It was a miracle of rare device,
A sunny pleasure-dome with caves of ice! – Samuel T. Coleridge, “Kubla Khan”
My oldest surviving male friend, whom I’ll call “Charlie”, once said to me, “You’re extremely rational, for a woman.” He meant it as a teasing compliment, a way to say something nice while still having a bit of fun with me, and I appreciated it in that spirit. People (mostly men) have been complimenting my rationality for almost 20 years now; regular reader PWS wasn’t the first person to remark that I might be part Vulcan. But other people (for about 30 years now) have expressed the same general idea from a less sympathetic frame of reference; I’ve been called “cold-hearted”, “cruel” and even (in extreme cases, again mostly by men) “inhuman”. That’s very strange to me, because others describe me as “sweet”, “warm”, “kind”, “sympathetic”, “generous”, etc. It’s almost as though they’re describing two different people, but they’re not: water and ice are the same thing, after all, only in different states.
To those I care about, those who approach me as friends, those who seek out my help, and even those who smile at me in the aisles of shops, I am full of the milk of human kindness. But those who harm or insult me or mine, those who approach me with hostility and those who demand my obedience or attempt to control me via threats, find that milk frozen harder than antarctic ice. That’s when my “Vulcan” side comes out, and I treat the threat, human or otherwise, as I would treat any troublesome situation: as a problem to be solved. Allowing oneself to feel sorry for a venomous serpent about to strike is a good way to get killed, and allowing quarter to an implacable enemy is like nursing such a serpent at one’s bosom. I’m all for fairness and rules of engagement, and as I said in Monday’s column I have no desire to harm potentially-innocent bystanders. But only a fool desists from smiting an actively aggressive enemy; any foe who expects mercy from me must first break off combat and retreat.
One would think this would be an elementary concept, yet in the escalating conflict between those who want all individuals free to make their own sexual decisions and the busybodies who want to make those decisions for everyone, advocates like myself are now being asked to feel sympathy for people who would like nothing better than to see our entire profession eradicated, our members enslaved in sweatshops or committed to reprogramming, and our clients imprisoned, humiliated and ruined. On a number of occasions in just the past few weeks I’ve been asked to spare the feelings of people who would as soon put a bullet in my brain as look at me, and who have used every available opportunity to libel, defame and insult sex worker rights activists. To anyone who wants me to empathize with “survivors” who allow themselves to be used as weapons by prohibitionists, I say this: If I were in a country troubled by violent fanatics and I saw a six-year-old girl running toward me with enough high explosives to send me to my ancestors six times over, I would indeed feel sorry for her; I might even cry later and say a prayer for her soul. But I also wouldn’t hesitate to pull the trigger before she could get close enough to take me with her. And if you think it’s better to let her blow up everyone in the general vicinity just so you can go to Hades with a clear conscience, you’ll have to forgive me for calling you a silly ass.
One final point: most of the people who criticize my apparent lack of compassion for soi-disant “survivors” make the completely unsupported assumption that these women’s statements can be taken at face value, which they cannot; real sex work experiences, like real human experiences in any area, are complex and nuanced, and vary with the individuals who experience them. This is not so with weaponized “survivor” narratives, which are simple, one-dimensional and sensationalistic, and vary very little from the prescribed model invented by Melissa Farley, Donna Hughes, Sheila Jeffreys, et al. Real sex work experiences can often be verified by empirical evidence, such as corroborating accounts and methodologically-sound studies; “survivor” narratives must be accepted on faith, without any valid evidence whatsoever…according to some, even in the face of evidence that proves their falsity. As I explained in “Imagination Pinned Down”, “trafficking” and “survivor” narratives not only strongly resemble each other, but also the tales told by those who claim to have been Satanically abused or abducted by aliens. If these women were as harmless as UFO cultists we could afford the luxury of empathy, but that is not the case; as long as fanatics and governments use them as tools to restrict the rights of millions, we have no choice but to turn a cold, scientific eye to their stories. If someone’s claims that vaccines cause autism were being used as the excuse to ban them, wouldn’t you want those claims proven? How sympathetic would you feel toward self-proclaimed “victims of vaccination” whose efforts might result in the deaths of thousands of children from diseases conquered decades ago? Not very, I’ll wager. I’m sympathetic to women who have truly suffered, or even believe they have suffered, as long as they do not use their trauma as an excuse to interfere with the lives of others. But once they align themselves with dangerous, aggressive enemies, I can’t afford that empathy any longer.
I agree with your argument until you make the comparison to vaccines. I’ll say that there is a strong case to be made for scrutiny:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/06/25/mmr-vaccine-caused-autism.aspx
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/01/24/new-evidence-refutes-fraud-findings-in-dr-wakefield-case.aspx
The two articles referenced read like purple journalism; the site promotes “natural” products. This article from the British Medical Journal is much more accurate:
http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452
So all sites promoting “natural” products are to be disregarded, while sites promoting pharmaceuticals are “much more accurate”?
