodestly as I want and not have to fend of continued unwanted advances. (The key word here is continued, the first advance is a freebie, regardless of how I’m dressed and who it’s from and should generally be turned done with a measure of respect and kindness. They don’t know I’m not looking or not there for a casual roll in the hay as it were.) I should only have to say to someone to back off once and yet I can attest to the fact that this is not the case. When I go out to the bar I dress somewhat immodestly- generally because it's hot a fuck and I want to be cool - but that doesn't mean I want the same guy hitting on me all night when I've already told him: Thanks, but no thanks, Please leave me alone, and Fuck off buddy I'm trying to dance here. It's a matter of respect. Just because I’m dressed like a slut or a whore does NOT mean that I am no long deserving of the same level of respect that I would get if I were dressed like I do every other day. *grumble grumble* Sorry... soapbox.

SB

Ha ha ha.... BJ, I know where you are coming from. I posted as I found it quite funny, but yes... people do need to learn that fuck off, means fuck off...lol. I do believe this post is more towards women who are insecure and think that if they dress "slutty" they will land a man... ya know

SP

Yikes...?! Lol

Me 

It still pisses me off. Telling insecure women/girls that they'll only attract pigs when they dress like sluts doesn't improve anything. I was talking about this subject this weekend with someone and I boiled it down to a lack of education. We don't need just a no means no approach, we also need a yes means yes approach. We also need to teach our children not only the mechanics of sex/sexuality but also the psychology. And we need to start younger - No this does not mean we start teaching six year olds about sex, but it does mean we start doing a better job, as teachers, as parents (in general, no digs toward you), and as a COMMUNITY, to educate our children about how to respect their bodies, how to respect other people, and how to be strong. And that doesn't mean giving them every day thing they ask for. It means saying NO to them. Showing them that they can't have every damn thing that they want. Instilling the idea that they have to earn things, instead of them just being given to them. Letting kids learn through natural consequences and stop all this damn helicopter parenting.

@SP: What can I say? I'm full of grumbly passion.

SP 

Chill...it was humor...

Chill...it was just supposed to be a lil humor...nothing to write a book about.

Me

I stated that, right in my first post. I know rationally it's just supposed to be a little something to make a person giggle but emotionally for me anyway, it fails. It's a poorly constructed joke about double standards, gender stereotypes, and slut shaming. And since that is the way I felt I hijacked SB's post. Sorry if this caused distress but it's the Internet where opinions are plentiful and freely given.

SP

If you show no respect for your body. Neither will anyone else. Enough said.

Me

But my question is how does how I dress have anything to do with that?

SP

Wow....self respect...keep ur private. Urs. 

The only attention ur askin 4 is look at my hooch & couch. Cover the nasty and flaunt the natural beauty!         

TP

WELLLL, since you asked lol YES, dressing like a whore will get you nothing but pigs. Im guaranteed that statistics would show that the sluttier dressed girls get in more "trouble" than the more modest "self respecting" dressed girls. By trouble I mean...Drugs, Stripping, Crimes...and as a result, Being trapped in battered relationships, In and out of jails, Even rape and murder unfortunately. Personaly I think women should have more respect for themselves, and remember what your grand mothers, and great grandmothers and great great grand mothers did for you during the womens movement...Just Sayin ;o)

SP

Ur askin for negative attention when u hang ur houch&couch out. Cover up the nasty and flaunt the natural beauty

Me

That line of thought is slut-shaming and victim blaming. You're more or less saying that because I dress a certain way that I deserve to be raped.

SP

Nope not what I said. Hmmm think ur makin an ass outta urself assuming!

Me

You said that when someone dressed immodestly (In your words - hangs their "houch&couch" out) that they ASKING for negative attention. What else am I s'posed to assume that you mean other than sexual harassment and rape?

TP
Asking for it...not deserving it...big diff...

Me
How is it different? And how can you justify the cruelty of telling a woman that was rape that she was ASKING for it because of the way she dressed?

That right there is victim blaming all by itself

SP
Lol didn't mean to write that 3 times....asking...okay so UR GOING to get negative attention. No need to ask for it. Ur dressing to get it. Like I said cover the nasty and flaunt the natural beauty. Just cause its hot doesn't mean ur gotta show ur houchy couchy!

P.s u could be in sweat pant and sweat shirt n still be sexually assaulted or raped. It not that u dress like a whore do ur goin to be raped. Thats stereotyping! 


TP
I'm saying dressing like a whore gets you into the whole lifestyle...unfortuantely rape is in that lifestyle....

Me

You're still victim blaming by saying that. It still sounds like it's my fault that I'm going to get raped because of the way I dressed, and then you back pedal in the very next comment! And yes, I agree it doesn't matter what you wear - if the person wants to rape you and they're stronger than you they are going to rape you - that is why I'm appalled by the victim blaming. If we take two women that are otherwise exactly the same and one is dressed a little more provocatively there is a greater chance that the one who does so will be told that it's her fault she was raped at some point. That being said if the modestly “respectable” dressed woman is walking by herself at night it’s her fault again.

