I am fearful when I see people substituting fear for reason. – Klaatu, The Day the Earth Stood Still
There were too many of these little stories to fit into one column this month, so here without further ado are the rest of them.
Why Not Teach Them Critical Thinking Instead?
The Arizona leadership of the Girl Scouts apparently believes a vital part of teaching girls to become “strong, active, modern women” consists of training them to buy into moral panics without examining the claims upon which the hysteria is based. This story (which was called to my attention by regular reader Joyce) appeared in Modern Times magazine on April 12th:
…Through a partnership formed through the Innocence Lost Phoenix Initiative, the Girl Scouts—Arizona Cactus-Pine Council, has partnered with the Department of Juvenile Corrections to address a population of prostituted children. The program…is a mentor-ship effort intended to help “build girls of courage, confidence, and character who make the world a better place.” The educational prevention program is applied to underage females who have been sexually exploited and are incarcerated…The 16-week course is designed to decrease risk of victimization of minors by addressing issues related to domestic minor sex trafficking, including crime and violence, education, gangs, health, homelessness, sexual exploitation, and substance abuse…
According to “Domestic Minor Sex Trafficking, Child Sex Slavery in Arizona”, a report published in December 2010 by Shared Hope International…the issue is unfortunately alive and well in the Grand Canyon State. According to the report, The Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) of 2000…defined all minors involved in commercial sex acts as victims of trafficking…“The reality is that many domestic minor sex trafficking victims are detained in the criminal justice system under charges of prostitution instead of receiving the services they need and to which they are statutorily entitled,” the report reads…
While the stated aim of the program (assisting juvenile prostitutes trapped in the Arizona prison system) is a laudable one, I’m afraid no good can come of any partnership with the FBI’s “Innocence Lost” scam or “rescue” organizations like Shared Hope. Though the principle of locking up “victims” is rightfully challenged, nobody involved seems willing to question the illogic behind defining all teen hookers as “trafficking victims” even if they were in fact acting voluntarily. Teaching girls credulity and unquestioning acceptance of authority is not any kind of way to make them “strong”.
Porn is Violence Against Women!
I wonder how neofeminist anti-porn crusaders like Gail Dines would spin this April 13th story from CBS News to define it as “violence against women”? I tried to think like one of them in order to figure it out, but my brain just couldn’t function that illogically.
…an unknown number of homeless people in St. Petersburg, Florida…say they were recruited for videotaped beatings by attractive women for the website Shefights.net. Homeless advocate G.W. Rolle told CBS…he discovered what was going on after repeatedly seeing homeless men…with injuries. “Broken ribs, fractured skulls…I think that’s wrong and I think someone’s going to die if they don’t stop this,” says Rolle, who took photographs of some of the injuries. Two homeless men…are now suing [the website]…seeking damages for emotional distress and money for medical bills. Lawyers for the two homeless men said the website sells videos starting at $2.99 for a two-minute “sparring session” clip and increasing in price to $33.99 for a 33 minute clip of two women beating a man. The lawsuit, which was filed April 1 in a Florida court, contends the beatings violate a state hate crimes law that specifically protects the homeless and that the producers are exploiting the poverty of transients for whom any cash is hard to come by. “What type of society would allow this to happen?” said Neil Chonin, the lawyer for the homeless men. “This company preyed on people who are desperate.” Chonin and area homeless advocates said there are many more men who were assaulted in exchange for cash and that some were injured so badly that they were hospitalized…
What Would Orrin Hatch Do?
Since I am former librarian, you’ll have to pardon my smug pleasure at seeing librarians using common sense to solve a problem congressmen would no doubt attack with a sledgehammer. This story is paraphrased from one which appeared in the Los Angeles Times on April 13th:
On December 28th, 2010 at the Chinatown Branch of the Los Angeles Public Library, a number of parents complained because a patron was using a library computer to watch internet porn. The incident was covered by several local newspapers, and Derek Ma of the National Chinese Welfare Council organized a meeting with library officials shortly afterward. Librarians explained that the library has a policy of not filtering Internet access, and Ma and other Council members accepted it because of their experience with internet censorship in China. All of the computers in the L.A. Public Library system are already outfitted with screens that make it hard for bystanders to see the content, so Ma recommended that the computers be reoriented to further reduce visibility to passersby. He is happy with the result, and the library’s branch manager said she has not heard any complaints about pornography since her aides reoriented the computers.
A 2003 Supreme Court decision said public libraries that receive federal money have the authority to install filters that block pornography and other material that may be “harmful to children” until a patron asks for it to be unblocked. New Jersey resident Dan Kleinman, a non-librarian who runs the website SafeLibraries.org, said in a letter to city officials that such filters are “necessary” to keep library visitors “safe” and that privacy screens aren’t enough. He argued that libraries already have book selection policies and should have similar guidelines that determine what people can view online. But at a Los Angeles City Council committee meeting Tuesday (April 12th), city librarian Martin Gomez said making computer use as private as possible is the best solution; he said that licensing fees for internet filters are costly and the software is imperfect. For example, because the filters block websites with certain keywords and phrases deemed by authorities to be “obscene”, they could keep patrons from accessing websites about breast cancer.
I’m glad common sense won out over the demands of amateur busybodies from the other side of the continent with no legitimate concern in the matter. Kleinman’s comparison of the internet to book selection is spurious; books cost money and so it is necessary to carefully pick and choose which purchases constitute the best use of limited funds. But once the access fees are paid the internet is unlimited, so there is no legitimate reason for libraries to stop patrons from viewing any content they wish. The mission of libraries is to make information and entertainment available, and requiring them to censor access is a serious conflict of interest.
What’s the Legal Definition of Prostitution Again?
Amanda Brooks called attention to this website in a post on April 13th; I have nothing to add to her observations other than to remind you for the umpteenth time that the dividing line between activities legally defined as “prostitution” and those which are not isn’t nearly as distinct as people like to pretend.
Maybe the Girl Scouts should adopt a Summerhill approach. This teaches kids to think, because they are making the decisions.
Thanks for showing us how to do that hyperlink thing.
You’re very welcome. I can cheat from the control panel so I had to figure it out myself before telling y’all! 🙂
Sheesh. All right, people. I’m going to let you in on one of the Sekrits Uf The Yooniverse. It’s the really big, scary kind, that you have to learn from bald little monks living at the top of secluded mountains after years of devoted meditation. The kind that can cure male pattern baldness and make all the traffic lights turn green. Like that.