Right…..
The Italian court ruling is news, not an opinion piece. But if you want to read it from a site that isn’t dedicated to health, see it here:
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/italian-court-reignites-mmr-vaccine-debate-after-award-over-child-with-autism-7858596.html
Maggie,
in my life I have met only ONE other woman who I would think could out do you in an argument. The woman I fell in love with after separation and really wanted to be with. Alas she turned out to be “feminised”.
I say “women are feminised” because it is a deliberate act that is carried out on women that they do not have the capability to reject for the most part, 99.9% of them.
So you are VERY different….which is why even I have commented that I wonder if you are really a man in drag! LOL!!
I have long said that women are the WILLING accomplices of men in power as long as those men in power oppress the other men and give them a man-slave as their reward for supporting the men in power. It has always been that way.
Since the lesson of the apple for initiates men who seek to dominate and control other men know that they have to sell their shoddy bill of goods to women. Hitler talked about this too….as did Lenin.
I wouldn’t call that “feminized”, but rather the opposite. Women are by nature very pragmatic, and modern brainwashing (if anything) causes them to be less so, not more. Furthermore, I’ve told you before that normal women don’t want a “man-slave” because normal women are attracted to strength and a degree of dominance in men. If you don’t believe me, you might ask yourself why the insipid 50 Shades of Grey is breaking all kinds of sales records.
Would you go into more detail about that, what about 50 Shades Of Grey appeals to women readers so much?
Most women like strength and a certain degree of dominance in men; male-dominant BDSM fantasies are and always have been very appealing.
you might ask yourself why the insipid 50 Shades of Grey is breaking all kinds of sales records.
And here I thought it was because of its patently superior writing and scintillating style!
yes …i think thats right. though i`m not an alpha male myself and so never had any luck with the ladies.but .the science seems to tend that direction. Once women get to know me they like me better.i was one of thoes who always got the “lets be friends”.line
Reading those words coming from your fingers through your keyboard TURNED ME ON!! Seriously – I’m not joking.
I think this column taught me something new about you that I really like. Sometimes I do have a problem with the words you use and even cringe sometimes because I’m concerned about how moderate people will take them – the people we need to convince and win over to our side.
But – as I read these words – I realized something – I could have written these words myself (though by no means as articulately) about how I feel about terrorists.
There’s no way I could I feel as strongly as you do about human rights for sex workers – I’ve patronized sex workers, fell in love with them, etc – but I haven’t walked a centimeter in a sex worker’s shoes. It’s always been me on the outside looking into the problem. I see enough of it to know we’re doing sex workers wrongly in this country – and I can even get angry about it – but I can’t muster the same kind of piss and vinegar you do over it because I haven’t experienced it.
I know what kind of journey I had to go through to come to my conclusions and attitudes over Islamo-fascists – and no one can tell me I’m wrong about them – I feel that strongly that I’m right. No one has to agree with me – I just don’t give a shit. Now I know something of the journey you must have taken to reach the ground you’re standing on with respect to sex worker rights.
So thank you for writing this column – this one particularly touched me in a special place (and no – not just THAT place! LOL).
“Human nature asserts itself regardless of all laws, nor is there any plausible reason why nature should adapt itself to a perverted conception of morality.”
Here’s the thing. The Prostitutes are the Canaries in Freedom’s coalmine. They are practically the first minority group that a Fascist state puts to the wall come the Glorious Day.
These folk are always first on the busybody shitlist, and they should not be. They are Mothers, Sisters, Daughters, Brothers and Sons. Just like the rest of us. They are *owed* the same fundamental rights as us.
In the neofeminist gender war, as in ancient life, and indeed in sane and balanced modern society, they are our natural allies; complementary to our strengths, reinforcing to our weaknesses; they allow us to buck the yoke of those who would use sexual slavery against us. And we have a reciprocal duty to rise to their defence as they need us, because protecting their persons, and freedoms, protects us all.
Keep running barefoot and laughing at them, Maggie. ❤
You’ve posted the T’Pol picture at least twice, so I presume you see yourself as her. (And certainly there’s a certain >visualvisual< resemblance!)
I wouldn’t go so far as to say I see myself as her, though while watching Enterprise I find her easier to identify with than the other female character (Hoshi Sato). The main reason I use her picture is that she is in my opinion the hottest female Vulcan they’ve ever had on any of the Star Trek shows.