And as for your comment TP approximate two thirds of rapes are actually committed by someone that is KNOWN to the victim and 50% occur within 1 mile of the victim’s home, 40% in their home. Rape is not happening in the back alley by some stranger. The vast majority of rape is date rape. And you’re still victim blaming. Rape, no matter who it is done to – woman, man, prostitute, or child – is completely inexcusable and not the victims fault.

SP
Then cover ur houchy couchy! Ur chances will be slimmer

Me
Still victim blaming! 

SP
Hello I'm not saying if u dress like a whore u will be raped. Ur showing disrespect for ur body. So don't expect respect for you! YOU period.

Me
First off: It's still victim blaming. The only difference is that now you're saying IF I GET RAPED instead of WHEN I GET RAPED, it's my fault.

Secondly: we're back to my original questions - how does how I dress have anything to do with whether or not I respect myself or should be treated or not treated with respect?

SP
Then don't be a victim!

Me
Don't blame me for being one. How is it my fault?        

TP
Think you better read my comment a couple more times...maybe you'll understand what I meant instead of putting words in my mouth...

When a woman dresses showing off her "houchy couchy" as SP put it, she usually WANTS the attention...and anyone that I have ever known that dresses like a 2 dollar stripper, was in the lifestyle...drugs, crime, abusive relationships, which result in rape...by omg the people in her fucking life! 

Me
I want to thank you two for a rather lively debate but I think that we're going to have to agree to disagree, especially if we're just going to devolve into swearing. I don't mind hijacking SB's posts but I think that since she doesn't usually swear on her posts we should keep it clean as well. 

SB
LOL!! You guys are awesome! I love debates...lol. But yes, agree to disagree and leave it at that. I'm sure this could continue on for another 100 posts  

---

Editted for additional comments

Editted for additional comments

Editted for additional comments - I'm disengaging TP. Debates are fine but swearing is not kosher. Have some respect.

Editted for additional comments

For Better or Worse: Occupy Wall Street

Back in the beginning of June a friend of mine posted an article about the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) Movement, you can find it here. I read the article and proceeded to comment on his post with this gem:

I feel like I'm really gonna regret asking this, I really am, so please be gentle but can someone please explain in simple, little words how the hell Occupy even relates to me? Because honestly it feels like a bunch of kids whining at their parents because they're not getting what they wanted for their birthday or something. I've always been midly irrated by the whole damn thing. I mean, how much did it cost to clean up that bloody parking lot, or whatever, where the Occupy Edmonton movement was camped out? And that's on us, as city tax payers. (I paid rent so I indirectly paid taxes but still there are better things that my money could've gone to instead of that.)

I'm not trying to pull tails, piss people off, or be a general twat, but I think that Occupy movement really dropped the ball when they were trying to get their message out. And I say this because all I ccould think of when I'd see them sitting there doing "sweet fuck all" is that the lazy buggers should be working if they're going to complain about how they don't have money. You're not entitled to it, go earn it. (This could be because I was generally unemployed at the time and pissed off at anyone who wasn't make an effort to get employed.)

So, I guess what I'm saying is that I want someone to convince me that the Occupy movement is something that I really should care about instead of thinking that it's all about a bunch of lazy-bones hippies who don't really want to work for their money.

I haven’t changed a damn thing, this is me typos and all. I’ll be honest, I’ve never understood OWS and really a lot of what I’ve said there is, while inflammatory, quite honestly how many of the members came across, at least to me, in the news and other sources of media. I won’t deny that I did not make an effort to “get to know” OWS. When they started I was struggling with my own issues and in particular I was on E.I. and unemployed. If I was going to be perfectly honest with myself I would have been an ideal person for OWS to “speak” to: I was unemployed, unable to find a job, and highly educated. So what happened? Where did it go wrong?

I think that part of it was OWS itself. They really are a grassroots movement. It’s not like they had a PR rep to get their message out there, they were doing it themselves, which meant that they were only really reaching the people that already had the issues on their own personal radar, and I most certainly didn’t have those issues on mine. 

I also think that the rest of it is me. I am… I am hard to define politically. I am generally socially liberal and have said many times that I don’t care what you do as long as it doesn’t interfere with what I am doing. For example, if you want to smoke marijuana I don’t mind as long as you are willing to either do it away from me, outside and downwind from me, or if you must smoke indoors not in my house and let me know that you’re doing it if we’re at your house. I can leave, it won’t bother me. And it’s not that I’m anti-drug. I’m not. I think that the vast majority of drugs should be legalised, taxed, and sold. (Alcohol is significantly worse than marijuana and it’s legal, taxed, and sold. Where’s the problem? If we just sold heroin as opium I also wouldn’t see a problem.) It’s just that I’m allergic to something about marijuana, or at least I suspect I am. I smoked up once and was physically ill for three days. I have no desire to repeat the experience and, Yes, I’ve heard numerous explanations as to what else it could have been but they don’t explain the headache that develops when I’m around it in a poorly ventilated area. (Shhhh. Yes, I know. It could be psychosomatic. But really? Does it matter?) Another example, I think that marriage should just be marriage – whether between a man and a woman, a woman and a woman, a man and a man, or between two men and a woman, two women and a man, three men, three woman, four men… a woman who’s married to two men and one of those men is married to another different woman. I really don’t care. However, I also think that marriage as it is defined in our current society DOESN’T WORK. Face it, our society is disposable and marriage is becoming the same way. I also think that morals are relative; they depend on the people, the society, the time, and the place. 

