Very grumpy.
I had noticed that a couple of my facebook groups were missing from my feed. I wasn't overly active in either group so it wasn't a big deal, but I was bored so I went looking for them. I couldn't find them at all. I hadn't just been booted from the groups, I had also been blocked.
That's not something you could say was a facebook glitch, that requires someone to go out of their way to tick a few boxes.
As I had been more of a lurker than someone who comments anything controversial in both of these groups, I was more confused. I couldn't have said anything that upset anyone, since I hadn't said anything at all in either group for weeks.
I reached out to one of the admins from one of the groups to find out why. I wasn't certain if I cared enough to rejoin the group, but I was curious about my removal.
That admin did some digging and came back to tell me I had some haters that claimed I was trying to shut down groups. I was banned and blocked because of that, without anyone coming to ask me what the story was. She went on to ask if I'd heard of a certain person, let's call her Ms W, who was the second in command in a very large group. I had never heard of Ms W and I have had nothing whatsoever to do with that group since the previous (late) owner went on a massive power trip and spent a lot of time and energy hunting down people by their associations and trying to have them banned from everywhere.
She told me that Ms W had posted all about me in a group specifically for admins and mods of pagan groups. I admin several pagan groups, I applied to join.
I was accepted and fairly quickly found the post. Up to that point, I had assumed that I was only one of the accused and that it was really about a plagiarism and copyright theft watchdog group I'm a member of. Apparently it wasn't. The post started with my profile picture, a link to my profile page, claims that I got a group or two shut down by reporting copyright violations and warnings to be careful of me.
Now if I'd done it, I wouldn't have an issue. Shit yeah, boot me for standing up for the authors who you are stealing from, you miserable pieces of filth. I'd be owning it and damned proud.
But I didn't.
I only heard of these groups after they'd been shut down.
The first came to my attention when someone in one of my groups asked if anyone knew what had happened to it. I went looking and found a new incarnation (the third as it turns out). I went back and shared the link with the person who'd been looking.
Another friend was already in this new incarnation of the group and they sent me screenshots of their files section. Eight pages of screenshots. The files section contained lots and lots of pdf copies of books that were still under copyright.
So I passed this on to the watchdog group. There are plenty of authors and people from publishers in there. If they saw their work, they could request its removal and report it if that didn't happen. My part was done.
A lot of people don't seem to understand that only the copyright owner can take action of any kind. They are the only person who has the right and ability to say "this is mine and you do not have permission to be distributing it". They are the only person who can file a report for copyright violations, on facebook and anywhere else on the internet. They are the only person who can file a DMCA and have a website taken down.
For me to report copyright violations, it would have to be all my own work. I have written only one book and had one piece included in an anthology.
It takes more than one report for facebook to take action like this. It takes multiple reports before they'll look closer and decide you're clearly a problem and repeat offender.
Through circumstances in which I was merely a spectator, the files in the new group were removed. Great. Issue resolved.
The other group only came to my attention when someone posted about them in the watchdog group. The owner of the second group was a member of the watchdog group and was called out about his so called Library. He made his group secret and blocked the admins of the watchdog group. This got him booted from the group. But not before he'd gone through the entire membership of that group and individually blocked all the members.
Well, he must have missed some because I know of at least one who is still in his group. I've seen more screenshots of the paranoia he's taken to the new group, individually interviewing each new member before they're allowed in.
So here are two groups that I apparently had shut down by reporting copyright theft to facebook. Copyrights I had no right or ability to report. Groups I had no knowledge of and had never heard of until after they'd been reported.
So I commented on the post naming me in this Admin group. This post that had apparently been doing the rounds of admin groups for a couple of weeks. I rather politely (given the circumstances) defended myself. I pointed out that only the copyright holder could report these things.
My comments were liked by some of that group's Admins. I read through the rest of the group.
It appeared that an accusation of some kind of wrong-doing was all that was required for many of these admins to remove you from their own individual groups. I saw one case that included proof and that was pretty awful. The rest were "This person did that in my group" with a link to their profile. This was then followed by various claims of "Eww, I recommend empaths and sensitives don't go and look" or "Thanks, removed from my group".
Gossip and rumour were that was needed for these people to decide to remove someone from their groups. No kind of proof was provided or needed most of the time. Hearsay is enough for hanging.
I noticed a subthread going on in the thread about me, but I was having problems opening it to see what was being said. I kept getting messages that said "Something has gone wrong. Please try again later."
It took some time, (I think there was some kind of weird glitch on my phone that made it seem stranger,) but I discovered I'd been removed from this group and blocked. My friends had been removed from the group and blocked. One commented on the thread and managed to get a screenshot before she was removed and blocked. My comments where I defended myself had been deleted.
Somewhat ironically, the friend that got screenshots, posted on her page to warn people about this group. The first comment was from someone else saying the first group was absolutely shut down for illegal pdfs. She'd emailed several authors and publishers herself and sent them links to that group. It's a public post, anyone who chooses to stalk her profile can see all of it. I'm really hoping that someone is going to go looking.
This is the type of person that is running many facebook groups. They aren't interested in finding out the truth of an issue, they'll believe anything of anybody. The more salacious, the better. They're happy to believe the worst without proof. I'll lay money that they're the ones who require "negative" people leave their bad vibes at the doors of their respective groups too.
What I find even worse is that I'm a problem for wanting copyright laws respected. If these groups weren't breaking the law they would have nothing at all to worry about, even if I was the person doing the reporting.
This is a very sad state of affairs. The so-called leaders in these groups are childish gossips, looking for an opportunity to see the worst in their membership, sharing hearsay and rumours and finding more fault in wanting to uphold the law than in breaking it.
This has left me with quite a sour taste in my mouth. I am disappointed in the Pagan community for allowing this and most of all, I am grumpy.
I am very grumpy.
Showing posts with label Rants. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rants. Show all posts
Saturday, 16 February 2019
Thursday, 18 August 2016
If You Don't Like It, Don't Do It
I know this isn't a new thing, but it's really getting on my nerves lately.
I'm talking about people trying to tell other people how to live. This leaks over into every part of life - there are things like gay marriage, interracial relationships, dietary choices or lack thereof, medical choices or lack thereof and most recently, Pokemon Go.
I don't understand this need to regulate other people's lives or even to concern yourself with choices that really have no impact whatsoever on you - except perhaps that it might make you a little uncomfortable.
Who someone is in love with (and what bits they have), what tv shows they like to watch, whether or not they eat wheat or meat, what car they drive, what they wear or what Gods they worship is none of your business. In no way does it have any effect on your life or your ability to enjoy your life. What seriously is the purpose in trying to dictate to others that they have to be like you? Do you get a kick out of making someone miserable just so you can feel more comfortable around them?
If you feel that someone else's life is offensive to your religious beliefs, then why not leave those judgments and punishments in the hands of the Gods? I'm pretty sure They're more than capable of taking care of things Themselves if something should offend Them.
Personally, I'm not aware of any religion that requires it's followers to make others outside of the religion miserable just to please themselves. Similarly, I'm also not aware of any religion that asks it's followers to be the most obnoxious, self-important prats who constantly try to make the world over in their own image.
If something is against your religion, then don't do it. You don't get to tell others that they have to conform to the ideals of your religion.
If you are vegan or vegetarian (for whatever reason) good for you. Unfortunately, there's a trend amongst vegans particularly to try and push their lifestyle choices onto everyone else as though it's the only healthy option. This is usually supported by cherry-picked bad science that also assumes that everyone's physiology is identical and the dietary needs of one person are identical to the next.
If you don't like eating (or wearing) animal products, then don't. But you don't get to dictate that others have to follow your way. For many people this will make them very sick.
Since I discovered that I was Gluten Intolerant, I've found it truly bizarre not just how many people have an opinion about it but the range of opinions and suggestions I've had. I've heard everything from "this gluten-free stuff is all bullshit" to "it's not the gluten, it's the preservatives they put in white bread (which I didn't eat anyway), you need to make your own bread and you'll be fine" to "You're just being a drama queen".
I don't understand how becoming violently ill if I eat gluten affects you enough for your opinion to be something I should take under serious or any consideration. Unless you're holding my hair for me, I'm going to file you under "dick" in my head.
Unless it's a school which has a dress code or uniform rules or you are employing someone for a job with a dress code or uniform rules, then how someone else dresses, what piercings or tattoos they may have is none of your business.
This whole "dress for the body you have, not the body you want" thing leaves me flabbergasted. All the social media memes about how low-riding or sagging started in prison to show you were "available" or all the blog posts about "what women over 30 should never wear" are all part of the same thing. Why does a complete stranger require your approval? If someone is comfortable and feeling confident and happy in their clothes, then that should be celebrated not condemned.
If you don't like those clothes, those piercings or those tattoos, then don't wear them. You might not like to see their stretch marks or their ribs, they may be bigger or smaller than you feel comfortable seeing, but you don't know their story, you don't get to tell them what they can and can't wear or what they should be doing about their body type.
If someone wants to do a detox diet or use homeopathy or restructure their home for good Feng Shui how is this your problem? Aside from people dangerously neglecting children and pets by failing to seek appropriate medical attention when it's needed or trying to make a cat vegan, anything else is not your problem, it affects you in no possible way and there is nothing useful to be gained by being offended by someone else's choices in these things.
I'm sure you're seeing the theme here. Decide for yourself what you do, let other people do the same. Try to understand why you think that others require your approval and why you think your opinion of their choices or lack of choices should matter to them - would their approval or opinion matter to you?
Voicing your opinions about things like this says more bad things about you than it does about them.
Blessings
Debbie
I'm talking about people trying to tell other people how to live. This leaks over into every part of life - there are things like gay marriage, interracial relationships, dietary choices or lack thereof, medical choices or lack thereof and most recently, Pokemon Go.
I don't understand this need to regulate other people's lives or even to concern yourself with choices that really have no impact whatsoever on you - except perhaps that it might make you a little uncomfortable.
Who someone is in love with (and what bits they have), what tv shows they like to watch, whether or not they eat wheat or meat, what car they drive, what they wear or what Gods they worship is none of your business. In no way does it have any effect on your life or your ability to enjoy your life. What seriously is the purpose in trying to dictate to others that they have to be like you? Do you get a kick out of making someone miserable just so you can feel more comfortable around them?
Objections on Religious Grounds
If you feel that someone else's life is offensive to your religious beliefs, then why not leave those judgments and punishments in the hands of the Gods? I'm pretty sure They're more than capable of taking care of things Themselves if something should offend Them.
Personally, I'm not aware of any religion that requires it's followers to make others outside of the religion miserable just to please themselves. Similarly, I'm also not aware of any religion that asks it's followers to be the most obnoxious, self-important prats who constantly try to make the world over in their own image.
If something is against your religion, then don't do it. You don't get to tell others that they have to conform to the ideals of your religion.
Objections to Food Choices
If you are vegan or vegetarian (for whatever reason) good for you. Unfortunately, there's a trend amongst vegans particularly to try and push their lifestyle choices onto everyone else as though it's the only healthy option. This is usually supported by cherry-picked bad science that also assumes that everyone's physiology is identical and the dietary needs of one person are identical to the next.
If you don't like eating (or wearing) animal products, then don't. But you don't get to dictate that others have to follow your way. For many people this will make them very sick.
Since I discovered that I was Gluten Intolerant, I've found it truly bizarre not just how many people have an opinion about it but the range of opinions and suggestions I've had. I've heard everything from "this gluten-free stuff is all bullshit" to "it's not the gluten, it's the preservatives they put in white bread (which I didn't eat anyway), you need to make your own bread and you'll be fine" to "You're just being a drama queen".
I don't understand how becoming violently ill if I eat gluten affects you enough for your opinion to be something I should take under serious or any consideration. Unless you're holding my hair for me, I'm going to file you under "dick" in my head.
Objections on Aesthetic Grounds
Unless it's a school which has a dress code or uniform rules or you are employing someone for a job with a dress code or uniform rules, then how someone else dresses, what piercings or tattoos they may have is none of your business.
This whole "dress for the body you have, not the body you want" thing leaves me flabbergasted. All the social media memes about how low-riding or sagging started in prison to show you were "available" or all the blog posts about "what women over 30 should never wear" are all part of the same thing. Why does a complete stranger require your approval? If someone is comfortable and feeling confident and happy in their clothes, then that should be celebrated not condemned.
If you don't like those clothes, those piercings or those tattoos, then don't wear them. You might not like to see their stretch marks or their ribs, they may be bigger or smaller than you feel comfortable seeing, but you don't know their story, you don't get to tell them what they can and can't wear or what they should be doing about their body type.
Objections because Science
If someone wants to do a detox diet or use homeopathy or restructure their home for good Feng Shui how is this your problem? Aside from people dangerously neglecting children and pets by failing to seek appropriate medical attention when it's needed or trying to make a cat vegan, anything else is not your problem, it affects you in no possible way and there is nothing useful to be gained by being offended by someone else's choices in these things.
I'm sure you're seeing the theme here. Decide for yourself what you do, let other people do the same. Try to understand why you think that others require your approval and why you think your opinion of their choices or lack of choices should matter to them - would their approval or opinion matter to you?
Voicing your opinions about things like this says more bad things about you than it does about them.
Blessings
Debbie
Wednesday, 30 March 2016
Please stop calling them ISIS
Small rant.