Ready? Sure? I mean, this is huge. Can your blood pressure take it?
*whispers*
There is nothing wrong with female sexuality.
I know, huh? Totally shocking! I mean, all this time we thought it could crush whole societies by rains of fire and swamping ocean waves brought upon us by pissing off the gods right royally. Turns out, not true. Wow. Huge epiphany.
So now that we’ve learned females can have S-E-X and all those guys sowing their wild wossnames and behaving like boys being boys are probably sowing and being with girls, we can all get on with our lives, right?
Sigh.
I know how you feel, Emily; sometimes I feel like I’m walking around a country full of people in comas, or like one of the Enterprise crew on that planet of children.
I ask the ceiling why everyone is so stupid, which makes Brandy laugh, and go off on these little diatribes, which makes Brandy laugh. That she finds me funny is probably why we get on so well.
One of the many problems inherent in possessing ever-more-rare critical thinking skills is, I often have to question my sanity. After all, ye old cliche states that if everyone else is insane but for you, the problem is probably not everyone else. And yet, and yet, and yet… I read the economics news and have the extraordinary talent of basic addition and subtraction; I watch the news and see the manipulation and lack of real journalism; I listen to politicians and police and extrapolate future performance from past actions and I have to ask myself – are people fucking blind?
Not blind, I think, but immature, hence the “planet of children” analogy. Their minds are simply not developed enough to see reason, and too many of those who are capable of it prefer to use the masses for their own ends. There are three kinds of people: the great majority are sheep, a fair number are wolves and a tiny percentage are sheepdogs, and what makes it worse is that most of the sheep can’t tell the difference between the canines.
You read Dave Grossman Maggie?
The name isn’t familiar; what’s he known for?
He’s written a couple books that are on almost every generals reading list: On Killing and On Combat. The reason I bring him up is that he wrote an essay called On wolves, sheep and sheepdogs. I was just curious if your comment was referencing that essay.
No, I guess we’re just operating on the same wavelength. 😉
“A question that sometimes drives me hazy: am I or are the others crazy?” -Albert Einstein
Or prepper boards. I’ve heard the “sheep, wolves and sheepdogs” line many times, and I’ve never heard of this essay either.
Say, that’s an interesting thought. Maggie, are you a prepper? You on the Tree Of Liberty forum* would be such a giggle.
* A formerly quite educational site which discussed all things constitutional and the nature of self-reliance. And then they got big. Sadface. Currently a not-at-all educational site wherein keyboard patriots can cheer on the noble police protectors of society, marshall arguments on why the government would never hurt its law-abiding citizens, bicker over the Book of Romans endlessly and make grand pronouncements on how they’re going to shoot everyone who wants their stockpiled MREs once the apocalypse comes. A wonderful illustration of the bromide that everyone can teach, if only by bad example.
A prepper? I’m not familiar with the term.
Innnnnteresting. I think you’ve inspired me to finally update my own blog.
It’s a piece of cake to bake a pretty cake,
If the way is hazy,
You gotta do the cookin’ by the book,
You know you can’t be lazy,
Don’t ever use a mental recipe,*
Or the cake will turn out crazy,
If you do the cookin’ by the book,
Then you’ll have a cake,
We’ve gotta have it made,
You know that I love cake,
Finally it’s time to bake a cake
– Stephanie, Lazy Town
* Yes, once you get good at cooking by the book, you can probably get away with mental recipes.
Good God the delusions of self grandeur here. Such spaztastic-ness.
There’s nothing wrong with sex. Sex is normal. Sex is FABULOUS. Now, please stop equating having sex with commercializing sex. They are not the same thing.
If you really love the fabulousness of sex, perhaps you might think that packaging women’s sexuality and bodies up and hawking them like any other product just might be a wee bit/very damaging to the state of sex.
And Maggie, you feel like you’re walking around in a land of people in comas/children? Because people don’t agree with your opinion that selling women’s sexuality is totally cool, and they dare question you about it?
Perhaps you should consider that people see YOU as a child, and your attitude about sex as juvenile?
But nah. It’s not YOU. It’s everyone ELSE being so nefarious against your utmost courage and superior intelligence and obvious skills for utopian leadership.
Anyway, sorry for interrupting your little self-aggrandizing orgy. You can go back to crushing on Holden Caulfield now.
Ah yes, because what I do in private magically affects you; I’ve written about this delusion before.
Try thinking about the absurdity of your concept of “selling women’s sexuality” rather than just quoting your “womyn’s studies” textbooks, and you might realize your calling me “juvenile” is a massive case of projection. It is YOU and your cronies who want to reduce women to victimized children who can’t make sexual decisions for ourselves; I say that women are adults who are free to make our OWN decisions whom to have sex with and why.
Simple litmus test: When one person says “I think people should be free to do such-and-such in private, or not do it as they prefer”, and another person says “I think we need to ban people from doing such-and-such because I think it’s bad”, which one has the real respect for the people in question?
Anyway, sorry for replying to your little self-aggrandizing orgy. You can go back to crushing on Andrea Dworkin now.