Corrected post:
You’ve posted the T’Pol picture at least twice, so I presume you see yourself as her. (And certainly there’s a certain _visual_ resemblance!) Myself, I see you as Seven Of Nine. Seven could show great tenderness, in her scenes with the little girl, Naomi Wildman; Seven was a good woman-friend to Captain Janeway; but Seven could act utterly cold when she felt the situation required it. (And again, between you and Seven is a certain _visual_ resemblance!)
I think that personality trait is also one of a number of reasons I’ve been compared to Heinlein’s “Friday”.
Yes, I would have been a much different person if I hadn’t spent my childhood reading Heinlein, I think.
Of course, the Vulcan who’s always in my mind when I think of Vulcans was Spock (the half-Vulcan who served as first officer to James T. Kirk), though I have a certain fondness for T’Pol’s curves. As a child I had dolls of all the Enterprise crew (there hadn’t even been a movie yet, just a TV show) that I would play with on a wooden Enterprise bridge that my father built for me (being incensed at the price of the cheap playset that they were trying to sell us to use with the dolls.) He did a really good job on it, I never regretted not having the “official” playset.
Spock if you recall, would often get into arguments with Bones, Bones would almost always lose, and would respond by sputtering, “Why you green-blooded, inhuman….”
My Vulcan comment was of course intended as a compliment.
Besides, I don’t see your enemies as warm and compassionate. I think they use “warm and compassionate” as a very, very thin veneer of cover over “angry and hate-filled,” which usually comes out when they are backed into a corner with logic, and sometimes even if they are simply contradicted.
Often with neofeminists and sex haters in general the anger and hatred is very close to the surface indeed. Some are merely opportunists of course, who can be annoying but are not nearly as frightening as the genuinely deranged who seem to form the “shock troops” of the movement.
I think they use “warm and compassionate” as a very, very thin veneer of cover over “angry and hate-filled,”
That was my take on Rosie O’Donnell. I never could figure out how she got crowned with the sobriquet, “Queen of Nice.” Queen of knives, possibly…
People who never saw her stand-up routines.
I definitely would never describe you as cold-hearted though I can see where the, as you said in a previous post/comment, “tissue paper feelings” crowd would. You suffer no shit in an age where we are expected to view every opinion as valid and the more that feeling is a reaction to oppression, real or imagined, then the more valid it is…in short, bullshit is fact.
Moreover, the often deliberate conflation of feeling and fact, adds to this general butthurt. A person merely feeling as though they have experienced xyz just because it is a fact that xyz exists. Insert any number of discriminatory -isms. I saw an obnoxious meme on a Facebook wall a couple days ago that essentially said, “I see sexism everywhere because sexism IS everywhere.” That says it all, doesn’t it?
The one disadvantage of the “heartless” pragmatic approach is in the winning of hearts and minds. Winning on the battlefield and winning in the living room are two very different battles. I know that I personally appreciate the straightforward, logical approach, but then I was raised on Star Trek and always thought Spock was the coolest character on TV (Uhura was certainly among the hottest!).
I wish I had some great advice here, but I don’t. I can hardly recommend that you disarm yourself in order to be more appealing to the less-logical amongst us. I guess you should just keep on keeping on; it seems to be working, and maybe some more tender-hearted person can make the appeal to those who want cuddle with snakes.
I’ve sometimes thought that if we really were contacted by Vulcans, we’d be at war with them in a week.
Another serious disadvantage is that you’re not in a war. It’s an angry argument. What is a “heartless” pragmatic approach even mean on the internet?
Do Sex Work Advocates really believe they can be meaner than everybody else, so mean they’ll force all the mean people off the web or something?
Why are you the only one who read this column without getting what I was talking about at all?
I find the column to sound very hurt and defensive. The constant references to Vulcans and coldness feel like an attempt to cloak one’s upset emotions in a cloak of dispassionate logic, but its betrayed by the violent rhetoric and obsession with proving how strong you are. It’s similar to a lot of angry rants by people with hurt feelings.
The main thing you seem to be trying to communicate is that if an abolitionist attacks you, using your cold rationality to make an even better attack on them. That doesn’t work in an debate because that just means you made an even more fallacious and rude argument than them.
The final point about, survivor accounts, is again good, but in my opinion, childish. You don’t need to declare you don’t have empathy for them to demand proof of their stories.
A bit of friendly advice: skip the ridiculous pop psychoanalysis. It isn’t even close, and it’s amazing how often such “analyses” try to reduce the subject’s reactions to infantile hurt feelings when in reality human psychology is a great deal more complex.
Fair enough, but you’re the one comparing yourself to a fictional species that was created to be William Shatner’s buddy.
Heck, you even go on about what a stone cold operator you’d be in the “Sandbox”.
Obviously, concepts like “metaphor” are beyond you. Fortunately, thousands of other readers understood the post just fine.