They have been referred to as a few different names including ISIS and ISIL. Both of these attempt to legitimise their claims as they stand for the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (an archaic term used to describe the lands around Syria which includes modern day Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine and Jordan). They are a terrorist group not a state and aside from corrupting the use of a Goddess' name, calling them the Islamic State is what they want, so I'll not do it.
I know on a whole it's a small inconvenience for me to have to change how I google something or to be questioned if I worship Isis when asked. (Yes one deluded individual actually argued with me about my support of a terrorist organisation). But please, stop calling them ISIS. Call them Daesh, call them monsters, call them bastards or arseholes or any number of other expletives but please don't call them by a name they want and stop besmirching the name of the Goddess Isis.
I love Isis... She's my patron Goddess and showed me the door to the pagan world so many years ago. (Yes I know the Isis vs Aset argument but this isn't about that).
I'm currently writing a short story for submission to an anthology about dark gods and benevolent ones with dark sides so I'm writing a story featuring Isis' shadow side. Without going into details I thought I'd do a quick google search for possible weapons She might use.
In my naivety (and before engaging my brain) I googled 'weapons used by Isis'. NEVER do this. I'm sure I'm now on some FBI watch list. Yes I can google weapons used by Goddess Isis but I am just ranting about my disapproval of the name of a Goddess being corrupted by this terrorist group.
I know on a whole it's a small inconvenience for me to have to change how I google something or to be questioned if I worship Isis when asked. (Yes one deluded individual actually argued with me about my support of a terrorist organisation). But please, stop calling them ISIS. Call them Daesh, call them monsters, call them bastards or arseholes or any number of other expletives but please don't call them by a name they want and stop besmirching the name of the Goddess Isis.
Tuesday, 22 March 2016
Why I Don't Run Pagan Events Anymore
Luana and I spent roughly ten years off and on running Pagan Coffee Meets. I saw great events happening in other parts of the country and went through a resentful and wistful patch of "why isn't there anything like that happening here?". Then one day I thought about it more sensibly and decided that if I wanted one, I should start one.
I advertised my first coffee meet in New Zealand forums (this was back in Eziboard days, well before facebook was a thing) and also on Meetup. I spoke to local shop owners and left my number so anyone interested could contact me.
Meetup decided there weren't enough numbers responding on it's page and officially cancelled it, but we went anyway. It was attended purely by my friends. There were five of us in total, having a drink in a quiet corner of the Dux de Lux and we spent most of it planning our next ritual since it was effectively a meeting of our ritual group.
I chose not to be disheartened by it and planned another for next month. We had a phenomenal turn out for Christchurch. 20 new people came along. I was excited by this, I felt validated and justified in giving it another go. Then I learned that many of them had come along because they'd been told that last time we'd sat around backstabbing others in the local community and bitching about people. They'd come to set us straight on a few things.
I can only assume that there was some other meeting going on that we'd been confused with. It had only been our little group and there hadn't been anyone close enough to eavesdrop on our conversation. I didn't know many other people in the Christchurch Pagan Community to gossip about and neither did any but one of our group. To this day, I've never learned where this had come from.
After a few months, the New Zealand Pagan Centre was created and we chose to come under it's umbrella, continuing coffee meets that were advertised through it's network. The NZPC soon turned into what can only be described as a clusterfuck and stopped running in anything but name. We continued our coffee meets. We had a great core group that met every month. We'd moved to the Coffee House and the staff there had gotten to know us very well.
When Luana and I created Cauldrons, we began to advertise the coffee meets through our website. We changed the time to lunchtime on Saturday and had another great group of people start to come along. We got up to a fairly consistent 10 - 20 people at each meet and caused several connections and friendships to form between people just wanting one or two others to befriend and practice with.
I stopped Coffee Meets when the earthquakes destroyed the central city. I did look at other surrounding areas but they were always too problematic for people. Buses and carpooling were just too hard it would seem. Then I moved out of Christchurch anyway.
After a few years, someone was asking about Coffee Meets again in a local facebook group. He didn't know enough people and wasn't confident to start one himself, but was adamant he'd turn up if one was offered. Several other locals echoed his words. So I set one up. I advertised it, I posted reminders several times leading up to it. And I sat there with my close friend and oldest daughter as not one of the buggers turned up. Well, I had a lovely visit and nice lunch in the sun anyway.
We were also asked on a fairly regular basis about holding a Festival. We'd both travelled to and worked at other Festivals in other parts of the country, so we set about organising one.
The budget was rather prohibitive. We found a rather low-cost but also low-amenity venue, but getting public liability insurance was a nightmare - it took over half of our total budget in the end.
We chose not to try and get big overseas names to speak as there was no way we'd be able to afford to pay for their travel alone, never mind any of the other normally associated costs. We put it out there for anyone in the local community who wanted to share their wisdom. It was our thought that there was a lot of local talent that went unregarded.
Two weeks out from the Festival, we had four confirmed and paid for bookings. That's four people in total. Two of them were children. We had more volunteers who we'd promised a very cheap weekend to in return for working for most of it. We were reaching the last cancel-without-paying-full-price date and getting nervous. A last minute appeal to everyone brought in enough last minute bookings to make going ahead worthwhile.
We'd contacted a local coven to run a ritual as we didn't want that added stress on top of our first festival. Two members of the coven stayed for the whole weekend, the remainder turned up for the day of their ritual.
Now there are always things that happen unexpectedly. I don't think it's possible to plan for every eventuality. Our only real issue was that the main Saturday night feast was late by nearly an hour. Four different spit-roasted meats. It was that or we risked undercooked chicken and pork as part of the feast. I overheard some rather rude snark and bitching about it as though it was a deliberate insult to these people.
I thought everything else went reasonably well, most of the feedback was positive. The only complaint that was ever said directly to us was that it wasn't long enough, can we pick a long weekend next time? But I still have stuff come back to me indirectly about that weekend.
We've run another three Festivals, each with their own drama queens making them memorable for the wrong reasons. Each with small hiccups but mostly they've run smoothly.
Each with associated snark and bitchiness that followed. Sometimes from people who have never attended a single one we've run.
A friend tried to set one up in her separate part of the country. She was getting close to the last date she could cancel by without paying full price for the venue and had two bookings. That sounded familiar, so I was lending support and experience. Someone piped up and told her she just needed to be more understanding because that person was a "last-minute person" and that was just the way she was. When I pointed out how rude and disrespectful such an attitude was to the organiser, I was blasted as being "negative" and "the wrong sort".
There are always a few volunteers that go above and beyond what is expected of them. They are people to be treasured, even though they'll usually just humbly tell you it was nothing when you express your gratitude. There are equally always a few that can never be found when they have jobs to do or will refuse to wipe the dishes, sweep a floor, clean the loos or even check toilet paper levels.
So as you can probably tell, by now I'm rather wary about doing anything like this. People piss and moan about how there's nothing in their area, but when there is, they don't support it by turning up. When they do turn up, they piss and moan about how they could have done a better job, or this was wrong or that was done badly or they invent issues to bitch and backstab about.
For the time being anyway. I'm done. You want events, you organise them. I have enough to do without trying to cater for a community that doesn't respect the time, money, blood, sweat and tears that goes into any event.
Debbie
I advertised my first coffee meet in New Zealand forums (this was back in Eziboard days, well before facebook was a thing) and also on Meetup. I spoke to local shop owners and left my number so anyone interested could contact me.
Meetup decided there weren't enough numbers responding on it's page and officially cancelled it, but we went anyway. It was attended purely by my friends. There were five of us in total, having a drink in a quiet corner of the Dux de Lux and we spent most of it planning our next ritual since it was effectively a meeting of our ritual group.
I chose not to be disheartened by it and planned another for next month. We had a phenomenal turn out for Christchurch. 20 new people came along. I was excited by this, I felt validated and justified in giving it another go. Then I learned that many of them had come along because they'd been told that last time we'd sat around backstabbing others in the local community and bitching about people. They'd come to set us straight on a few things.
I can only assume that there was some other meeting going on that we'd been confused with. It had only been our little group and there hadn't been anyone close enough to eavesdrop on our conversation. I didn't know many other people in the Christchurch Pagan Community to gossip about and neither did any but one of our group. To this day, I've never learned where this had come from.
After a few months, the New Zealand Pagan Centre was created and we chose to come under it's umbrella, continuing coffee meets that were advertised through it's network. The NZPC soon turned into what can only be described as a clusterfuck and stopped running in anything but name. We continued our coffee meets. We had a great core group that met every month. We'd moved to the Coffee House and the staff there had gotten to know us very well.
When Luana and I created Cauldrons, we began to advertise the coffee meets through our website. We changed the time to lunchtime on Saturday and had another great group of people start to come along. We got up to a fairly consistent 10 - 20 people at each meet and caused several connections and friendships to form between people just wanting one or two others to befriend and practice with.
I stopped Coffee Meets when the earthquakes destroyed the central city. I did look at other surrounding areas but they were always too problematic for people. Buses and carpooling were just too hard it would seem. Then I moved out of Christchurch anyway.
After a few years, someone was asking about Coffee Meets again in a local facebook group. He didn't know enough people and wasn't confident to start one himself, but was adamant he'd turn up if one was offered. Several other locals echoed his words. So I set one up. I advertised it, I posted reminders several times leading up to it. And I sat there with my close friend and oldest daughter as not one of the buggers turned up. Well, I had a lovely visit and nice lunch in the sun anyway.
We were also asked on a fairly regular basis about holding a Festival. We'd both travelled to and worked at other Festivals in other parts of the country, so we set about organising one.
The budget was rather prohibitive. We found a rather low-cost but also low-amenity venue, but getting public liability insurance was a nightmare - it took over half of our total budget in the end.
We chose not to try and get big overseas names to speak as there was no way we'd be able to afford to pay for their travel alone, never mind any of the other normally associated costs. We put it out there for anyone in the local community who wanted to share their wisdom. It was our thought that there was a lot of local talent that went unregarded.
Two weeks out from the Festival, we had four confirmed and paid for bookings. That's four people in total. Two of them were children. We had more volunteers who we'd promised a very cheap weekend to in return for working for most of it. We were reaching the last cancel-without-paying-full-price date and getting nervous. A last minute appeal to everyone brought in enough last minute bookings to make going ahead worthwhile.
We'd contacted a local coven to run a ritual as we didn't want that added stress on top of our first festival. Two members of the coven stayed for the whole weekend, the remainder turned up for the day of their ritual.
Now there are always things that happen unexpectedly. I don't think it's possible to plan for every eventuality. Our only real issue was that the main Saturday night feast was late by nearly an hour. Four different spit-roasted meats. It was that or we risked undercooked chicken and pork as part of the feast. I overheard some rather rude snark and bitching about it as though it was a deliberate insult to these people.
I thought everything else went reasonably well, most of the feedback was positive. The only complaint that was ever said directly to us was that it wasn't long enough, can we pick a long weekend next time? But I still have stuff come back to me indirectly about that weekend.
We've run another three Festivals, each with their own drama queens making them memorable for the wrong reasons. Each with small hiccups but mostly they've run smoothly.
Each with associated snark and bitchiness that followed. Sometimes from people who have never attended a single one we've run.
A friend tried to set one up in her separate part of the country. She was getting close to the last date she could cancel by without paying full price for the venue and had two bookings. That sounded familiar, so I was lending support and experience. Someone piped up and told her she just needed to be more understanding because that person was a "last-minute person" and that was just the way she was. When I pointed out how rude and disrespectful such an attitude was to the organiser, I was blasted as being "negative" and "the wrong sort".
There are always a few volunteers that go above and beyond what is expected of them. They are people to be treasured, even though they'll usually just humbly tell you it was nothing when you express your gratitude. There are equally always a few that can never be found when they have jobs to do or will refuse to wipe the dishes, sweep a floor, clean the loos or even check toilet paper levels.
So as you can probably tell, by now I'm rather wary about doing anything like this. People piss and moan about how there's nothing in their area, but when there is, they don't support it by turning up. When they do turn up, they piss and moan about how they could have done a better job, or this was wrong or that was done badly or they invent issues to bitch and backstab about.
For the time being anyway. I'm done. You want events, you organise them. I have enough to do without trying to cater for a community that doesn't respect the time, money, blood, sweat and tears that goes into any event.
Debbie
Wednesday, 26 August 2015
Medicinal and Magical Herbalism
I've always been fascinated by Herbalism. Once upon a time, I had fantasies of having a cupboard that I could go to and be able to cure any ills that beset my family. It fitted in with the idealistic image I had of a Traditional Cunningwoman. Herbs hanging from the rafters, jars filled with remedies, cures and charms and the ability to fix everything. I pictured myself as an infallible healer of all things physical and spiritual.
Then I spent a year training at the Canterbury College of Natural Medicine. I have a Certificate of Natural Health. In that time, I learned that it's really not that simple and is usually a lot of work, trial and error. There is so much more to it than reaching for the right herb or even the right part of the herb.
My certificate was a taster in a variety of modalities. There were more in depth and advanced courses that could be taken to specialise in any of the areas that we studied. While I did learn a lot of useful things that have made a difference to most minor ailments in my family, I recognise that it does not qualify me to treat anything more serious and I wouldn't try.