Why is there the need to make ASS-umptions about people? ASS-ume this person has a crush on Dworkin because he or she doesn’t agree with the “party line” on here? Is that fair? Isn’t it within possibility that this person may not even KNOW who Dworkin is? OR may know about her and not want any part of her? Also, this person may ONLY speak against stuff online and off. You can’t know for sure she’s part of any group that’s ACTIVELY doing things against your group. There’s a big difference between just stating your views and doing WORK to put them out there. I’m an example. I hate prostitution but I’ve never joined ANY group online or off to literally work AGAINST it. Not everyone who’s against something is automatically part of a group who’s doing things against it. This person may not even know others who think like he/she does. It’s also possible he/she DOES. This reminds me of the ENDLESS debate over the death penalty in regards to murder. Some who are FOR DP in every murder case ASS-ume that ANYONE who comes to a pro dp website who speaks against the “party line” is automatically: wanting a free for all in regards to crime. They don’t want ANYONE punished for ANYTHING. They also don’t care about MVS. They’re also part of “that group” that works 24 hours a day to stop the DP in all cases. These are just a few of the ASS-umptions. This person did “come out swinging” you could say against the party line using less tact than could have been used. Some other times on here here when others have come out against the party line they get sworn at, etc. Another example of “coming out swinging”. Is doing the same back or coming back at a different point of view (gasp!) with even MORE harshness justified? It’s like you hit me so I’ll hit you back even harder using your own hurtful, tactless methods or even harsher 1’s. I find these tactics very, very sad and, unfortunately, they’re all over the Internet. The truth is WHATEVER view you have someone isn’t going to agree with it. Some you won’t reach. That’s how it is. Is using tactlessness, swearing, etc., going to HELP that situation? I’ve learned 1st hand they CAN HURT it. I don’t want to appear like some “innocent” here. I’m not and have given in to the “I’ll get YOU back” thing online also and it caused me and the other people a lot of grief. I did this in the DP debate a few times. I ASS-umed. I did it with some who didn’t want to hear about the issues of MVS. I didn’t reach them either way. I had to accept that’s how it is sometimes. That doesn’t mean we should all “shut up” and give up. NEVER! But, the truth is any website where everyone is with the main point of it (like a board FOR DP) and at least some who come in saying they don’t agree, etc., get sworn at, ASS-umed about, etc., isn’t going to be fair AND teach ALL who come ALL points of view about the issue. It’s not complete. I found in DP debate I’ve learned a lot from those against it in ALL cases or FOR it in all cases. I’m not the only 1. Yes, I know using DP debate as an example is smaller in effect because it’s not literally how people make their living (like with prostitution or other jobs). But, it’s a debate that does show how responding to those who don’t follow a “party line” can be damaging with ASS-umptions, etc. People CAN miss out on learning things that way. Thanks for listening.
Laura, I wasn’t “assuming” anything; I was mocking HER snarky remark about “crushing on Holden Caulfield”. The poster made no attempt to present valid reasons for her views but merely mouthed “party line” neofeminist nonsense about all women being part of one entity, so if you or I do something she doesn’t like it magically “hurts” her. She then ended with a sarcastic remark which I mocked by repeating it except for changing the fictional character. Understand?
I didn’t have to let her post her view at all; I preferred to do so in order to point out the absurdity of her evil view that she and others like her have the right to control others’ (and that includes YOUR) right to do as they please in private.
I’m reminded of the good old Edgar Friendly speech from Demolition Man:
“You see, according to Cocteau’s plan… I’m the enemy. Because I like to think, I like to read. I’m into freedom of speech, the freedom of choice. I’m the kind of guy who likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder – “Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of BBQ ribs with the side order of gravy fries?” I want high cholesterol. I wanna eat bacon and butter and BUCKETS of cheese, okay? I wanna smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section. I wanna run through the streets naked with green Jell-O all over my body reading Playboy magazine.
Why?
Because I suddenly might feel the need to, okay, pal? I’ve SEEN the future. Do you know what it is? It’s a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing “I’m an Oscar Meyer Wiener.” You live up top, you live Cocteau’s way: what he wants, when he wants, how he wants. Your other choice: come down here… and maybe starve to death.”
I’ll take Freedom in the sewers over Tyranny on the surface, and day of the week. I’ll think for myself, thanks ever so much.
@Maggie : Right on, sister.
@Iadeedee : Naff off and take your offensive rubbish elsewhere.
The difference:
If you want to give sex away, or not have it at all, or sell it, or trade it for gumdrops, WE all respect that this is YOUR RIGHT.
Just respect the rights of those who don’t do things your way, like we respect your rights.
Had to look up Holden Caulfield. Knew the name was familiar. Not sure what he has to do with anything. You might as well have said “You can go back to crushing on Mighty Mouse now” for all the sense it made.
Holden Caulfield was a rebellious, angst-ridden teenager; I presume her comment was meant to imply that everyone here (and me in particular) is juvenile and enamored of rebellion. It’s an interesting allusion on her part considering that Holden is repelled by superficiality (or as he calls it, “phoniness”) and the neofeminist anti-prostitution rhetoric is about as “phony” as it gets, placing hurt feelings above individual freedom and concentrating as it does on cardboard cutouts of oppressive, omnipotent male and helpless, victimized female.
Considering Salinger’s negative portrayal of a whore (complete with stereotyped pimp, naturally) early in the book, though, she can’t have really thought the comparison through very thoroughly.
No, I don’t think she did.
Whenever I see “Holden Caulfield” I think of how the killer of John Lennon was obsessed with “Catcher in the Rye”. That’s the book that Holden’s the main character in. Mark Chapman (Lennon’s killer) even used quotes from the book to “explain” his actions. God help us.
See, I had forgotten that. You’re a much better, um… Beatleologist than I am.
We still have that documentary on “Paul is dead” to watch.
Paul is not dead: “Have You Got Problems?“
Laura and I have this performance on our “to watch” list.
It just so happens I visited my local library today. They’ve changed the catalog, the Internet access, everything. I’m not sure I could’ve found porn if I’d tried, considering that by the time I was done looking for The Difference Engine I was starting to wonder if the book ever existed. I don’t pretend to have mad hacker skillz, but it shouldn’t be that confusing to use a library’s system. Maybe I really am starting to get old.
Thanks for the link! Sailor B and I don’t believe Paul died, his soul was put in another body, etc., but we do find the whole “Paul is dead” thing fascinating. 1 reason we’re watching this documentary is to learn the history of this belief, etc. Thanks again for the link.
You mean there are still people who actually believe that? Wow!
I considered writing a short story where Paul McCartney did die, but just for a few months. While John, George, and Ringo kept his body safe, Paul’s spirit body roamed Mars (or as it’s inhabitants know it, Barsoom).
I really didn’t know what to do with that, though, and decided some projects are better left undone.
There’s whole message boards and blogs about this. Also some people who believe this and/or are interested in it that were born WAY after it originally came out. If anyone’s interested the documentary is called “The Winged Beatle” and is on YouTube. I listen to alternative news podcasts and learned about it from 1 of the podcast hosts. Speaking of blogs, I need to catch up on some replies I got to some of my older posts on here as I have time. Anyway, Sailor B and I really liked this documentary and think it’s very well done. For the record, we don’t believe Paul is dead OR that his soul/spirit was put in another body, etc. (wink…it’s early and I don’t feel up to looking for the winking head code).
I’m eager to finish watching it! It’s very well made. It could be ###*** considering the subject!