I’m also fiscally toward the conservative end of the spectrum... but even that’s complicated. Ideally, I think that there should be little interference from the government except for protecting the little guy. For the most part, I actually like how Canada’s set up, sure some improvements could be made to the system, but that’s to be expected. I think that the welfare and E.I systems need to be revamped. That healthcare needs to be less abused and improved. Don’t ask me how; I’m not an idea-man. (Fuck PC language, idea-woman sounds like I’m overly pretentious. That being said – sometimes I think we go too far with being PC but that’s a rant for a different day.)

Traditionally, I’ve voted PC, not always mind you, but definitely often enough that it counts. I’m not ashamed to say it, and yes, I’ve gotten more flak from friends than I can even begin to explain. The worst part for me is some people just lump me in with the “special conservatives” on that basis alone… I am definitely not a “special conservative”. But I do have that rural Albertan back ground – and I won’t say it blinds me but it definitely makes work to see certain things. 

So when OWS started, all I really saw were a bunch of whiney little brats complaining about their student debt (that one I totally was on board with by-the-by) and about how they couldn’t get a job. It all seemed very elitist and full of entitlement to me. It seemed to me that they all figured that their education entitled them to having a great job, with great pay right out of the gate. It seemed to me that none of them wanted to work for it, start from the bottom up, and earn that job. As was pointed out to me, it’s a sweeping generalisation. I won’t argue that. It is a sweeping generalisation, one made with broad strokes and information gathered from the CTV News at 6, who only kept interviewing MM*, who for some reason just seemed to me a little naïve and blah (they needed someone who had more charisma I think. I swear the guy talked in the same monotone voice every time I heard him) and then fucking Mike Hudema*, whom I’ve never liked. He was the SU president when I was at the U of A. I’ve listened to him speak and every word out of his mouth just rubs me the wrong way. I do not know why so I can’t really justify it beyond – I don’t like him – but I just don’t like him. It’s weird for me honestly; usually a person has to do something to me for me not to like them. 

And yes, BL, I know I’m doing OWS a disservice with my inflammatory language, I know that I’m marginalising them to the fringes of society. I get that. However, you’ve done more in explaining what they’re actually about, especially to a layman, in 600 words than either MM or Hudema did every time they were on the TV. I can totally get behind economic inequality. I worked in childcare for seven years, for 5 of those years I was making $29K (if I would have been 40h a week, and that included my government subsidy money) the rest of that time I was making $32K actually working 40h with my government subsidy. And yet if you look at “traditional men’s” roles that have the same level of education and skill requirement there is still a rather large gap. (I don’t have my text book that has this information so I’m being intentionally vague about it.) So I can totally get behind economic inequality. 

I can totally get behind the fact that there are no well-paying jobs for well education individuals. I spent from October 2010 to January 2012 unemployed. I put out well over 2 résumés a day (once it was averaged out), I received three interviews and only one callback – the pay was only $12/hr. I have a diploma in early childhood education, 7 years’ experience in childcare, and more than 5 years’ experience in administration, customer service, and HR.  Because there were no jobs, I went back to school to finish my HR Management diploma, which I had been doing part time. I now have my certificate and I will finish my diploma next April. However, the climate, especially for HR if it goes as predicted, looks really good for me right as I’m graduating. So, hopefully I’m lucky. Otherwise, I understand about not being able to find a job that suited my educational and experiential background. 

I’ve never been an activist. I’ve never really understood activists. And while I’m still not sure if camping out to protest these issues is a bright idea, I think I better understand where the people of OWS are coming from. I don’t think I support OWS in specific but in I kind of do in general – I hope that makes some kind of sense. I guess that it boils down to I agree with what they are trying to achieve just not how they’re going about it. Nevertheless, I’m still not an idea-man and I really couldn’t sell a better idea. Though I really think, especially the Edmonton branch needs a better voice. A little less grassroots and a little more organised… which almost flies in the face of the idea but ideas have to evolve to become better and more encompassing.

So there. Sorry for the late and long reply, BL, I promise I wasn’t just ignoring you; I really just had to have some time to think about it, re-examine my thoughts on the whole concept.

 

*I wasn’t sure if I should use MM’s full name because I’m not sure if he would qualify as being in the public eye. I used MH’s full name because I know that he’s in the public eye, he’s been an open activist for many organisations. However, if anyone was any comments about whether I should be using MM’s full name or MH’s initials please let me know and I’ll change it. Just because I dislike the guy (MH) doesn’t mean I won’t treat him with the same measure of respect that I try to treat everyone else on this blog. That’s just rude.