With this background in place, I am frequently horrified by herbal recommendations that I see online. Many groups now have rules against giving medicinal herbal advice and with good reason. Many apparently safe herbs have nasty contraindications and bad interactions with medication. You can't know for sure when reading someone's question what the source of the problem is. You can't know that they're telling you the whole truth, learn about family history and you can't know anything about their physicality - all of which are important.
Now there comes people wanting to be special and create their own websites. I wrote about Mr V and his appalling website just a couple of days ago. I am not going to provide a link to his website, because he takes page views and shares as validation - even though I know many of those views and shares are people reading it in horror and sharing it to other places as a warning about bad and dangerous information.
Instead, let me do a screenshot (he gave permission for this) of his latest offering, under the heading Angel's Turnip: A Monograph:
I guess we got lucky in that he's now citing sources. But I also read up on one of those sources, the Plant Biographies by Sue Eland and found that he missed out some really important information. To be specific:
Warning – bitter root is poisonous and should only be used under the supervision of a qualified practitioner. It can cause nausea, purging, lowered heart rate, vomiting, appetite loss and death. The milky juice can cause blistering on the skin. Livestock have been killed by eating the leaves.
I'm quite sure that any of you reading can see why this is problematic. On his website, he recommends chewing on a root as a cure for "some weird western medication" while one of his sources says it's poisonous and should only be used under qualified supervision.
This was raised, and well, I'll give you a snippet of how the conversation went:
This is a fairly standard response from this chap. I pointed out that I have a herbal that recommends white lead and mercury in salves and ointments but so far that appears to have been ignored.
What really, really scares me about this is that people share his view that warning about the dangers of untrained, unqualified advice like this is just fear-mongering and that it's all perfectly safe. He has no formal training - he has freely admitted this, he is picking and choosing what information to share from useful websites (leaving out the safety warnings) and using other questionable websites.
If a few leaves can kill livestock - animals with a digestive system designed to process many things that will kill people and weighing at least three times the average person and usually more like five or six times the weight of the average person - imagine what it will do to you.
Sadly, he just doesn't seem to take any of it seriously and beyond giving out warnings, I don't know what else I can do.
Will it take a death and a lawsuit before it stops?
Still disheartened
Debbie
Then I spent a year training at the Canterbury College of Natural Medicine. I have a Certificate of Natural Health. In that time, I learned that it's really not that simple and is usually a lot of work, trial and error. There is so much more to it than reaching for the right herb or even the right part of the herb.
My certificate was a taster in a variety of modalities. There were more in depth and advanced courses that could be taken to specialise in any of the areas that we studied. While I did learn a lot of useful things that have made a difference to most minor ailments in my family, I recognise that it does not qualify me to treat anything more serious and I wouldn't try.
With this background in place, I am frequently horrified by herbal recommendations that I see online. Many groups now have rules against giving medicinal herbal advice and with good reason. Many apparently safe herbs have nasty contraindications and bad interactions with medication. You can't know for sure when reading someone's question what the source of the problem is. You can't know that they're telling you the whole truth, learn about family history and you can't know anything about their physicality - all of which are important.
Now there comes people wanting to be special and create their own websites. I wrote about Mr V and his appalling website just a couple of days ago. I am not going to provide a link to his website, because he takes page views and shares as validation - even though I know many of those views and shares are people reading it in horror and sharing it to other places as a warning about bad and dangerous information.
Instead, let me do a screenshot (he gave permission for this) of his latest offering, under the heading Angel's Turnip: A Monograph:
I guess we got lucky in that he's now citing sources. But I also read up on one of those sources, the Plant Biographies by Sue Eland and found that he missed out some really important information. To be specific:
Warning – bitter root is poisonous and should only be used under the supervision of a qualified practitioner. It can cause nausea, purging, lowered heart rate, vomiting, appetite loss and death. The milky juice can cause blistering on the skin. Livestock have been killed by eating the leaves.
I'm quite sure that any of you reading can see why this is problematic. On his website, he recommends chewing on a root as a cure for "some weird western medication" while one of his sources says it's poisonous and should only be used under qualified supervision.
This was raised, and well, I'll give you a snippet of how the conversation went:
This is a fairly standard response from this chap. I pointed out that I have a herbal that recommends white lead and mercury in salves and ointments but so far that appears to have been ignored.
What really, really scares me about this is that people share his view that warning about the dangers of untrained, unqualified advice like this is just fear-mongering and that it's all perfectly safe. He has no formal training - he has freely admitted this, he is picking and choosing what information to share from useful websites (leaving out the safety warnings) and using other questionable websites.
If a few leaves can kill livestock - animals with a digestive system designed to process many things that will kill people and weighing at least three times the average person and usually more like five or six times the weight of the average person - imagine what it will do to you.
Sadly, he just doesn't seem to take any of it seriously and beyond giving out warnings, I don't know what else I can do.
Will it take a death and a lawsuit before it stops?
Still disheartened
Debbie
Monday, 13 April 2015
Vent Groups
As I'm sure most of us know, there are a lot of facebook groups that form for Pagans and Witches. There are various sub-groups, there are some that are open to everyone and others that stay closed to and have criteria for joining. Some have a specific focus, some don't.
I am a member of a few that are amongst other things, a safe space to vent about things members have seen in other groups. Someone will ask a really silly question* or will ask a sensible question but get really silly comments and answers. Let me provide one simple example. Yes this really happened.
Q: What does it mean if you can smell sulfur?
There a couple of answers that were sensible - check gas lines, check any eggs in the house, where are your matches kept could they have gotten wet, do you live near where there may be geothermal activity?
The majority weren't sensible - OMG it's a demon, you need to smudge with sage. Carry a rose quartz with you at all times. Do the LBRP to banish the demon.
My response was that it means there's a source of sulfur nearby.
The original poster claimed that they were outdoors walking the dog when they noticed it, but also claimed that every possible physical source had been checked and discounted but at the same time, they didn't know that sulfur is a component in many fertilisers.
It went on and on, seemingly the wanted response was demons. Why? No idea - well actually I have a few ideas but I would be guessing. Anything that suggested a common sense approach was rejected and then complained about as "negative".
* I used to say when I was training people in the workplace that the only silly question is the one you didn't ask. But having spent time in fb groups where people are expecting everything to be spoonfed to them and can't even be bothered running a search on google for the simplest things, I have come to the conclusion that there really is such a thing as a silly question.
There comes a point in discussions like this where I give up. There is clearly no point in continuing the discussion, nothing sensible is going to be heard because it's not feeding the drama or validating a self-important delusion. This is when I do go into another group and vent. I will snark about the people creating the drama and I will snark about those feeding it. I will also snark about those who complain that anything that doesn't validate what they want to believe is attacking and negative. Including asking questions for clarification - I've been told I'm trolling on several occasions when I was simply trying to understand where they were coming from.
I vent and snark in this group because no one's feelings are hurt, no more drama is created and the other members get it and can sympathise.
Sometimes there is a meme that is completely vacuous or filled with assumptions that many of us find offensive. These sometimes get shared into the vent groups as a bit of comic relief.
Sometimes there are screenshots that are members asking "Was I out of line?"
Sometimes someone has something like the picture below come up on their news feed and cannot believe that it actually got shared.
On the odd occasion, there is a screenshot from another group shared because just giving the general gist of a conversation is open to interpretation and abuse. A screenshot allows everyone to have the whole story. Never is anyone targetted and often names are changed. I've shared screenshots where I've changed the names, many others have names blanked out altogether. Occasionally, names and groups are left in, but these are the exception.
To be fair, there are a few members who can be somewhat like terriers on certain subjects. Plagiarism, sharing free copies of e-books that are still under copyright, and a few well-known Big Name Pagans who have behaved in intolerable ways (doxxing an entire group because they wouldn't support his attempt to buy credibility for his partner) are the kinds of things to get them going. They'll keep going until the group either does the right and legal thing or boots them. And in the case of plagiarism etc, they'll already have notified the authors and artists.
Apparently the "bad behaviour" of a few members makes the entire group a bad thing.
The owners of a couple of large groups on facebook have decided that such a group is bullying and harrassing their members. I must say the distinct lack of any logic or common sense in such a stance staggers me. These are supposed to be Elders in the wider Pagan Community but I have to wonder who makes sure they put their shoes on the correct feet in the mornings and then ties their shoelaces.
To be bullying and/or harrassing people would require those people to be facing it directly. There really is no difference between what goes on in this group and conversations held everywhere at coffee meets and festivals. You know the ones where someone says "You are not going to believe what I heard today..." No one is intimidating the person being talked about even if they take the time to figure out who it is. The people mentioned or whose words are screenshotted don't know about it at all until some little shit-stirrer passes it back to them.
On the topic of some little shit-stirrer - I've heard a number of people tell me categorically that in this group we make fun of beginners (Nope - they get a free pass. No one is born knowing it all. We differentiate between beginners and fluffy bunnies), that we pick on people with mental health issues (Nope - that's generally pretty obvious and they usually get a free pass too, unless their mental health issues are something like extreme narcissism) or those for whom English is a second language (again Nope - again we sympathise and will make the effort to understand what is meant) and on one memorable occasion, I've been told we were making fun of someone with cancer (No idea - been in that group since it started and I have never seen anything like that and would stomp on it fairly quickly - unless it was a case like one I have seen, where someone was a complete arse often and publicly and he also happened to have cancer. The cancer wasn't raised as an issue or anything to poke fun at).
Two things become clear from this - people are lying and making it up to create this drama. I have seen several (who were booted from this group quite quickly) talk up what goes on in there. They claim to have seen this and that, sometimes they even claim to have screenshot proof that they won't share because that would be "sinking to their level". I'm afraid that in order to be credible, you need to back it up. If you make a claim, the burden of proof is upon you. If you say you have proof but won't share it, then your proof is nothing more than hearsay and as such is completely worthless.
Secondly, people are paranoid and/or know they've said some stupid stuff but thought they could pass it off as wisdom. If you don't believe you've said anything stupid, or you make sure you don't, then you'd have no reason to worry that such a group might be laughing at you.
I've also been told that we target specific people and we're always on about one person in particular and the large group he owns. He has made demands to be allowed admission or to have the group made open so anyone and everyone can see what happens in there. He banned all members of this group from his groups and made everyone guilty by association. He goes around multiple other groups stirring shit and trying to garner sympathy for his view. Usually with lies and drama and accusations of harrassment.
Because he bans anyone from his group who is also a member of the vent group he's targetting, there is no option for the members of his group to see for themselves for fear of getting banned. They have to take his word for it or risk being seen as one of the bad guys. I believe that's called bullying when that type of restrictive behaviour is demonstrated in the workplace.
The truth is, with the exception of sharing his announcement that anyone who shares screenshots from his group with the vent group will be banned, his name and his group hadn't even been mentioned in months. No one cared what he was doing, no one cared what was happening in his group, they weren't even the faintest blip on the radar. He and his group can't accept or believe this however. He started a campaign in his group where he called upon all of his members to report the group for harrassment. When facebook rejected their reports - quite quickly I might add - he's now saying that facebook suggested he start a petition to have the group removed. Which he has now done. I call bullshit on facebook suggesting he start a petition - if it violated the terms and conditions it would have been removed, since it doesn't, it won't.
Somehow though, he's managing to sell it to folks that he's the victim of bullying and harrassment, instead of clearly the instigator of such behaviour.
Sad and tragic really. This is what Paganism is coming to.
UPDATE:
Apparently we have new terms. I think it's important to share this, because it highlights the problem. This was posted by the chap who has started the petition.
Now, I have shared this because I think it highlights the depths of stupid we are dealing with. Or to be honest, I believe this fellow has a few mental health issues.
Firstly, he thinks it's reasonable to be able to monitor what goes on in a group that isn't his and has nothing at all to do with him. Will he next be expecting to monitor everything each individual member does on facebook? Or outside of facebook?
Secondly, we're a facebook group made up of people. We have no leaders, we're all individually responsible for our own actions. Why does he think that any one of us would be able to control the actions and behaviour of others. He seems to think he can control his group and whatever they want to do and that is scary.
I'm disturbed that this is being treated as right or reasonable by anyone, let alone by the special snowflake who posted it. I'm disturbed that people who believe they are 'Pagan freethinkers' have been sucked in by this.
Blessings
Debbie
I am a member of a few that are amongst other things, a safe space to vent about things members have seen in other groups. Someone will ask a really silly question* or will ask a sensible question but get really silly comments and answers. Let me provide one simple example. Yes this really happened.
Q: What does it mean if you can smell sulfur?
There a couple of answers that were sensible - check gas lines, check any eggs in the house, where are your matches kept could they have gotten wet, do you live near where there may be geothermal activity?
The majority weren't sensible - OMG it's a demon, you need to smudge with sage. Carry a rose quartz with you at all times. Do the LBRP to banish the demon.
My response was that it means there's a source of sulfur nearby.
The original poster claimed that they were outdoors walking the dog when they noticed it, but also claimed that every possible physical source had been checked and discounted but at the same time, they didn't know that sulfur is a component in many fertilisers.
It went on and on, seemingly the wanted response was demons. Why? No idea - well actually I have a few ideas but I would be guessing. Anything that suggested a common sense approach was rejected and then complained about as "negative".
* I used to say when I was training people in the workplace that the only silly question is the one you didn't ask. But having spent time in fb groups where people are expecting everything to be spoonfed to them and can't even be bothered running a search on google for the simplest things, I have come to the conclusion that there really is such a thing as a silly question.