“perhaps you might think that packaging women’s sexuality and bodies up and hawking them like any other product just might be a wee bit/very damaging to the state of sex”-I’m convinced of that and it’s 1 reason I want NO part of prostitution. To me, haven’t people (especially men) been put through enough? I learned right off when I was ready for a relationship and sex only friendships how bad it was out there. Many men were/are not getting enough sex so then put a price tag on it? Men who can’t afford it: out of luck. It makes it even less accessible, i.e., puts something that men already don’t get enough of at an even higher price (literally). The men who can’t afford it: oh well, too bad. They’re also written off as potential husbands/boyfriends: don’t make X amount of $, FORGET YOU! It doesn’t count that he could be a very good man. Thank God for personal ads, swingers clubs that are free to get in or charge very little to get in and/or don’t make men jump through hoops to get in and any OTHER way for men to get sex for free. To me it’s like a preacher who literally charges to hear the Gospel. They’re given a wonderful, beautiful thing and have the nerve to charge? A message than can and does transform lives for the better? In the case of the Gospel, what makes those preachers even worse is the 1 who created the Gospel ordered that it should always be freely given and He (Jesus) practiced that all the time. So many men have already been used for free meals, drinks, jewelry, etc., etc., does sex need to be added to that? And also used as a TOOL or BAIT for women to GET these things? When they have NO intent of having sex with the men OR having a relationship with them? OR if they’re in a relationship: if you don’t buy me X we’re through OR if you don’t buy that you don’t really love me OR you have to buy my family X to prove your love, etc. Emotional blackmail anyone? These 1’s also don’t give BACK. They just take and part of that can be: I’m a snob princess and I deserve all of it just because of my sex, etc. Right! Arrogant entitlement mentality anyone? For me it all fits in with the very popular mentality of ALL is a commodity; nothing is free (air is just 1 example of things that are literally free but you’ll never hear about any of those…lol); people don’t appreciate anything they’re given at no cost; anyone who gives things away, including sex, HAS SOME ulterior motive (no way can it JUST be that the person loves giving for reasons that have nothing to do with wanting ANYTHING back); and giving away things is just plain stupid, naive, etc. That’s not the way of the world. What’s not said is a lot of times the way of the world is plain evil, wrong, selfish, etc. Like many used to think slavery was OK. Actually, some still do, unfortunately. While you could have used more tact with how you put your message across, I do commend you for not being afraid to disagree with stuff on here. Any website without those who aren’t with the party line isn’t complete or fair and people who come to learn about issues won’t get the FULL picture they deserve.
Darling, I love you, but you need to cool your jets. It’s hard to even follow you line of thought.
I’m not even talking about whether you’re right or wrong; it’s hard to decide whether we agree or not because you’re all over the map.
I’ll sic my cat and Protestant snakes on you now! That was cool…on a serious note: I brought up the other things (women using men for things, etc.) because I’m convinced it’s part of the same mentality of: I’ll get every profit I can out of men who are sexually frustrated.
I just want to address the Girl Scouts weirdness. Convening groups of girls ages 6-11 and talking to them in detail about alleged child prostitution and slavery is, in my opinion, a form of child abuse. It’s one thing when parents warn kids of “stranger danger” and molesters, but another when you institutionalize it. Kids don’t need to know, in detail, thing about this, unless they’re specifically asking a parent.
I remember back in 1991 talking to a friend’s 6-year-old who was attending a private school. They apparently told the kids in detail about that incident where a man drove his car int oa McDonald’s building killing several people. Because of the way they framed it, this kid thought it was a regular occurrence. I had to tell him this rarely happens and he had little chance of a car entering a building where he was sitting.
The sickest part of all of this is that while we’re “putting all our fears”* into these kids, we’re NOT teaching them things like, say, how to add properly or avoid begin scammed on a mortgage. This is why we rank so low educationally and have kids who are so neurotic and on all sorts of meds.
How about just saying, like my parents did, “stay away from weirdos and study harder?” And the Girl Scouts will not get any more of my money.
* Pink Floyd reference, which somehow fits with this the paranoid theme here.
There is nothing wrong with female sexuality.
This is a common misunderstanding. There is nothing wrong with female sexuality but when we were a tribal nation state there was.
At one time, not too long ago, men actually did fight for pussy. But today – in a high-tech, globo-corporate, anonymous, multicultural, post-colonial, relativist world culture – no, there is absolutely nothing wrong with female sexuality.
Ah. So men had a problem – pussy, to borrow your colloquialism. They came up with a bad solution to the problem – war. Then they exchanged one bad solution for another bad solution – making pussy scary. I’m guessing this was when women had the brilliant idea that this was an awesome turn of events, as it elevated pussy to a form of currency and who doesn’t like the thought of being made of gold?
Sounds to me as if pussy wasn’t the problem, but that people will never exhaust their genius for being asshats.
Sarcasm not directed at you, of course, but at the asshats.
I don’t like the thought of being like gold or ANY part of me being like it because that can lead to an arrogant entitlement mentality being OK and to also be reveled in. Especially when 1/2 of the people in the world have the same body part with some exceptions (deformity or some other medical problem).
You might want to watch the piers morgan show with ashton kushner and demi more that was on tonight.
Gail Dines won’t care. The victims were male. At the very most she would exploit this as “look what the pro porn people do”. Implying a vast conspiracy by the pro porn/prostitution movement to harm everyone. But she would care even less than usual. This would be nothing more than another tool to exploit for Gail.
The internet porn thing is a laugh a minute when it comes to women.
I had a mother with kids my age ask me ‘how do I block sites my kids should not look at’. I told her she could get mcafee etc. But I pointed out to her the most effective way is this.
Browsers have a history button. Tell your children that if they come across materials that they should not be looknig at to leave it alone and tell them that you are able to see what they are doing on line. Even better, place the computer where the screen is visible to you in the normal course of events and don’t allow them to be online when you are not at home. All good advice.
One really funny incident was my 26 year old son was living with us when we were going through the last throes of marriage. I gave him my old laptop to use. So wifey checks it one day and finds SHOCK HORROR he’s been looking at porn. OMG!! The REALLY funny part was I had not used this computer for 3-4 months and yet my wife accuses ME of looking at porn.
I explained to her that if I wanted to look at porn I was certainly entitled to as an adult. Second. I don’t look at online porn because its really crappy compared to good porn which is only slighly less crappy with minor exceptions. Thirdly. That if I wanted to hide what I was looking at I was certainly capable of doing that. Nope. Apparently I was GUILTY and our son was innocent! LOL!! Women are such crazy people!!