There comes a point in discussions like this where I give up. There is clearly no point in continuing the discussion, nothing sensible is going to be heard because it's not feeding the drama or validating a self-important delusion. This is when I do go into another group and vent. I will snark about the people creating the drama and I will snark about those feeding it. I will also snark about those who complain that anything that doesn't validate what they want to believe is attacking and negative. Including asking questions for clarification - I've been told I'm trolling on several occasions when I was simply trying to understand where they were coming from.
I vent and snark in this group because no one's feelings are hurt, no more drama is created and the other members get it and can sympathise.
Sometimes there is a meme that is completely vacuous or filled with assumptions that many of us find offensive. These sometimes get shared into the vent groups as a bit of comic relief.
Sometimes there are screenshots that are members asking "Was I out of line?"
Sometimes someone has something like the picture below come up on their news feed and cannot believe that it actually got shared.
On the odd occasion, there is a screenshot from another group shared because just giving the general gist of a conversation is open to interpretation and abuse. A screenshot allows everyone to have the whole story. Never is anyone targetted and often names are changed. I've shared screenshots where I've changed the names, many others have names blanked out altogether. Occasionally, names and groups are left in, but these are the exception.
 | |
| Typical Screenshot example - For the record, most of the responses were "Yeah - me!" |
To be fair, there are a few members who can be somewhat like terriers on certain subjects. Plagiarism, sharing free copies of e-books that are still under copyright, and a few well-known Big Name Pagans who have behaved in intolerable ways (doxxing an entire group because they wouldn't support his attempt to buy credibility for his partner) are the kinds of things to get them going. They'll keep going until the group either does the right and legal thing or boots them. And in the case of plagiarism etc, they'll already have notified the authors and artists.
Apparently the "bad behaviour" of a few members makes the entire group a bad thing.
The owners of a couple of large groups on facebook have decided that such a group is bullying and harrassing their members. I must say the distinct lack of any logic or common sense in such a stance staggers me. These are supposed to be Elders in the wider Pagan Community but I have to wonder who makes sure they put their shoes on the correct feet in the mornings and then ties their shoelaces.
To be bullying and/or harrassing people would require those people to be facing it directly. There really is no difference between what goes on in this group and conversations held everywhere at coffee meets and festivals. You know the ones where someone says "You are not going to believe what I heard today..." No one is intimidating the person being talked about even if they take the time to figure out who it is. The people mentioned or whose words are screenshotted don't know about it at all until some little shit-stirrer passes it back to them.
On the topic of some little shit-stirrer - I've heard a number of people tell me categorically that in this group we make fun of beginners (Nope - they get a free pass. No one is born knowing it all. We differentiate between beginners and fluffy bunnies), that we pick on people with mental health issues (Nope - that's generally pretty obvious and they usually get a free pass too, unless their mental health issues are something like extreme narcissism) or those for whom English is a second language (again Nope - again we sympathise and will make the effort to understand what is meant) and on one memorable occasion, I've been told we were making fun of someone with cancer (No idea - been in that group since it started and I have never seen anything like that and would stomp on it fairly quickly - unless it was a case like one I have seen, where someone was a complete arse often and publicly and he also happened to have cancer. The cancer wasn't raised as an issue or anything to poke fun at).
Two things become clear from this - people are lying and making it up to create this drama. I have seen several (who were booted from this group quite quickly) talk up what goes on in there. They claim to have seen this and that, sometimes they even claim to have screenshot proof that they won't share because that would be "sinking to their level". I'm afraid that in order to be credible, you need to back it up. If you make a claim, the burden of proof is upon you. If you say you have proof but won't share it, then your proof is nothing more than hearsay and as such is completely worthless.
Secondly, people are paranoid and/or know they've said some stupid stuff but thought they could pass it off as wisdom. If you don't believe you've said anything stupid, or you make sure you don't, then you'd have no reason to worry that such a group might be laughing at you.
I've also been told that we target specific people and we're always on about one person in particular and the large group he owns. He has made demands to be allowed admission or to have the group made open so anyone and everyone can see what happens in there. He banned all members of this group from his groups and made everyone guilty by association. He goes around multiple other groups stirring shit and trying to garner sympathy for his view. Usually with lies and drama and accusations of harrassment.
Because he bans anyone from his group who is also a member of the vent group he's targetting, there is no option for the members of his group to see for themselves for fear of getting banned. They have to take his word for it or risk being seen as one of the bad guys. I believe that's called bullying when that type of restrictive behaviour is demonstrated in the workplace.
The truth is, with the exception of sharing his announcement that anyone who shares screenshots from his group with the vent group will be banned, his name and his group hadn't even been mentioned in months. No one cared what he was doing, no one cared what was happening in his group, they weren't even the faintest blip on the radar. He and his group can't accept or believe this however. He started a campaign in his group where he called upon all of his members to report the group for harrassment. When facebook rejected their reports - quite quickly I might add - he's now saying that facebook suggested he start a petition to have the group removed. Which he has now done. I call bullshit on facebook suggesting he start a petition - if it violated the terms and conditions it would have been removed, since it doesn't, it won't.
Somehow though, he's managing to sell it to folks that he's the victim of bullying and harrassment, instead of clearly the instigator of such behaviour.
Sad and tragic really. This is what Paganism is coming to.
UPDATE:
Apparently we have new terms. I think it's important to share this, because it highlights the problem. This was posted by the chap who has started the petition.
Now, I have shared this because I think it highlights the depths of stupid we are dealing with. Or to be honest, I believe this fellow has a few mental health issues.
Firstly, he thinks it's reasonable to be able to monitor what goes on in a group that isn't his and has nothing at all to do with him. Will he next be expecting to monitor everything each individual member does on facebook? Or outside of facebook?
Secondly, we're a facebook group made up of people. We have no leaders, we're all individually responsible for our own actions. Why does he think that any one of us would be able to control the actions and behaviour of others. He seems to think he can control his group and whatever they want to do and that is scary.
I'm disturbed that this is being treated as right or reasonable by anyone, let alone by the special snowflake who posted it. I'm disturbed that people who believe they are 'Pagan freethinkers' have been sucked in by this.
Blessings
Debbie
Saturday, 7 February 2015
Week 6: Anti-vaccination is BS
I'm preempting this week's post with an warning that this is me ranting. There are some who will be offended by the tone and content and accusations but to be perfectly honest if you are upset when the post content hits too close to home because you are one of the people this is aimed at, then frankly I don't care. Vaccinate your children for all our sakes.
Anti-vaxxers make me mad. Really mad. I've had my run in with a few online and I even work with one. What's an anti-vaxxer? A parent who refuses to vaccinate their child against a number of diseases, some which can be life threatening. Someone who, in their naivety (at best) or stupidity and negligence (at worst), puts not only their child at risk, but others, who for some reason are unable to be vaccinated.
It's not that I don't believe a person is allowed to make decisions for their lives. I do. And parents should be allowed to make decisions for how they raise their children. But there is a limit. A line that needs to be drawn where we just say to parents, you don't know what you're talking about and you must do it this way.
There are some areas where this already happens.
Of course there are the sane parents who will have looked at the list above, shaking their heads, knowing that they would never do any of those things. However they're not the reason the rules exist. You see, the reason for the rules and laws about how we treat kids is because some parents will inevitably do these things and then some. They've been done, time and time again and just like any person who breaks a law (we call them criminals) the law enforcement people (police :P) need a mechanism to punish the criminals and deter others from following suit.
So how does this fit in with this rant about those parents who choose to forgo vaccinations for their children? It's simple really. I believe there needs to be a rule, a law, that protects kids from the stupidity of their parents. Just as there are laws requiring parents to buckle their kids into car seats, I believe there should be laws requiring vaccinations.
My question is why do some of the same parents who understand the rules above, and want to have no harm come to their children, also believe that they, in their lack of medical training, know better than all the trained professionals who say you need to vaccinate your child?
Dr Jennifer Raff wrote a great open letter to parents about all the arguments the anti-vaxxers use and the lies they try to sell to make their point, and discredits them with links to support what she says. I could rehash it here, but to be perfectly honest, she has the PhD, not me. You can read her words here.
I don't think these parents are being malicious in their intent. I think that many of them truly believe that vaccinations are bad and these parents think they are doing what's best for their kids. It's that when confronted with the facts, these parents choose to figuratively stick their fingers in their ears and ignore the science. Ignore those who have spent years studying and working in these fields. Doctors, scientists and other professionals who know what they're talking about.
This is why I think the choice for vaccinations needs to be taken out of the parent's hands. They obviously aren't making a properly informed decision. It's not really their fault. In this day and age it's so easy for people to be bombarded with information and there's not a whole lot that can stop the dissemination of lies that many of the proponents of the anti-vaccination movement use to try to convince parents to join them. They sow seeds of doubt and that doubt grows to the point where a once sane parent may look at their child and think, what if they're right? What if it does cause XYZ? Better safe than sorry. And then the parent is hooked and the child is put at risk.
Parents can be highly emotional. These parents, in their normal daily lives, are probably level headed and capable of making rational decisions based on fact rather than emotion. But you put their children into the mix and instill a fear that something might happen, and that rationality disappears. Instead of thinking, well there are hundreds of studies that prove that vaccinations are safe and don't cause autism, they read about that one fraudulent study by the doctor, Andrew Wakefield, who has now had his medical license revoked and the study results proved to be false and think, oh my, it might happen to my child, I better not risk it.
My dislike of anti-vaxxers comes from having a father who contracted polio as a child. He was one of the lucky ones and only has a leg that is weaker and almost half as skinny as his other one. The polio vaccine was not available when my father was a child but luckily there is no need for a child to suffer the deformities that can come with contracting polio. After a lot of effort, polio has been eliminated in most countries and is one of those diseases that we hope will be eradicated. There is a global push to do just that. Unfortunately there has only ever been one disease that has been eradicated in human history and that was small pox which was declared eradicated by the World Health Organisation (WHO) in 1980.
I think there is some confusion in the terminology used when discussing diseases. Eradication is different from elimination. Eradication is the complete annihilation of a disease from the global population, though true eradication would be completely destroying all stocks of the disease. The global initiative to eradicate small pox started in 1958 and took just over 20 years, and while it is eradicated, there are small stocks kept by some countries for study etc. This is different from elimination where the spread of a disease is stopped in a country or other specified area but it still exists.
If more and more people move towards an anti-vaccine stance, then this can thwart eradication efforts. One such disease is measles. The measles vaccine was first used in 1963 and combined with the mumps and rubella vaccines, to create the MMR vaccine that became the focus of this crazy anti vaccine crusade, in 1971.
Many countries are striving to eliminate measles because of the high mortality rate of those who contract the illness. It hasn't been eliminated in NZ yet, but in 2000 the US declared that it had been eliminated from within their borders. How long it retains that status, in light of the recent outbreak in California which has been linked quite heavily to children who were voluntarily not vaccinated, remains to be seen.
According to the WHO, in 2013, there were 145 700 measles deaths globally. This equates to about 400 a day or 16 deaths every hour. Why should people be dying from an illness that we have a vaccine for? It makes zero sense. If these parents really love their kids, why would they put them at that risk?
Penn and Teller say it best in the video linked here. Anti-vaccination is bullshit!
Anti-vaxxers make me mad. Really mad. I've had my run in with a few online and I even work with one. What's an anti-vaxxer? A parent who refuses to vaccinate their child against a number of diseases, some which can be life threatening. Someone who, in their naivety (at best) or stupidity and negligence (at worst), puts not only their child at risk, but others, who for some reason are unable to be vaccinated.
It's not that I don't believe a person is allowed to make decisions for their lives. I do. And parents should be allowed to make decisions for how they raise their children. But there is a limit. A line that needs to be drawn where we just say to parents, you don't know what you're talking about and you must do it this way.
There are some areas where this already happens.
- No, you aren't allowed to shake your baby.
- No, you can't drive your car with your baby sitting on your lap.
- No, you can't leave a baby in a hot car while you go shopping.
- No, kids under 14 aren't allowed to look after themselves while you go out drinking, or to bingo, or to the country club or wherever.
Of course there are the sane parents who will have looked at the list above, shaking their heads, knowing that they would never do any of those things. However they're not the reason the rules exist. You see, the reason for the rules and laws about how we treat kids is because some parents will inevitably do these things and then some. They've been done, time and time again and just like any person who breaks a law (we call them criminals) the law enforcement people (police :P) need a mechanism to punish the criminals and deter others from following suit.
So how does this fit in with this rant about those parents who choose to forgo vaccinations for their children? It's simple really. I believe there needs to be a rule, a law, that protects kids from the stupidity of their parents. Just as there are laws requiring parents to buckle their kids into car seats, I believe there should be laws requiring vaccinations.
My question is why do some of the same parents who understand the rules above, and want to have no harm come to their children, also believe that they, in their lack of medical training, know better than all the trained professionals who say you need to vaccinate your child?
Dr Jennifer Raff wrote a great open letter to parents about all the arguments the anti-vaxxers use and the lies they try to sell to make their point, and discredits them with links to support what she says. I could rehash it here, but to be perfectly honest, she has the PhD, not me. You can read her words here.
I don't think these parents are being malicious in their intent. I think that many of them truly believe that vaccinations are bad and these parents think they are doing what's best for their kids. It's that when confronted with the facts, these parents choose to figuratively stick their fingers in their ears and ignore the science. Ignore those who have spent years studying and working in these fields. Doctors, scientists and other professionals who know what they're talking about.
This is why I think the choice for vaccinations needs to be taken out of the parent's hands. They obviously aren't making a properly informed decision. It's not really their fault. In this day and age it's so easy for people to be bombarded with information and there's not a whole lot that can stop the dissemination of lies that many of the proponents of the anti-vaccination movement use to try to convince parents to join them. They sow seeds of doubt and that doubt grows to the point where a once sane parent may look at their child and think, what if they're right? What if it does cause XYZ? Better safe than sorry. And then the parent is hooked and the child is put at risk.
Parents can be highly emotional. These parents, in their normal daily lives, are probably level headed and capable of making rational decisions based on fact rather than emotion. But you put their children into the mix and instill a fear that something might happen, and that rationality disappears. Instead of thinking, well there are hundreds of studies that prove that vaccinations are safe and don't cause autism, they read about that one fraudulent study by the doctor, Andrew Wakefield, who has now had his medical license revoked and the study results proved to be false and think, oh my, it might happen to my child, I better not risk it.
My dislike of anti-vaxxers comes from having a father who contracted polio as a child. He was one of the lucky ones and only has a leg that is weaker and almost half as skinny as his other one. The polio vaccine was not available when my father was a child but luckily there is no need for a child to suffer the deformities that can come with contracting polio. After a lot of effort, polio has been eliminated in most countries and is one of those diseases that we hope will be eradicated. There is a global push to do just that. Unfortunately there has only ever been one disease that has been eradicated in human history and that was small pox which was declared eradicated by the World Health Organisation (WHO) in 1980.
I think there is some confusion in the terminology used when discussing diseases. Eradication is different from elimination. Eradication is the complete annihilation of a disease from the global population, though true eradication would be completely destroying all stocks of the disease. The global initiative to eradicate small pox started in 1958 and took just over 20 years, and while it is eradicated, there are small stocks kept by some countries for study etc. This is different from elimination where the spread of a disease is stopped in a country or other specified area but it still exists.
If more and more people move towards an anti-vaccine stance, then this can thwart eradication efforts. One such disease is measles. The measles vaccine was first used in 1963 and combined with the mumps and rubella vaccines, to create the MMR vaccine that became the focus of this crazy anti vaccine crusade, in 1971.
Many countries are striving to eliminate measles because of the high mortality rate of those who contract the illness. It hasn't been eliminated in NZ yet, but in 2000 the US declared that it had been eliminated from within their borders. How long it retains that status, in light of the recent outbreak in California which has been linked quite heavily to children who were voluntarily not vaccinated, remains to be seen.
According to the WHO, in 2013, there were 145 700 measles deaths globally. This equates to about 400 a day or 16 deaths every hour. Why should people be dying from an illness that we have a vaccine for? It makes zero sense. If these parents really love their kids, why would they put them at that risk?
Penn and Teller say it best in the video linked here. Anti-vaccination is bullshit!
Saturday, 1 November 2014
The New Modern Super Powers.
I've come to the conclusion that reading comprehension and critical thought are fast becoming super powers. Rare gifts that only the few special people possess.
Quite frequently, it seems that knickers get knotted, tempers rise and people everywhere get themselves worked up into a right old state over a non-issue that could have been avoided simply if they bothered to read the source properly.
The event that has brought this up for me is not a new thing. A pseudo-news site (although not noticeably a satire or troll site) took a fragment of an article out of context and turned it into something totally different.
I think it's probably best if you begin with the original article. Time Magazine's article about the surge in popularity of the TV Witch. I found it to be an interesting piece about how witches are currently film and tv winners. The fascination with witches and a bit of history and opinion about why this is.
A quote from a book, explaining some of the hysteria around witch-hunts (specifically the Salem Witch Trials) became the basis for this piece of ... well, I can only call this trolling. Actually, a number of words leap to mind, but I'm not going to use them. This little shit-stir article that is doing the rounds of facebook and getting the "more persecuted than everyone else" brigade all up on their high broomsticks.
It's even led to this piece of head-deskery.
I found a great blog post that summed up my issues. It can be found here.
Sadly though, there will be people who think that Time has given Witches and Pagans a Bad Name. Most either will not bother to go and read the original, or if they do, they'll skim it to find the bits they can be offended by.
What they don't seem to realise is that their whining, hand-wringing pleas of "an offensive portrayal of a positive religion" actually do far more damage to paganism and witchcraft than what they think the article said could ever do.
Simple reading comprehension - reading through an entire article and concentrating enough to absorb what is really being said - shows that such a reaction is completely unfounded. Nothing in the Time article had any relevance at all to modern witchcraft or paganism. But who cares right? Who lets the truth or reality get in the way of a good tantrum and moan.
Let's make all witches and pagans seem like a group of ignorant whiny little bitches who can't read properly. That's so much better.
Even sadder, it seems to be a trend. I made the mistake of not going back to read the original for a similar type of shit-stir "this big reputable media outlet just said something really offensive" article a few months ago. I felt a bit of a twat when I realised what I'd done.
I applaud the writer at The Inquisitr for misrepresenting the original so badly. As I know from personal experience, the writers get paid by page views and she'll be laughing all the way to the bank from this one.
There are writers making money from taking snippets of articles, twisting them into something attention grabbing and playing mind games with readers. They'll keep doing it too, because reading the original without buying into the bias placed on it by the muck-raking article takes critical thought, it takes the ability to comprehend what you read and as I said at the start, they seem to be extremely rare super powers.
Blessings
Debbie
Quite frequently, it seems that knickers get knotted, tempers rise and people everywhere get themselves worked up into a right old state over a non-issue that could have been avoided simply if they bothered to read the source properly.
The event that has brought this up for me is not a new thing. A pseudo-news site (although not noticeably a satire or troll site) took a fragment of an article out of context and turned it into something totally different.
I think it's probably best if you begin with the original article. Time Magazine's article about the surge in popularity of the TV Witch. I found it to be an interesting piece about how witches are currently film and tv winners. The fascination with witches and a bit of history and opinion about why this is.
A quote from a book, explaining some of the hysteria around witch-hunts (specifically the Salem Witch Trials) became the basis for this piece of ... well, I can only call this trolling. Actually, a number of words leap to mind, but I'm not going to use them. This little shit-stir article that is doing the rounds of facebook and getting the "more persecuted than everyone else" brigade all up on their high broomsticks.
It's even led to this piece of head-deskery.
I found a great blog post that summed up my issues. It can be found here.
Sadly though, there will be people who think that Time has given Witches and Pagans a Bad Name. Most either will not bother to go and read the original, or if they do, they'll skim it to find the bits they can be offended by.
What they don't seem to realise is that their whining, hand-wringing pleas of "an offensive portrayal of a positive religion" actually do far more damage to paganism and witchcraft than what they think the article said could ever do.
Simple reading comprehension - reading through an entire article and concentrating enough to absorb what is really being said - shows that such a reaction is completely unfounded. Nothing in the Time article had any relevance at all to modern witchcraft or paganism. But who cares right? Who lets the truth or reality get in the way of a good tantrum and moan.
Let's make all witches and pagans seem like a group of ignorant whiny little bitches who can't read properly. That's so much better.
Even sadder, it seems to be a trend. I made the mistake of not going back to read the original for a similar type of shit-stir "this big reputable media outlet just said something really offensive" article a few months ago. I felt a bit of a twat when I realised what I'd done.
I applaud the writer at The Inquisitr for misrepresenting the original so badly. As I know from personal experience, the writers get paid by page views and she'll be laughing all the way to the bank from this one.
There are writers making money from taking snippets of articles, twisting them into something attention grabbing and playing mind games with readers. They'll keep doing it too, because reading the original without buying into the bias placed on it by the muck-raking article takes critical thought, it takes the ability to comprehend what you read and as I said at the start, they seem to be extremely rare super powers.
Blessings
Debbie
Friday, 31 October 2014
Yet Another Halloween Rant.
Last year I had a bit of a rant about Halloween.
This year, Halloween has inspired me again, but in a different direction.
Just like last year, the people preaching, judging and making claims about what everyone else should and shouldn't be celebrating has been a theme this week not just on facebook, but also on our local news website.
Everywhere I look this week, I seem to be confronted by people complaining about other people's choices. Choices that in no way have any real impact on the complainants, no effect at all except to offend their sensibilities or in other words, be different from their own choices.
When it comes down to it, I know the origins of Halloween. I know the connections to Samhain, I know that it's changed over the years, generations and geography. I'm quite over having to explain that Halloween is not the same as Samhain. The origins are cool to know, but they're not relevant to every single discussion or mention of Halloween. Nine times out of ten, no one cares and the person pontificating again just gets ignored.
As such, I'm quite baffled by all the people who think they have some right to tell everyone else that they can't celebrate anything in the way they want to. My news feed this morning was filled with New Zealand pagans and witches moaning about how often they have to tell people that it's Beltaine, not Samhain and so they shouldn't be dressing their kids up in scary costumes for school parties or to go trick or treating.
Hang on, who gave any of you the right to dictate such a thing? And isn't this the kind of thing you complain about when someone else does it to you?
Why do you care so much what other people choose to do with their time? How does that affect you at all?
As I said elsewhere, celebrate what has meaning to you. Don't celebrate the things that don't have meaning to you. Don't rain on the parade of anyone else doing the same.
In other words, Wheaton's Law applies - don't be a dick.
Blessings
Debbie
This year, Halloween has inspired me again, but in a different direction.
Just like last year, the people preaching, judging and making claims about what everyone else should and shouldn't be celebrating has been a theme this week not just on facebook, but also on our local news website.
Everywhere I look this week, I seem to be confronted by people complaining about other people's choices. Choices that in no way have any real impact on the complainants, no effect at all except to offend their sensibilities or in other words, be different from their own choices.
When it comes down to it, I know the origins of Halloween. I know the connections to Samhain, I know that it's changed over the years, generations and geography. I'm quite over having to explain that Halloween is not the same as Samhain. The origins are cool to know, but they're not relevant to every single discussion or mention of Halloween. Nine times out of ten, no one cares and the person pontificating again just gets ignored.
As such, I'm quite baffled by all the people who think they have some right to tell everyone else that they can't celebrate anything in the way they want to. My news feed this morning was filled with New Zealand pagans and witches moaning about how often they have to tell people that it's Beltaine, not Samhain and so they shouldn't be dressing their kids up in scary costumes for school parties or to go trick or treating.
Hang on, who gave any of you the right to dictate such a thing? And isn't this the kind of thing you complain about when someone else does it to you?
Why do you care so much what other people choose to do with their time? How does that affect you at all?
As I said elsewhere, celebrate what has meaning to you. Don't celebrate the things that don't have meaning to you. Don't rain on the parade of anyone else doing the same.
In other words, Wheaton's Law applies - don't be a dick.
Blessings
Debbie
Tuesday, 16 September 2014
Spelling in your Spelling
Many years ago, I found an article online, I think it was called "A Pegan at the Alter: Why Spelling is Important". It may possibly have been a Themestream article. I thought I knew who had written it, but when I do a search, I can find most of her writings from that time frame, but not this one.
*shrugs*
I am a geek when it comes to spelling, punctuation and grammar. I've never quite made it to Grammar Nazi status - there are a few things I'm just a bit lazy or rusty on and I got to see how obnoxious it was when my daughter and her friends were doing it. However, I find that I lose the message if it's badly presented. I glaze over if a sentence starts to look more like computer coding - b4 gr8 - aren't they coordinates on a chessboard? Or if there are too many letters or numbers in place of words - r u able 2 b ready? It's not as though there are too many places where you have a character limit anymore. Text messaging charges are far more flexible - I do remember the bad old days and going through $20 credit in a day, 20c a text message back then, and you had only 80 characters I think - although having to scroll through them in capital letters was a bit painful. Facebook got rid of the character limit on posts. I think Twitter still has them, but half the attraction for twitter is the little bites of life.
I don't see any excuse for the sloppy spelling when damn near every interface that you are typing into these days has a spell-check built in. Yes, I do often tend to ignore some of the red squiggly lines because I'm not American and I totally reject putting z in everything and taking out the u. But that doesn't account for some of the really awful spelling that is still consistently in use. Predictive text and autocorrect should be able to help out too - even if some of their fails are highly amusing. Ironically as I write this, the only word in that paragraph that has a little red squiggly spelling notification is autocorrect.
Someone recently invited everyone to a new facebook group they'd created. Tragically, in the name and in the url was "peganism". It made it hard to take it seriously. I frequently see people posting pictures of their "alters" and it drives me crazy. I can cope a little with "insense" because sometimes there are words that I just can't put together on that day and I rely on the red squiggly line to help me out with them.
Some words that have come from Hebrew have multiple options for spelling. I can cope with that. The vowels are usually left out so QBL can be spelled Qabala, Qabballah, Cabala, Cabballah, Kabala or Kabballah or any variation thereof. It took me a while to get my head around that one and after seeing a comment about it today, I'm clearly not the only one.
For the record, an ALTAR is a table used as sacred space, ALTER means to change or is a shortened version of Alter-Ego.