Your solution to “how do I keep my kid from looking at porn” is a good one. I can think of one that might be a little better, but parents won’t take it: let him look at all the porn he wants. If it’s too much for him, he will avoid it.
My friend Frank‘s parents got him a subscription to Playboy for his 16th birthday, but then his mother was from Latin America where they’re much more rational about sex.
So they’re teaching Girl Scouts about “domestic minor sex trafficking?
No, they don’t need to learn about that. More like “don’t get into a stranger’s car” and “don’t go off with a stranger”. You know, things that will actually keep them safe.
The sad truth is that the primary threat of child abduction is not the 4% of “Strangers” but the 96% of Family, Relatives, Friends and Other Trusted figures.
Of course Mum and Dad lie at that point, because the truth would scare the kid silly, in a non-useful way.
In my experience most parents don’t want their children to learn how to think critically, because then kids would be immune to the parents’ lies.
Witness the popular rejection of Matthew Lipman’s “Philosophy for Children” program to teach children basic thinking skills. Parents don’t want it.
The government exploits that and follows the same strategy. Parents understand because that’s what they do with their own children.
What is popularly called “education” is merely the current form of politically correct indoctrination. Anybody who disagrees is a pervert, prostitute, pornographer, etc.
As the parent of three whose oldest (a 4-1/2 year old) is really starting to get the whole concept of critical thinking, I can’t help but laugh at anybody who’s worried that such notions will undermine their authority. To me, explaining everything and encouraging my kids to ask why will only help my authority because it will earn my kids’ respect, and when I ask them to do something it won’t be because I said so, it will be because they realize I’m looking out for their best interest. Obviously it’s a somewhat idealized view, but my parents raised me that way and I think I’ve done pretty well for myself. Meanwhile, I look at friends of mine from my church who were raised in the “don’t ask questions, just do what I say” tradition and they’re the ones having kids in high school, dropping out of college, etc.
I remember a couple years ago when I took my daughter to a sporting event and she saw the mascot and immediately asked, “Is that a real bear or a person in a bear costume?” I wouldn’t trade that kind of critical thinking for all the compliant behavior in the world.
B-I-N-G-O and Bingo was his name-O! Parents (for admittedly understandable reasons) want immediate, unquestioning obedience from their children. They are not about to teach their kids such things as “the authority figure is not always right” or “you should always be a little bit suspicious of anything somebody wants to make you do ‘for your own good'” because, well, how do you deal with a kid that you’ve taught to question authority?
By being one step ahead of them, and by allowing your authority to be questioned enough that they learn it is trustworthy. In no specific order. And I’m under no pretenses that this isn’t damned difficult to do.
YMMV.
Yes, it can be done. I’ve found examples here and there, and the kids often turn out better both because the kids trust the parents and because they are able to handle being on their own as adults. Now I’ve got two more examples: ClubMedSux and emilyhemingway.
I wouldn’t dream of trying to flat-out tell parents how to raise their kids, because it isn’t my place. No, not even if I had kids of my own, which I don’t (which makes me double-skittish about trying to be any voice of wisdom on the subject).
Fortunately, many kids figure it out anyway, often during the teenage years.
I think it’s also important to keep in mind that teaching your kid to question authority is not the same as teaching them to ignore authority. We tell our daughter that she can always ask us why we tell her to do something, and there have even been a few times where–in the process of discussing an order–we’ll actually compromise if she makes a good point. But if she wants a second dessert after dinner, while I’m happy to discuss WHY she doesn’t get a second dessert, the bottom line remains she doesn’t get a second dessert.
Yes, but that’s more work, and not all that many parents will do it. And there are a WHOLE lot more parents than teachers who will do this.
In regards to stranger danger and teaching kids:
Here is a dialogue that was on criminal minds that of course Em and I ended up discussing back and forth (we need to make a talk show to share some of the discussions we have, they can be a hoot!):
“Gideon: Do you know what programme did the most harm to this country in terms of crimes like this? Child abduction.
extra: No.
Reid: “Stranger Danger”.
Gideon: Flooded the schools with it.
Reid: I remember them coming to my classroom. It was “Officer Friendly” with “Stranger Danger” colouring books.
Gideon: Taught a whole generation about a scary man in a trench coat hiding behind a tree. Then we learnt that strangers are only a fraction of the offenders out there. Most are people you see every day. Your family, your neighbours, your school teachers. You know the rest. Prepared our children for 1% of the danger and made them more vulnerable to 99%.”
Yep. Take a look back at the second half of my column from April 13th; it’s actually about 0.014%. Teaching kids not to get into cars with their own parents would have prevented more danger! 🙁
Speaking of shefights.net –
“…an unknown number of homeless people in St. Petersburg, Florida…say they were recruited for videotaped beatings by attractive women for the website Shefights.net. Homeless advocate G.W. Rolle told CBS…he discovered what was going on after repeatedly seeing homeless men…with injuries. ”Broken ribs, fractured skulls…I think that’s wrong and I think someone’s going to die if they don’t stop this,” says Rolle, who took photographs of some of the injuries….”
I can’t imagine a clearer, or much more cogent, illustration of the value this society places on men.
And I’ll bet that if one of those homeless men stood up and cleaned the clock of one of those Tiger Girls, the video would only be shown at his trial – and that AFTER the St. Pete police had shown him how a beating ought to be administered.
Ah, yes, as Rudyard Kipling said, “the female of the species is deadlier than the male….”
Yes, I’m sure you’re right that had “the worm turned” he would’ve been charged. That’s like that “mixed wrestling” idiocy; if I had a teenage son who was matched against a girl I would not allow him to participate unless the school, the girl and her parents all signed waivers against criminal prosecution.
That having been said, I must point out that it’s MEN paying to watch these videos, not women. As odd as it may seem there are men who get off on this sort of thing.
Is there anything some man, somewhere, doesn’t get off on? Usually enough of them to make it economical to cater to with video. The only thing I have trouble finding is zero-G sex, because it’s so expensive. Other things… some of that stuff I keep finding when I don’t want it. Man, but I keep hoping spitting will go out of style.
A few good zero-G sex videos might have kept the Space Shuttle program going for a few more years …
LMAO Sailor! You and me both!
“Kleinman’s comparison of the internet to book selection is spurious; …. The mission of libraries is to make information and entertainment available, and requiring them to censor access is a serious conflict of interest.”
It is a very nice sentiment, but it is incorrect. See United States v. American Library Association at http://laws.findlaw.com/us/539/194.html — I mean really read it. It will go a long way toward helping you to see through the propaganda.
Thanks for writing about me. And if you want to see what else I wrote about that Times story, see this:
“Molested Children in Los Angeles Libraries May Be Direct Result of Governmental Malfeasance; Los Angeles Times Interview of SafeLibraries Reveals Government Was Warned Against Employing Privacy Screens“
It is not incorrect, Mr. Kleinman; unlike you I am a librarian and I am perfectly aware of the part libraries play in the preservation and dissemination of knowledge. If the Christian monasteries and Muslim scholars who were the caretakers of the knowledge of classical civilization had seen fit to censor it because it offended their moral principles, you would not be sitting in front of a computer right now because we would’ve been forced to rediscover science again from scratch rather than being able to pick up where we left off.
Government does NOT have the power to define reality; surely you understand that an educated whore like myself has evidence every day of what happens when we allow governments to legislate one group’s moral views to be forced on everyone else.
Finally, your contention that “child molestation” is a result of pornography flies in the face of facts, as you would know if you had read my column of last Thursday.
In short, Mr. Kleinman, thanks for the sales pitch, but I’m not buying.
pssst. Christian monasteries and Muslim scholars censored information left and right. Being a librarian doesn’t make you a history scholar. Obviously.
Most did not, which is why we have so much information through them despite the fact that much of it violated their teachings. Here we have yet another case of an internet pseudo-intellectual who thinks that one exception invalidates a rule. Knowing a few out-of-context facts about history doesn’t make you a logician. Obviously.
Mr. Kleinman, you seem like an intelligent and educated person, so maybe you can explain why the public focuses on the risk of indecent exposure and inappropriate touch, while largely ignoring the vast majority of child deaths and crippling injuries.
According to childwelfare.gov, 3 or 4 children are killed every year in the context of sex crimes, while 3 or 4 children are killed every day as a result of physical abuse and neglect by their parents and other caregivers.
Those numbers don’t include the many more child deaths and serious injuries that result from neglect but are covered up as “accidents,” such as allowing children to ride in motor vehicles without proper restraint, estimated to be the cause of 9,000 child deaths a year.
@sexhysteria, you raise a legitimate concern. However, children getting injured one way does not mean we should not worry about children getting injured another. I have heard others make this argument. So many more kids get hurt not wearing seat belts, so why don’t I work to get children to be buckled up? That’s a valid point, but my interest happens to be harm done in libraries and my experience tells me most of the harm is done as a result of libraries following American Library Association policy instead of their own, for one reason or another. I believe that could be completely avoided if only communities were properly informed about legal options to protect children, rather than misinformed.
So you wanted me to “explain why the public focuses on the risk of indecent exposure and inappropriate touch, while largely ignoring the vast majority of child deaths and crippling injuries.” One reason is the former is a crime while the latter is an accident.
I did follow the links, but Maggie did not comment on the court decision. Therefore she is neither correct nor incorrect about that.
Maybe you should be more specific and let us know where you believe that Maggie has erred. Nobody is right all of the time, so I’m willing to accept that she got something wrong, if I have a reason to.
Judging by his website Mr. Kleinman, who has never been a member of the American Library Association, seems to believe that the ALA uses “propaganda” about evil ideas like free speech and the first amendment to impose its will on the poor victimized librarians who, like all Americans, have the God-given right to censor what other adults can see and read in the name of “protecting the children”. In his mind I seem to be “mistaken” because I believe censorship is wrong.
“Censorship is telling a man he can’t have a steak just because a baby can’t chew it.” – attributed to Mark Twain
@Sailor Barsoom, when she says, “requiring them to censor access is a serious conflict of interest” that is the problem. The US Supreme Court allows the use of filters–it is simply not censorship to be complaint with US v. ALA. Besides, the case does not require anyone to filter, only to filter if certain federal funding is sought.
Further, the Deep Web contains about eight times as much information as Google can find, yet libraries make almost no effort to help people navigate the Deep Web. So while legal filters may overblock a few sites that you can simply ask a librarian to unblock, the libraries themselves do not help patrons explore the remaining 7/8s of the Internet.
@Maggie McNeill, I apologize may web site is not clear enough to help to see I was an ALA member for a year and only quit when I simply could not afford it any more. I would like to remain a member otherwise. The ALA as a whole is great, it’s just the “Office for Intellectual Freedom” that is the concern.
And no one has a right to censor, an idea you ascribe to me. The ALA does not address true censorship. That’s the problem. It addresses a politicized definition of censorship that allows it to define it as it wishes then pick and choose how it will apply to this situation or that. I only wish the ALA would address true censorship.
I do not think you are “mistaken because [you] believe censorship is wrong.” I too think censorship is wrong. Rather, you are mistaken in thinking what US v. ALA allowed is censorship, which you do generally by saying filtering is tantamount to censorship.
You quoted Mark Twain. I have a quote for you, from Dan Gerstein:
“The … elites have convinced themselves that they are taking a stand against cultural tyranny. …. [T]he reality is that it is those who cry ‘Censorship!’ the loudest who are the ones trying to stifle speech and force their moral world-view on others.”
Mr. Kleinman, just because the government “allows” or “requires” censorship doesn’t magically make it not censorship, just as the government banning prostitution does not make prostitutes criminals. Censorship is, by definition, the action of a government or other powerful body to restrict free speech; it doesn’t matter whether “federal funding is sought” or not. Furthermore, censorship efforts sought by self-proclaimed “liberals” are no less dangerous than those sought by self-proclaimed “conservatives”. “Freedom of speech shall not be abridged,” period.
I do NOT agree that children should be “protected” from adult materials, in libraries or anywhere else. Our ancestors lived in communal dwellings in which children saw adult sex all the time; children who were raised on farms see it every damned spring, and there is solid evidence that non-violent sexual exposure or contact isn’t harmful to kids. It certainly isn’t as harmful as preventing a child such as I was from researching her sexual feelings in a library would have been.
I apologize for misrepresenting your stand on censorship, but I think you need to re-evaluate your assumptions about what constitutes censorship and what doesn’t. Also, I sincerely thank you for remaining civil in this discussion.