You cast a spell, you will cast a spell and you have cast a spell. At no time is the past tense "casted". It's like talking to my 8-year old. I'm frequently having to explain the unusual past tense words to her - brought and not bringed, caught and not catched.
There seem to be a few jokes about Witches having bad spelling, but jokes aside, I do have to wonder how successful you can be in your magic if your basic written language is so lacking.
To create successful magic requires more than just intent, regardless of what the latest still-wet-behind-the-ears, fluffy beginner might try to preach. Intent is a great place to start - as I've said more times than I can count - but it is not all of the story and stopping there can cause all sorts of misfires, unexpected outcomes and magical mistakes.
Successful magic requires precision, both of thought and of deed. It requires specifics, you can't have vagueness or generalisations unless you want a vague and muddy outcome.
How does this relate to lousy spelling?
It's quite simple really. Above I've explained how there really is no excuse for bad spelling any more. It takes willful laziness and a total disregard for other people to still be spelling so badly. My former brother in law used to say things like "If it's any constellation, or to be pacific" but then when gently told what the correct forms were "consolation and specific" he'd get all pissy like I was being horribly rude to him and say "listen to what I mean, not what I say". Then he'd go on to keep using the words wrongly, knowing they were wrong.
Listen to what I mean, not what I say.
How does that work exactly? How do you know for sure what he means if his words suggest something different?
So this becomes laziness and arrogance and willful stupidity at times. It shows a complete disrespect for people around you by telling them that they should just 'know' what you really mean.
Now let's transplant that little snippet of personality into a magical setting shall we? People don't suddenly change persona when they're spell-casting. You have laziness and arrogance and willful stupidity mixed with a spell to create change in the world. A spell using magic, which as I said, takes the path of least resistance. So if the easiest path is not clear, if it has been lazily constructed and has several possible interpretations - which would translate as several easy paths - can we now see how this becomes a problem?
I'm not saying that none of their magic would work but that there is huge potential for muddy results.
In any magical setting, I was always taught to be careful what you "put out there" and that words have power. Think about what the wrong words could do when put out there.
Blessings
Debbie
*shrugs*
Spelling and Grammar
I am a geek when it comes to spelling, punctuation and grammar. I've never quite made it to Grammar Nazi status - there are a few things I'm just a bit lazy or rusty on and I got to see how obnoxious it was when my daughter and her friends were doing it. However, I find that I lose the message if it's badly presented. I glaze over if a sentence starts to look more like computer coding - b4 gr8 - aren't they coordinates on a chessboard? Or if there are too many letters or numbers in place of words - r u able 2 b ready? It's not as though there are too many places where you have a character limit anymore. Text messaging charges are far more flexible - I do remember the bad old days and going through $20 credit in a day, 20c a text message back then, and you had only 80 characters I think - although having to scroll through them in capital letters was a bit painful. Facebook got rid of the character limit on posts. I think Twitter still has them, but half the attraction for twitter is the little bites of life.
I don't see any excuse for the sloppy spelling when damn near every interface that you are typing into these days has a spell-check built in. Yes, I do often tend to ignore some of the red squiggly lines because I'm not American and I totally reject putting z in everything and taking out the u. But that doesn't account for some of the really awful spelling that is still consistently in use. Predictive text and autocorrect should be able to help out too - even if some of their fails are highly amusing. Ironically as I write this, the only word in that paragraph that has a little red squiggly spelling notification is autocorrect.
Someone recently invited everyone to a new facebook group they'd created. Tragically, in the name and in the url was "peganism". It made it hard to take it seriously. I frequently see people posting pictures of their "alters" and it drives me crazy. I can cope a little with "insense" because sometimes there are words that I just can't put together on that day and I rely on the red squiggly line to help me out with them.
Some words that have come from Hebrew have multiple options for spelling. I can cope with that. The vowels are usually left out so QBL can be spelled Qabala, Qabballah, Cabala, Cabballah, Kabala or Kabballah or any variation thereof. It took me a while to get my head around that one and after seeing a comment about it today, I'm clearly not the only one.
For the record, an ALTAR is a table used as sacred space, ALTER means to change or is a shortened version of Alter-Ego.
You cast a spell, you will cast a spell and you have cast a spell. At no time is the past tense "casted". It's like talking to my 8-year old. I'm frequently having to explain the unusual past tense words to her - brought and not bringed, caught and not catched.
The Witches Who Can't Spell
There seem to be a few jokes about Witches having bad spelling, but jokes aside, I do have to wonder how successful you can be in your magic if your basic written language is so lacking.
To create successful magic requires more than just intent, regardless of what the latest still-wet-behind-the-ears, fluffy beginner might try to preach. Intent is a great place to start - as I've said more times than I can count - but it is not all of the story and stopping there can cause all sorts of misfires, unexpected outcomes and magical mistakes.
Successful magic requires precision, both of thought and of deed. It requires specifics, you can't have vagueness or generalisations unless you want a vague and muddy outcome.
How does this relate to lousy spelling?
It's quite simple really. Above I've explained how there really is no excuse for bad spelling any more. It takes willful laziness and a total disregard for other people to still be spelling so badly. My former brother in law used to say things like "If it's any constellation, or to be pacific" but then when gently told what the correct forms were "consolation and specific" he'd get all pissy like I was being horribly rude to him and say "listen to what I mean, not what I say". Then he'd go on to keep using the words wrongly, knowing they were wrong.
Listen to what I mean, not what I say.
How does that work exactly? How do you know for sure what he means if his words suggest something different?
So this becomes laziness and arrogance and willful stupidity at times. It shows a complete disrespect for people around you by telling them that they should just 'know' what you really mean.
Now let's transplant that little snippet of personality into a magical setting shall we? People don't suddenly change persona when they're spell-casting. You have laziness and arrogance and willful stupidity mixed with a spell to create change in the world. A spell using magic, which as I said, takes the path of least resistance. So if the easiest path is not clear, if it has been lazily constructed and has several possible interpretations - which would translate as several easy paths - can we now see how this becomes a problem?
I'm not saying that none of their magic would work but that there is huge potential for muddy results.
In any magical setting, I was always taught to be careful what you "put out there" and that words have power. Think about what the wrong words could do when put out there.
Blessings
Debbie
Thursday, 10 July 2014
Discharge without Conviction
Over the past week or so there has been a lot of debate, well not much debate, more just public outcry about the Maori King's son, Korotangi Paki, getting discharged without conviction. If you've been living under a rock and don't know what this was about then Google is your friend.
What has disturbed me most is the self righteous indignation and pseudo legal arguments by many people who believe that this avenue was only made available because of some privilege afforded to him as the son of the Maori King. Let the punishment fit the crime has been the catch cry of the week. Unfortunately what people don't seem to comprehend is that this is exactly what the judge was doing when ordering a discharge without conviction.
Let's look at the what seems to have fueled so much debate. When a judge has to decide on what punishment to impose they look at legislation such as the Crimes Act 1961 and the Sentencing Act 2002. Within in these Acts are the rules around sentencing and the minimum and/or maximum penalties for each offense. These penalties have been determined by lawmakers (politicians) and is a guideline for the courts when deciding on a sentence, taking into account things like the age of the offender, remorse, if and when they plead guilty etc (s9 Sentencing Act 2002 outlines the possible aggravating and mitigating factors).
Lawmakers understand that there are times when people are just stupid and do stupid things, or sometimes find themselves in unfortunate situations. They realise that the act of receiving a conviction, even if the penalty is simply a fine, would unduly place a burden on the offenders that is disproportionate to the original offense. For lots of people a conviction would ruin careers or negatively impact future opportunities, and in the case of Korotangi Paki, it would have affected his eligibility for succession.
Section 106 of the Sentencing Act 2002 states:
s106 Discharge without conviction
-
(1) If a person who is charged with an offence is found guilty or pleads guilty, the court may discharge the offender without conviction, unless by any enactment applicable to the offence the court is required to impose a minimum sentence.
(2) A discharge under this section is deemed to be an acquittal.
(3) A court discharging an offender under this section may—
-
(a) make an order for payment of costs or the restitution of any property; or
-
(b) make any order for the payment of any sum that the court thinks fair and reasonable to compensate any person who, through, or by means of, the offence, has suffered—
-
(i) loss of, or damage to, property; or
-
(ii) emotional harm; or
-
(iii) loss or damage consequential on any emotional or physical harm or loss of, or damage to, property:
-
(c) make any order that the court is required to make on conviction.
(1) If a person who is charged with an offence is found guilty or pleads guilty, the court may discharge the offender without conviction, unless by any enactment applicable to the offence the court is required to impose a minimum sentence.
(2) A discharge under this section is deemed to be an acquittal.
(3) A court discharging an offender under this section may—
- (a) make an order for payment of costs or the restitution of any property; or
- (b) make any order for the payment of any sum that the court thinks fair and reasonable to compensate any person who, through, or by means of, the offence, has suffered—
- (i) loss of, or damage to, property; or
- (ii) emotional harm; or
- (iii) loss or damage consequential on any emotional or physical harm or loss of, or damage to, property:
- (c) make any order that the court is required to make on conviction.
This means that if there is no minimum sentence that must be imposed for the crime, then the court can discharge without conviction. Section 107 specifies that it must be because a conviction would make the punishment outweigh the crime.
s107 Guidance for discharge without conviction
- The court must not discharge an offender without conviction unless the court is satisfied that the direct and indirect consequences of a conviction would be out of all proportion to the gravity of the offence.
You may have heard of Diversion - which essentially has the same result and is at the discretion of the police - it doesn't even get to the courts.
Both Diversion and Discharge without Conviction are life savers for many young adults who don't know better and older ones who should. You may not even realise that there are people you know who have been given diversion or a discharge earlier in their life. People you wouldn't consider hardened criminals, who made a mistake, and instead of having that conviction hanging over them for their lives, have been given a second chance.
One Law for All
Let's go back to Korotangi Paki. People believe he was given the discharge because he was the Maori King's son. Yes and no. There was no special privilege afforded to him because he is the King's son. It was because by being convicted he would not be able to become King someday. There is a difference. If Paki was his second son (with no right of succession) or if there was no restriction to succession based on his criminal record, then the argument, of the punishment being unduly severe, would not be supported.
Let's look at this from another point of view. I've read so many arguments and had discussions with people based on the fact that there is some special privilege for Paki because of his father. What they fail to realise and even when they're told specifically, is that this isn't a privilege set aside for a select few. It's available to all of us, based on the circumstances of our crime and lives. If you commit a minor crime, because you're a dumb ass, that carries no minimum penalty, and can show that to be convicted of such you would experience undue hardship - perhaps be disbarred, be deregistered as a teacher, be kicked out of school or uni, who knows, and that this hardship is disproportionate to the crime you committed and the penalty imposed for that crime, then you too can try for a discharge without conviction. You don't have to be the son, or daughter, of anyone special.
Let the punishment fit the crime.
Should he have been punished? Yes, I believe so. He did commit a crime and in s106 there is a provision to make an order for payment of costs, restitution of property or compensation to the victims. Without knowing the specifics of the case, because that was not the focus of any of the 'news' articles, I don't know if there was any order made for this. But lets look at the case. He drove while under the influence, and while out drunk with a few mates, as stupid dumb asses do, flogged a couple of surfboards and some clothes. No harm to person or property was reported. While I think he should have been punished, and fair and reasonable compensation should have been ordered, stripping him of the ability to become king is too severe for the nature of his crime. A discharge without conviction, is fair and justified, in my opinion.
What really pisses me off about this saga is that in the time since the furor over Paki's discharge, the front page of Stuff has had two articles where people have been given a discharge without conviction for assault, where neither were reported to be the son of the Maori King or anyone else of significant media worthy note. I've tried to create discussion about them on various websites, and Facebook pages, and the only ones who dare reply have been friends who understand the law aka lawyers, and someone who genuinely didn't know that discharge without conviction was a valid thing so didn't know that it wasn't just something for the privileged few.
But he's a role model - if he does this he shouldn't be king.
Do people really think that he was a role model? A role model is someone we point out to our children as being someone to look up to. Before this happened could anyone honestly, and I mean honestly, say that they knew who Paki was, or had put him in a place where their children were to emulate him? If you're like me, and 99% of NZ I'm willing to bet, you had no idea who the Maori King's son was let alone thought of telling your kids to follow his example. This is just an excuse to pile more crap on the kid.
Racism in NZ
I wasn't going to mention this but I can't ignore the fact that under the thinly veiled guise of one law for all, there has been a rather racist reaction to this case. I'm not talking about people who genuinely had no idea that discharge was available to all. However even when the discharge is explained there is still a large number of people who are using this to make race based comments (there's a Facebook group I know of - not the only one I suspect - that is quite blatant with this) and that really angers and saddens me. I thought we were better than that as a nation. Unfortunately, every now and then I'm proven wrong.
Monday, 10 February 2014
Speaking Ill of the Dead
In a recent discussion about old traditions, this one came up. It came up specifically to have a crack at me because I’d dared to say that someone recently deceased “could be a twat at times”. I’m sure, if you didn’t already see it, you can imagine the shock and disgust this has raised - but has left me rather baffled on many levels. And not just because of the primary school tale-telling shit-stir way it was raised and treated.
You see, I never heard this expression until my late teens. Both my grandmothers were absolute bounties of superstitions and folk traditions, but I first heard this from a friend’s mother and my response at the time was “why on earth not?”