Blocking a site somebody wants to view is censorship. It is censorship no matter what law is passed or what any court decides. Now, perhaps it could be argued that some types of censorship are acceptable in some situations, or that no censorship is ever acceptable. That could be an argument worth having (most people would agree with not having hentai DVDs stocked in the section of the library called “Animation for Children”).
But no legislature or judge can make blocking a site not censorship. It is. The word has a meaning.
@MaggieMcNeill, I know exactly what you mean regarding civility, and that’s why I continue to speak here. So I also sincerely thank you.
Now as to “censorship,” everything has its time and place. We all know you cannot yell “Fire” as a joke in a public theatre. That’s not censorship.
We all know legal pornography is legal. But in certain places it can be restricted. A library, for example, is not an open public forum. It is a limited public forum. US v. ALA said this. It is perfectly legal to keep legal pornography out of the public library as it is a limited public forum. Limited. Having limits. US v. ALA said this. That’s not censorship, that’s just the law, let alone common sense. Pornography in the public library is just the wrong place for pornography, or so a community is perfectly free to decide. The problem occurs when people mislead communities into thinking that filtering out legal porn from public libraries is illegal and/or is censorship and/or is a violation of the First Amendment and/or is a fine balancing act and/or is not technically feasible.
Let me bring up another issue. The porn industry has harmed many women, even to the point of suicide. The rights of women are violated again and again in the porn industry. Why would libraries allow porn by claiming to promote intellectual freedom and free speech rights while at the same time serving up material that violates women’s rights? You asked me to rethink my definition of censorship. Now I am asking you to consider the harm done to the women actors in the porn industry.
Besides, few libraries provide patrons with access to the Deep Web. As a result, about 87% of the Internet is not available to library patrons as a result of library practices, not as a result of filters that may filter only a small percentage of the 13% of the Internet made available in public libraries. It’s been suggested I should drop my efforts to inform communities about legally protecting children from harm in public libraries since vast quantities of children are harmed by their parents in car crashes. Well then, why the big deal over a few blocked sites when the libraries themselves do not provide access to the Deep Web in the first place? Let’s be consistent.
Know that I am not opposing legal porn, neither am I anti-porn, unless it is illegal porn. I am merely observing that the industry seriously harms the rights of women, and that harm should be relevant to a community’s decision as to whether it wishes to allow or continue to allow porn in public libraries that exploits women.
@Sailor Barsoom, I believe the above addresses your concerns as well.
The Supreme Court says LOTS of things which are dead wrong; just last month it ruled that prosecutors can lie, cheat and hide evidence in order to convict innocent people without having to worry about any consequences whatsoever when their evil is discovered. If that’s not wrong, nothing is.
And you’re not going to get anywhere with anyone on this site quoting fake anti-porn studies or claiming that women’s rights are violated by sex work. Women are free adults and do not need you, congress, neofeminists or anyone else “protecting” us by preventing us from making free sexual choices, including the choice to make porn, to prostitute ourselves or to engage in BDSM.
@Maggie McNeill, I think you might like to subscribe to my SafeLibraries blog posts and comment from time to time. I write content you won’t see elsewhere, and the ALA views me as one of its top opponents, if not the leading opponent. Just take a peek through my past posts–I’ll bet there’s something there to intrigue you.
Again we have the argument that it isn’t censorship if a court says it’s legal to restrict it. Well, yes it is. The court decision is that you can censor in these cases.
Also, I see some confusion between they are permitted to restrict and they are required to restrict. This is an important difference, and a library being permitted to restrict web sites is a lot better a situation than a library being required to restrict web sites. If the library chooses not to restrict, they don’t have to, and it is, is, IS censorship to require them to.
No matter how many court cases you cite, it doesn’t change the meaning of this three-syllable word. It says that censorship can legally be done, but it doesn’t make it not censorship. That’s what the word means.
If anyone thinks that non-violent sexual contact with kids (like incest) is “OK” have you ever talked to a survivor of this kind of evil abuse? Before any screaming starts, I’m NOT talking about kids who are CLOSE in age “playing doctor”. I’m talking about things like incest and non-violent molestation. It’s also abusive when parents confide in their kids about their sex lives. This was 1 area that WAS very sick in my family. I was shocked when in counseling I found out how damaging this talk can be just like verbal sexual abuse can lead to frigidity (like in my case). However, it was also up to me to fix that damage. Even incest that’s done with an adult child by a parent can be devastating to many (an example of this can be found in the book “Savage Grace” based on a true murder case where this type of incest was involved). There’s other cases I could name if I had more time right now. The effects of incest (even if it’s not forced) and non-violent molestation are devastating. Thanks for listening.
Laura, I’m glad to hear that your personal experience with counseling was a positive one. You were lucky, considering that modern psychotherapy is one of the biggest commercial frauds in history.
The Puritan myth that children are born asexual, and that it’s unhealthy to “sexualize” kids “prematurely” (masturbation causes insanity, etc.), was supported by cocaine addict Freud’s 1896 theory based on observations of all of 18 patients, which he eventually rejected as overly simplistic.
It became the fashion to dress up primitive religious beliefs in pseudo-scientific language, to justify quack “therapy” that was long and lucrative for the “therapists.” But despite over 100 years of practice, there is no scientific evidence that psychotherapy is either effective or safe, but there is considerable evidence that psychotherapy is usually ineffective and sometimes dangerous.
For documentation of patients driven to suicide by their “therapists,” see “Making Monsters: False Memories, Psychotherapy and Sex Hysteria” by Richard Ofshe, or “Try to Remember: Psychiatry’s Clash over Meaning, Memory and Mind” by Paul McHugh.
As Mark Twain pointed out, people who have been cheated out of their money are often too ashamed to admit it. Rather than warn others not to become victims, they say “Oh, yea, I got my money’s worth!”
Modern feminists revived Freud’s old theory to justify attacking the testosterone gender, and reached the height of absurdity by declaring that child sexual abuse is a “political crime.” See “The Politics of Child Sexual Abuse: Emotion, Social Movements, and the State” by Nancy Whittier.
For a discussion of the myth of “premature sexualization” in the service of the traditional religion-inspired mental castration of little girls, see my two blog posts on the subject: http://sexhysteria.wordpress.com/2010/06/22/premature-sexualization/
You make some great points here that SHOULD be made! I’m not being sarcastic. I mean it! I’ll answer this when I can as it’s stuff that should be brought up about psychology.