I have never been able to stomach those people who can’t stand someone when they’re alive but turn them into a saint on their passing. I’ve ended a friendship with a young lady who barely tolerated her partner, they fought (sometimes with physical violence) and she frequently ran him down - all while he was alive. After his suicide, even up to a year afterwards (which was roughly when I broke contact), it was true love and she just couldn’t possibly carry on living without him.
The people since that I’ve heard it from usually say it as they say something unkind about someone who has passed. “Shouldn’t speak ill of the dead but…” Is that better somehow? I’ve understood it to be similar to those who say “I don’t want to complain but…” I’m reminded of a line from Game of Thrones: “Anything that anyone says before the word ‘but’ is to be ignored.”
I’ve always treated the dead the same as I treat the living. This isn’t news. This is the best way to deal with ghosts and spirits. Any half-decent psychic will tell you that. Why should this suddenly change?
I also struggled with how describing someone’s behaviour counts as Speaking Ill of Them. I didn’t say anything that was untrue from my perspective, I didn’t even say anything remotely nasty. It was described as “extremely disparaging” and “an epithet”. I still maintain that was for dramatic effect from the people running around, telling on me and trying to create drama.
In my bafflement, I went to several people I knew who have a good solid grounding and knowledge of the same folk traditions as the people expressing their shock and horror at my statement. I spoke to them about this ‘tradition’, I asked questions and explained what had happened and my confusion.
In all cases, I was told that you continue to speak to them as you did in life. That you speak to and of them as if they were right next to you. Which is exactly what I did.
So all of this has left me even more baffled. I followed folk tradition to the letter - albeit unknowingly - because this is what I believe in. Do those who claim to follow folk tradition have less of a grasp of it? Or has it changed with more politically correct times?
The chap in question is more than welcome to come and speak to me about it. I have no issues regarding communicating with the deceased, but he hasn’t so far and I’m sure he’s aware of it.
Blessings
Debbie
You see, I never heard this expression until my late teens. Both my grandmothers were absolute bounties of superstitions and folk traditions, but I first heard this from a friend’s mother and my response at the time was “why on earth not?”
I have never been able to stomach those people who can’t stand someone when they’re alive but turn them into a saint on their passing. I’ve ended a friendship with a young lady who barely tolerated her partner, they fought (sometimes with physical violence) and she frequently ran him down - all while he was alive. After his suicide, even up to a year afterwards (which was roughly when I broke contact), it was true love and she just couldn’t possibly carry on living without him.
The people since that I’ve heard it from usually say it as they say something unkind about someone who has passed. “Shouldn’t speak ill of the dead but…” Is that better somehow? I’ve understood it to be similar to those who say “I don’t want to complain but…” I’m reminded of a line from Game of Thrones: “Anything that anyone says before the word ‘but’ is to be ignored.”
I’ve always treated the dead the same as I treat the living. This isn’t news. This is the best way to deal with ghosts and spirits. Any half-decent psychic will tell you that. Why should this suddenly change?
I also struggled with how describing someone’s behaviour counts as Speaking Ill of Them. I didn’t say anything that was untrue from my perspective, I didn’t even say anything remotely nasty. It was described as “extremely disparaging” and “an epithet”. I still maintain that was for dramatic effect from the people running around, telling on me and trying to create drama.
In my bafflement, I went to several people I knew who have a good solid grounding and knowledge of the same folk traditions as the people expressing their shock and horror at my statement. I spoke to them about this ‘tradition’, I asked questions and explained what had happened and my confusion.
In all cases, I was told that you continue to speak to them as you did in life. That you speak to and of them as if they were right next to you. Which is exactly what I did.
So all of this has left me even more baffled. I followed folk tradition to the letter - albeit unknowingly - because this is what I believe in. Do those who claim to follow folk tradition have less of a grasp of it? Or has it changed with more politically correct times?
The chap in question is more than welcome to come and speak to me about it. I have no issues regarding communicating with the deceased, but he hasn’t so far and I’m sure he’s aware of it.
Blessings
Debbie
Monday, 27 January 2014
Misused Words
There have been a number of pictures and memes doing the rounds lately that point out commonly misused words or phrases in the English language.
So far, I'd have to say this is my personal favourite:
And sometimes it's just that maybe you didn't pay enough attention in school.
With kids, we're constantly correcting them on their words and while they may get frustrated, we usually manage to stop them saying things like "catched the ball" or "buyed it from the shops". Our teens we work on the over used words that lose all meaning - "Like, actually, I mean, you know?"
Sometimes with adults it can be a little harder. But generally, intelligent adults will look it up, feel embarrassed and make a point of not misusing that word in future. "To be pacific, if it's any constellation to you..."
Why is it so different in spiritual circles?
There are a number of Hindi words that are commonly misused and I know there is no way to change it - that horse has well and truly bolted. But when I have found myself educated on what the word (and underlying concept) really means, I have made a point of not misusing that word (or concept) any further. Isn't that the right thing to do? I don't see the sense in continuing to use it to mean something different "Just because everyone understands what I mean."
Karma. Most commonly used to mean do bad things and bad things will happen to you. Sometimes used to mean much the same thing but do bad things in this life and your next life will be crappy. It turns out that both are somewhat incorrect.
A chap in several groups I frequent was raised Hindi, this is a bugbear of his. He tirelessly explains (over and over) that it's not that at all. Karma is tied to Samsara which is a purely Hindi concept. If you're not Hindu, you don't have Samsara and therefore no Karma. To break it down even further, it may be your Karma to be a shit in this life, there are lessons for your soul to learn by being a shit. You might think (as many do) that by not being a shit and doing good things you are earning good karma but this is not the case. You'd be going against your karma and therefore it would in fact be bad karma.
I really wish I'd saved one of his patient and polite rants to share it verbatim here.
Devas is another misunderstood term. Deva means 'deity' - the feminine is Devi which means Goddess. (And a source of amusement for me when my Indian friends couldn't pronounce the 'b' in Debbie and ended up calling me Devi). This is the root from which Divine, Deity and similar meaning words in many European languages has come from.
In the Vedas and the Upanishads, there are 33 Devas mentioned. Some are personifications (or deified personifications) of forces of nature and some are (deified) personifications of moral values. The Vasus are the forces of nature - they are or represent; Earth, Hot Fire, Wind, Space, Eternal, Moon, Sky and Stars.
Somehow in modern usage, deva has come to mean the spirits of the land and plants around you. I've read of this in books and heard it said (although not that commonly).
Again though, when the error is pointed out the response is "it's a widely used term known to mean this".
At what point does this sort of thing become okay? If you know a word is incorrect, why would you continue to use it? Am I a prat for pointing it out or are you the prat for knowingly misusing a word?
Blessings
Debbie
So far, I'd have to say this is my personal favourite:
Now, at some stage or another, I'm sure most of us have been guilty of using some words wrongly. Sometimes it could simply be a case of you've never seen it written down and are going completely by ear.
Sometimes with adults it can be a little harder. But generally, intelligent adults will look it up, feel embarrassed and make a point of not misusing that word in future. "To be pacific, if it's any constellation to you..."
Why is it so different in spiritual circles?
There are a number of Hindi words that are commonly misused and I know there is no way to change it - that horse has well and truly bolted. But when I have found myself educated on what the word (and underlying concept) really means, I have made a point of not misusing that word (or concept) any further. Isn't that the right thing to do? I don't see the sense in continuing to use it to mean something different "Just because everyone understands what I mean."
Karma. Most commonly used to mean do bad things and bad things will happen to you. Sometimes used to mean much the same thing but do bad things in this life and your next life will be crappy. It turns out that both are somewhat incorrect.
A chap in several groups I frequent was raised Hindi, this is a bugbear of his. He tirelessly explains (over and over) that it's not that at all. Karma is tied to Samsara which is a purely Hindi concept. If you're not Hindu, you don't have Samsara and therefore no Karma. To break it down even further, it may be your Karma to be a shit in this life, there are lessons for your soul to learn by being a shit. You might think (as many do) that by not being a shit and doing good things you are earning good karma but this is not the case. You'd be going against your karma and therefore it would in fact be bad karma.
I really wish I'd saved one of his patient and polite rants to share it verbatim here.
Devas is another misunderstood term. Deva means 'deity' - the feminine is Devi which means Goddess. (And a source of amusement for me when my Indian friends couldn't pronounce the 'b' in Debbie and ended up calling me Devi). This is the root from which Divine, Deity and similar meaning words in many European languages has come from.
In the Vedas and the Upanishads, there are 33 Devas mentioned. Some are personifications (or deified personifications) of forces of nature and some are (deified) personifications of moral values. The Vasus are the forces of nature - they are or represent; Earth, Hot Fire, Wind, Space, Eternal, Moon, Sky and Stars.
Somehow in modern usage, deva has come to mean the spirits of the land and plants around you. I've read of this in books and heard it said (although not that commonly).
Again though, when the error is pointed out the response is "it's a widely used term known to mean this".
At what point does this sort of thing become okay? If you know a word is incorrect, why would you continue to use it? Am I a prat for pointing it out or are you the prat for knowingly misusing a word?
Blessings
Debbie
Thursday, 31 October 2013
Hallowe'en Time Again
*Sigh*
It's Hallowe'en again, with all it's related dramas. We have Southern Hemisphere Pagans saying it's not Hallowe'en because it's Beltaine.
Well, no, that's not actually true. Hallowe'en is a Catholic/Christian vigil for the night before All Saints Day. It's Hallowe'en on October 31st regardless of where in the world you are, it's just not Samhain for us on that date.
Then there are the Pagans who find traditional, historically correct depictions of witches offensive and use Hallowe'en as their soapbox to bleat about it. Let's get real for a moment. Before the 1950s, when Gardner redefined it, witchcraft meant malicious folk magic. The cunning folk of the past thousand years that we're trying to reconstruct or emulate would have been horrified at being referred to as "witches". Many of the spells I've been reading in old books are protection against witchcraft. Please note - not protection against bad witchcraft, or against evil witchcraft or against black, malicious, malevolent or anything else witchcraft - just protection against witchcraft.
Just because one group have chosen to use a word does not automatically give them the right to redefine it for everyone else or for the rest of history. It is not religious discrimination or bigotry to depict or define witches as evil, ugly old hags - it's the correct traditional meaning.
Then there is this kind of rubbish - while yes, most of the principles are sound, I'm still struggling with the whole dictating what treats are suitable to give to random children coming to your door. But I also have issues with this asshattery again while agreeing in principle.
To be honest, I struggle with the whole Trick or Treat thing at Hallowe'en anyway. Maybe it's because here in New Zealand it's only just starting to be done. In my 40 years I've seen two trick or treaters come to my door - ever.
My issues are that we spend the entire year teaching our children not to take sweets from strangers, but on that one night, we're supposed to totally contradict ourselves and send them out to demand it?
And then if you don't like what you get for your demands it's okay to commit acts of vandalism?
I find this a bit of an issue. Maybe it's because I'm the mother of a child on the autism spectrum - I can't have "sometimes" rules. The rule is either this or it's that. If there is one loophole then the rule is invalid. I don't think this kind of consistency is a bad thing for any parent - regardless of whether or not your child is autistic in any way.
I've read the Celtic history and some that were worse than that too. I know the practical history. This was the last night of hijinks before Winter had you closed up indoors. If all of your food for the coming winter wasn't prepared and stored properly (or if you hadn't saved enough) there was a high chance you'd die before spring.
Given that these are no longer issues in our society, is it still a relevant thing to celebrate?
Given that I've been hearing stories about poisoned or drugged "treats" being handed out by sickos for the last 20 years, is it a safe thing to celebrate? Even with parental supervision.
Given that we're constantly complaining about the sense of entitlement youth seem to have, that kids today have no manners or respect for anything, why would we encourage it even once a year?
Either way
Happy Hallowe'en :p
It's Hallowe'en again, with all it's related dramas. We have Southern Hemisphere Pagans saying it's not Hallowe'en because it's Beltaine.
Well, no, that's not actually true. Hallowe'en is a Catholic/Christian vigil for the night before All Saints Day. It's Hallowe'en on October 31st regardless of where in the world you are, it's just not Samhain for us on that date.
Then there are the Pagans who find traditional, historically correct depictions of witches offensive and use Hallowe'en as their soapbox to bleat about it. Let's get real for a moment. Before the 1950s, when Gardner redefined it, witchcraft meant malicious folk magic. The cunning folk of the past thousand years that we're trying to reconstruct or emulate would have been horrified at being referred to as "witches". Many of the spells I've been reading in old books are protection against witchcraft. Please note - not protection against bad witchcraft, or against evil witchcraft or against black, malicious, malevolent or anything else witchcraft - just protection against witchcraft.
Just because one group have chosen to use a word does not automatically give them the right to redefine it for everyone else or for the rest of history. It is not religious discrimination or bigotry to depict or define witches as evil, ugly old hags - it's the correct traditional meaning.
Then there is this kind of rubbish - while yes, most of the principles are sound, I'm still struggling with the whole dictating what treats are suitable to give to random children coming to your door. But I also have issues with this asshattery again while agreeing in principle.
To be honest, I struggle with the whole Trick or Treat thing at Hallowe'en anyway. Maybe it's because here in New Zealand it's only just starting to be done. In my 40 years I've seen two trick or treaters come to my door - ever.