Yes, Freud was a cocaine addict. But, does that automatically mean that he did nothing of value? No. Did he get some things wrong? Yes. But, on at least 1 thing he owned up to it, to his credit, and changed what he orignally said. He was more than his addiction which is true of MANY addicts. There ARE also addicts who it’s very hard to find ANYTHING they’ve given to the world of value. Plus they don’t care about others either. We need to be careful when talking about a person’s acts/contributions who’s an addict. It’s easy to get into the mindset of “if the person’s an addict, what does that tell you? Everything he did was wrong, sick, etc.”. Not always. Not long ago I read an article on a website about the singer Hank Williams Jr. Jr’s father Hank Sr. was an alcoholic. Someone in the comments said: His Dad was JUST a drunk. Right! His Dad was an amazingly talented songwriter whose songs are still being done and stand as some of the very best country songs ever written. Yes, he was an alcoholic. But, it wasn’t all he was. Do his songs have LESS value because of his alcoholism? No. Did he contribute to society with his wonderful songs? Yes. His songs are wonderful in and of themselves. Many addicts (like Hank Sr.) do work and function to a degree and ACCOMPLISH things. I held down a job the whole time I was an active alcoholic. The only time I didn’t was right after a family tragedy and when I had injuries. I also never drank on the job. Freud got some things wrong like others do who are the “pioneers” of something new, etc. In the “good old days” some medical doctors believed all sicknesses were caused by demons, curses, etc. This can happen when a concept, etc., is new and still being learned about. What’s important is the people in the field after it begins keep fixing what was wrong in the beginning, etc. Many in psychology have done that since Freud.
If anybody has made any pro-incest statements on this blog, I’ve missed it.
Dear Sailor B, it’s been a consensus for a long time in the field of psychology that certain things ARE abuse (thank God!). Are there bad psychologists? YES! I was very blessed to have 2 wonderful 1’s literally save my life. But, because there’s bad 1’s does that automatically mean ALL their information is bad? NO! That would be like saying the Gospel isn’t any good for anyone because there ARE evil, fake preachers along with good 1’s. If abuse went on in the “good old days” was it still abuse? YES! Was slavery any more “right” in the good old days? NO! I do want to point out that even in the good old days if the parents forgot to lock their door and the kids walked in while they were having sex that wasn’t specifically abuse. But, if they didn’t bother to hide it…that’s completely different. This is part of the whole area of what’s known in psychology as “barriers and limits”. You know from me how devastating just VERBAL sexual abuse is. I’m NOT the only 1 who had this happen, unfortunately. Until I got into counseling, I believed it was 100% my doing I was frigid. It was another thing that made me think I was pretty much worthless, etc. That’s what it can do to people. I was floored when I found out that I’d been victimized by something that should have never happened. But, it was UP TO ME to fix it. I worked hard on that and am proud of the results. I could have said “Poor me, I was victimized, why bother to get well when I had nothing to do with it?”. ###*** that! NEVER! Anyway, my experience and that of many others shows how damaging abusive words from parents to their kids are. It’s the same with other things like the parents not keeping their sex lives private. Just reading even a few of the personal stories about any kind of sexual abuse online is powerful evidence that some things just shouldn’t be done in front of kids. It confirms what the good psychologists have found out also through the years from those who have been sexually abused.
I do believe that certain sexual behaviors would be harmful to children, such as for instance rape (real rape, not statutory). Even if it were theoretically possible for some sort of adult-child (real child, not teenager) sex to somehow be harmless to the child (I have my doubts), the power disparity makes it something to avoid.
I don’t think that a parent regaling his child with “war stories” of sexual adventures past is a good idea. I don’t know that I’d call it “abuse,” which is a rather strong term, but I don’t think it’s a good idea.
But I do think that you can talk to your kids about sex without it being abusive. Laura, you know that I love you, but I’ve seen some of the fictional conversations (that I wrote) you want to call “abusive” or “incest-like,” and I think you take it too far. You seem to think that parents and their teenage offspring must pretend that they are all asexual beings, even though they all know that isn’t true. That it’s better for their daughter and her boyfriend to have sex in some ally-way instead of in the daughter’s bedroom. That there is something wrong with her father assuring her that her parents love her, whether she be straight, gay, or bi.
And I don’t think your attitude towards this subject is a good one for the kids themselves. Of course, we don’t have any children, so it’s all rather academic.
I was using incest as an EXAMPLE of a sometimes non-violent sexual abuse. Is it violent sometimes? YES! But sometimes it isn’t. You know also that some REAL perverts try to find kids who they don’t have to use force on to do their ###*** to them. Unfortunately, there’s still ###*** out there who think the kids act “seductive”, etc. and that the kids are at fault if they don’t fight back. God help us.
I think there’s a clear distinction to be made about prepubescent (Children), postpubescent (Young Adults) and mature (Adult) people.
We must acknowledge that physical maturity, cognitive maturity and social maturity arise in individuals at very different rates; the people most able to judge these critical points in the life of a person are their parents, who we can *reasonably* assume spend the most time with them compared to the general population. As Maggie intimates, there are always exceptions, of course.
We also need to accept that the law, being a faceless concept that has no contact with the individual for the purposes of defining when these key moments are, is obligated to use arbitrary age points based on the “mythical” typical person.
It is when the Process of Law fails to allow case-by-case judgement in these matters that the whole concept becomes separated from “common sense”.
Or “The Law is an Ass”. Give me “Justice” instead.
@ Mr. Kleinman, is it merely a matter of children being injured one way or another? There’s a big difference between the quantity and severity of the injuries. A few children being a victim of indecent exposure or inappropriate touch is not comparable to thousands of children being crushed to death.
Your choice of priorities remains to be explained. A parent driving down the highway while sleep-deprived, keeping a sharp lookout for flashers and inappropriate touchers, while her child in the front seat is unrestrained, is not a responsible parent. If the child dies in a crash, it’s negligent homicide covered up as an “accident.”
Instead of focusing on such irresponsible parents, you and the the public are more concerned about such urgent issues as excessive skin showing on the web. Nothing strange about that? Business/politics as usual?
[…] But it is the logical follow-up, and I am amused that I have found something I can teach to Maggie. […]