My issues are that we spend the entire year teaching our children not to take sweets from strangers, but on that one night, we're supposed to totally contradict ourselves and send them out to demand it?
And then if you don't like what you get for your demands it's okay to commit acts of vandalism?
I find this a bit of an issue. Maybe it's because I'm the mother of a child on the autism spectrum - I can't have "sometimes" rules. The rule is either this or it's that. If there is one loophole then the rule is invalid. I don't think this kind of consistency is a bad thing for any parent - regardless of whether or not your child is autistic in any way.
I've read the Celtic history and some that were worse than that too. I know the practical history. This was the last night of hijinks before Winter had you closed up indoors. If all of your food for the coming winter wasn't prepared and stored properly (or if you hadn't saved enough) there was a high chance you'd die before spring.
Given that these are no longer issues in our society, is it still a relevant thing to celebrate?
Given that I've been hearing stories about poisoned or drugged "treats" being handed out by sickos for the last 20 years, is it a safe thing to celebrate? Even with parental supervision.
Given that we're constantly complaining about the sense of entitlement youth seem to have, that kids today have no manners or respect for anything, why would we encourage it even once a year?
Either way
Happy Hallowe'en :p
Tuesday, 15 October 2013
Isms and Oppressive Societal Systems
So my day has just been soured with a discussion about the power of -isms. Racism and sexism to be specific.
When I say soured, well, let me summarise the discussion:
A black man made light-hearted jest about how he'd spent last week surrounded by 8 menstruating women - and survived.
He got a barrage of abuse about how it was a terribly sexist thing to say and perpetuates the oppressive system of gender stereotyping.
Maybe it's an older woman thing but we use men's hormones against them all the time. It's a commonly acknowledged 'truth' that men are like linoleum - if you lay them right the first time, you can walk all over them forever. At least half of the media advertising that is aimed at men is designed purely to get them thinking with the wrong head and if that isn't using their hormones against them what is? Sex sells and it sells to men most commonly.
It continued and the original chap was cast as the Terrible Misogynist Oppressor making jokes at women's expense - worse than what I've just posted above. I commented at this point. I felt that this woman was projecting her own issues and that commenting on a fact doesn't not equal prejudice.
Apparently letting the little -isms slide because it's come from someone who "doesn't really mean it" is what enforces the big -ism mindsets and institutionalises the oppressive systems. This is offensive to the educated and empowered women out there.
As a strong, educated and empowered woman, I found the rampant sexism in this woman's post to be more offensive than his observation. Let's be honest, when we're menstruating, women usually are more moody, sometimes irrational and sometimes just downright crazy. My teenage daughter went through a patch of going into a violent rage with only the merest provocation (and sometimes none at all) when she was pre-menstrual. Denying these facts - or implying that they're faulty through some sort of "everyone knows" pseudo-science - is to demean us as women. And the hardest thing for me is that women are the worst for doing it.
I struggle with the way women are expected to be in the workforce. I remember a woman I worked with who had every fourth Monday off work. It didn't take a lot of guess work to figure out why, but she was quickly labelled as 'unreliable' and 'needed to get it sorted' and 'it's not an excuse for anything these days, there are all sorts of medicines and products that allow you to just soldier on.' Why should we? Why should we pretend that it doesn't happen? Why are we expected to be the same every day of the month when the truth is that we aren't?
When did we become so de-feminised? (Yes I think I just made up a word). It's come from many of the feminists, sadly. To so many in our modern society, equality with men has come to mean we're the same as men, indistinguishable without some sort of genital examination. That's just not true, it's not fair and it's dishonouring us as women.
This dreadful conversation then went into the realm of totally crazy - she can't be sexist, she's a woman. Just like black people can't be racist. I was then further insulted by being told that I was going by dictionary definitions rather than academic ones and better educated than me people understood the underlying truths of those statements in ways that I really was just not smart enough to grasp. (Not quite those words, but that was the message).
And it went around again to institutionalised -isms and oppressive systems and then white privilege. And I was insulted based on being a white woman, but it wasn't racist because "people of colour cannot be racist".
I bowed out of the conversation at that point. If this is what Universities are teaching, the Gods help the next generation - they'll need it. I'm not the oppressor, how is it reactionary when aimed at me?
The "racist and white privilege" complaint brigade (and worse, those who make claims to being educated and smarter than the rest of us) seem to have missed something. The couple of hundred years of American slavery is apparently the Ultimate Oppressive System. We can't possibly compare it to many more years of Feudalism or Vassalage or Serfdom or the Pogroms or the Inquisition or the Holocaust. We can't be playing games of "more persecuted than thou", we can't even see the "ethnic cleansing" between black tribes that is currently happening in Africa as being remotely similar. No one can complain about any of these things or even discuss them, unless you're part of the oppressed.
All of these isms and this kind of reactionary (or should that be over-reactionary) responses are missing a simple concept. One simple thing that if people could grasp the world could be a better place. But they don't, and then we either have the silly overdone histrionics like the conversation that spawned this blog post, or we have apologetics from people who see their own race or gender as the root of all evil and I find myself feeling embarrassed for them whenever they start apologising for how they were born.
What is this simple concept? We're different and that's okay. It's okay to notice that we're different and sometimes to celebrate our differences. It's not okay to treat someone as less than you because of those differences. Being pro-Women doesn't have to mean being anti-Men. Being proud of your race doesn't have to mean you're discriminating against or oppressing other races.
I attended a friend's Pacific Island Graduation ceremony. This was a special occasion held at the Christchurch Town Hall for the Pacific Island students who were graduating from University that year - it was organised by the Pacific Island group on campus and the only requirement for membership to that group was Pacific Island birth or parentage - ie, Samoan, Tongan, Fijian etc. This was separate from and in addition to the standard graduation ceremony that all students have.
My friend commented that she felt a little sad because if she'd been a white New Zealander she wouldn't have had this extra ceremony. She also commented that she felt sad that you could never create such a group - it would immediately be labelled as racist and white supremacist and you'd be getting death threats. And she was right.
But it can't be racist because it's not white folks doing it. Just like women can't be sexist and other such idiocies.
I read a Ruth Rendell murder mystery. Race was a huge part of the plot. There was a comment that has always stuck with me.
I don't want the world to be Melting Pot like the song says. I like that we're all different. I don't see being all the same as a worthy goal for humanity. If we were all the same the world would be a boring place.
I like that men are men and women are women and all the variations in between. I like that men and women are different, they look different, they think differently, they have different strengths and weaknesses, they smell different, they often react differently to situations, to threats and to emotional events.
I like that black people are different to white people and different again to those from Asia and the Pacific Islands and Australian Aborigines. I like that Germans are so fundamentally different to Italians in so many ways.
I love learning about these differences, I love finding the similarities too but I don't believe that those differences should be ignored or we should pretend those differences don't exist. I think our differences make us special. I know that there will always be those who think that different equals a threat, but there are fewer of them now than there were.
It's okay to be different. It's okay to celebrate those differences. It's time we did more of it.
When I say soured, well, let me summarise the discussion:
A black man made light-hearted jest about how he'd spent last week surrounded by 8 menstruating women - and survived.
He got a barrage of abuse about how it was a terribly sexist thing to say and perpetuates the oppressive system of gender stereotyping.
I shouldn't have to explain to you how dehumanizing the 'crazy hormonal woman' trope is.. I shouldn't have to tell you that sexism banks on the 'irrationality' of 'hormonal' women in order to make us seem less logical and more emotional, ie more 'crazy'.. It's not funny even when men think it is.. Don't forget that you will never have your hormones used against you to make you seem less sane and capable of rational thought..I was left looking at this and saying "Wut?!!"
Maybe it's an older woman thing but we use men's hormones against them all the time. It's a commonly acknowledged 'truth' that men are like linoleum - if you lay them right the first time, you can walk all over them forever. At least half of the media advertising that is aimed at men is designed purely to get them thinking with the wrong head and if that isn't using their hormones against them what is? Sex sells and it sells to men most commonly.
It continued and the original chap was cast as the Terrible Misogynist Oppressor making jokes at women's expense - worse than what I've just posted above. I commented at this point. I felt that this woman was projecting her own issues and that commenting on a fact doesn't not equal prejudice.
Apparently letting the little -isms slide because it's come from someone who "doesn't really mean it" is what enforces the big -ism mindsets and institutionalises the oppressive systems. This is offensive to the educated and empowered women out there.
As a strong, educated and empowered woman, I found the rampant sexism in this woman's post to be more offensive than his observation. Let's be honest, when we're menstruating, women usually are more moody, sometimes irrational and sometimes just downright crazy. My teenage daughter went through a patch of going into a violent rage with only the merest provocation (and sometimes none at all) when she was pre-menstrual. Denying these facts - or implying that they're faulty through some sort of "everyone knows" pseudo-science - is to demean us as women. And the hardest thing for me is that women are the worst for doing it.
I struggle with the way women are expected to be in the workforce. I remember a woman I worked with who had every fourth Monday off work. It didn't take a lot of guess work to figure out why, but she was quickly labelled as 'unreliable' and 'needed to get it sorted' and 'it's not an excuse for anything these days, there are all sorts of medicines and products that allow you to just soldier on.' Why should we? Why should we pretend that it doesn't happen? Why are we expected to be the same every day of the month when the truth is that we aren't?
When did we become so de-feminised? (Yes I think I just made up a word). It's come from many of the feminists, sadly. To so many in our modern society, equality with men has come to mean we're the same as men, indistinguishable without some sort of genital examination. That's just not true, it's not fair and it's dishonouring us as women.
This dreadful conversation then went into the realm of totally crazy - she can't be sexist, she's a woman. Just like black people can't be racist. I was then further insulted by being told that I was going by dictionary definitions rather than academic ones and better educated than me people understood the underlying truths of those statements in ways that I really was just not smart enough to grasp. (Not quite those words, but that was the message).
And it went around again to institutionalised -isms and oppressive systems and then white privilege. And I was insulted based on being a white woman, but it wasn't racist because "people of colour cannot be racist".
What is now being taught in university is that the isms can only be instigated and perpetrated by the Oppressive System, since any examples of said behavior by the oppressed are reactionary.
I bowed out of the conversation at that point. If this is what Universities are teaching, the Gods help the next generation - they'll need it. I'm not the oppressor, how is it reactionary when aimed at me?
The "racist and white privilege" complaint brigade (and worse, those who make claims to being educated and smarter than the rest of us) seem to have missed something. The couple of hundred years of American slavery is apparently the Ultimate Oppressive System. We can't possibly compare it to many more years of Feudalism or Vassalage or Serfdom or the Pogroms or the Inquisition or the Holocaust. We can't be playing games of "more persecuted than thou", we can't even see the "ethnic cleansing" between black tribes that is currently happening in Africa as being remotely similar. No one can complain about any of these things or even discuss them, unless you're part of the oppressed.
All of these isms and this kind of reactionary (or should that be over-reactionary) responses are missing a simple concept. One simple thing that if people could grasp the world could be a better place. But they don't, and then we either have the silly overdone histrionics like the conversation that spawned this blog post, or we have apologetics from people who see their own race or gender as the root of all evil and I find myself feeling embarrassed for them whenever they start apologising for how they were born.
What is this simple concept? We're different and that's okay. It's okay to notice that we're different and sometimes to celebrate our differences. It's not okay to treat someone as less than you because of those differences. Being pro-Women doesn't have to mean being anti-Men. Being proud of your race doesn't have to mean you're discriminating against or oppressing other races.
I attended a friend's Pacific Island Graduation ceremony. This was a special occasion held at the Christchurch Town Hall for the Pacific Island students who were graduating from University that year - it was organised by the Pacific Island group on campus and the only requirement for membership to that group was Pacific Island birth or parentage - ie, Samoan, Tongan, Fijian etc. This was separate from and in addition to the standard graduation ceremony that all students have.
My friend commented that she felt a little sad because if she'd been a white New Zealander she wouldn't have had this extra ceremony. She also commented that she felt sad that you could never create such a group - it would immediately be labelled as racist and white supremacist and you'd be getting death threats. And she was right.
But it can't be racist because it's not white folks doing it. Just like women can't be sexist and other such idiocies.
I read a Ruth Rendell murder mystery. Race was a huge part of the plot. There was a comment that has always stuck with me.
How would you know when someone is truly not racist? When they're told that the person they want is that black fellow over there and they have to ask which one. The one with the yellow tie.So being not racist is to be colour blind too? How can you tell the colour of a tie if you can't see skin colour? Is being aware that there is a different skin colour being discriminatory about it or oppressing that person?
I don't want the world to be Melting Pot like the song says. I like that we're all different. I don't see being all the same as a worthy goal for humanity. If we were all the same the world would be a boring place.
I like that men are men and women are women and all the variations in between. I like that men and women are different, they look different, they think differently, they have different strengths and weaknesses, they smell different, they often react differently to situations, to threats and to emotional events.
I like that black people are different to white people and different again to those from Asia and the Pacific Islands and Australian Aborigines. I like that Germans are so fundamentally different to Italians in so many ways.
I love learning about these differences, I love finding the similarities too but I don't believe that those differences should be ignored or we should pretend those differences don't exist. I think our differences make us special. I know that there will always be those who think that different equals a threat, but there are fewer of them now than there were.
It's okay to be different. It's okay to celebrate those differences. It's time we did more of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)