Yes, we did. There’s something else I’m not getting here, but it isn’t anything Maggie said about Vulcans.
Oh, I think this is a generation thing. I don’t really see Vulcan as being all that smart. They don’t really practice any kind of formal logic and tend to be wrong as often as they are right. To me, they’re basically a ridiculous pop version of Rationality. I’ve probably seen more videos making fun of Star Trek, than of actual episodes.
To summarize my thoughts as well as I can:
Why are you using so many war metaphors when talking about trying to shift the public’s views on an issue?
What do they even mean in this context? How does any of these concepts work in an online argument?
Wait, maybe this whole thing is some kind of generation thing. Like, there are rules to break in your world.
I have seen a ton of posts in the vein of this column and I’ve always chuckled at them. What else is there to do? The only things that aren’t acceptable are making things up or making really scary death threats. That’s because they don’t work.
Were you actually on doing something different when you wrote this? And it wasn’t just planning on using more swear words in your rebuttals.
“I’ve probably seen more videos making fun of Star Trek, than of actual episodes.”
While we could speculate on what Spock or T’Pol would say about this, I think Jamie Hyneman put it best: “Well, there’s your problem!”
So, leaving all Vulcans (and Mythbusters) aside, what exactly IS your problem? Too many war metaphors? Does the use of war metaphors make an argument wrong, or just stylistically unappealing to you? If two people make basically the same argument, but one uses war metaphors and the other uses sports metaphors, and maybe a third person uses poker metaphors, is one of them more right than the other?
And to tell the truth, you didn’t “chuckle” at this column. You jumped in with (if you’ll forgive the metaphor) both guns blazing.
It’s because war metaphors don’t really make any sense when applied to an online argument that is about convincing the audience that your argument is more correct than the other people.
Yes, some metaphors are more correct than others because they are more similar to what you’re trying to relate them to.
If you’re playing slapjack and two people make the basically the same argument but one uses poker metaphors and the other uses duck mating ritual metaphors, the one who uses poker is probably correct.
How do you not show quarter to people who you beat in an online argument?
How do you “smite” someone in an argument?
It was funny when it was written by a high school student who needs to stop playing so much call of duty.
But I admire Maggie, so I read this childish bullshit about she knows she’d be super good at blowing away children and it’s just sad.
And I have chuckled at this quite a lot, but I was being polite.
No, they make no sense TO YOU. And YOU choose to dumb everything down to some stupid, childish level when it isn’t, which I suppose is very easy when it isn’t your profession being attacked, oppressed, slandered and maligned across the media all day every day.
Fair warning: You are now perilously close to trolling.
I myself expressed concern that the “cold” approach may not be the best at winning hearts and minds, and that winning on the battlefield is different from winning in the living room. So it’s possible that you and I disagree more in degree than in kind.
The problem is, several people have shown up suggesting that Maggie and other sex worker advocates basically stay silent and not do anything. That this tactic will win because it’s morally superior to fighting back. This may not be what you are suggesting, but it’s what she’s responding to.
FWIW, there are times when not fighting back is the best approach, but I’m far from convinced that this is one of those times. I’d be fine with somebody else expressing the same ideas Maggie has only using sports metaphors or TV sitcom metaphors, but her basic argument is valid or not independently of whatever metaphors she used.
I cleared this up with Maggie a while back, but just for your benefit, I’m going to clarify this up.
Basically, what threw about all these war metaphors and tough guy rhetoric was that outing people on the internet is incredibly common to the point where people have a cutesy nickname for it. It’s called “doxing” and I’ve seen what happens when people get doxed. They take a couple months, maybe create a new online persona.
i remember a very controversial column of yours,i think it was titled ”whore in the bedroom”,where you advised women to take mens sexual needs into consideration.you offered a very pragmatic approach,that if they dont want to satisfy them,then they should have it expected that they would do it somewhere else. there were so many of the feminist crowd,who said how disgusted they were.i remember telling my classmates who said they werent ready for sex and called the boys who wanted it ”pigs”that if they felt they had other needs from their boyfriends,then they should break up with them and leave the name calling.that the boys who wanted sex were as much justified as them who didnt want it and it didnt make them bad people.i got called a bitch a lot for saying theese things. there is no way for everyone to be satisfied,some will cry about what is supposedly right,others will have their sensitivity hurt(real or supposed to),others will be eager to condemn because of ideology or religion.whats important is for one to stay true to themselves and always try to do the best by looking at the bigger picture.
I can’t find that column. Would someone please post a link?
Bravo to you, Laida, for daring to stand up against politically correct, anti-male “truth.”
Here is is.
Interesting point, in Catholic theology, according to my Catholic upbringing, a woman who refuses her husband’s sexual advances is partly responsible for his adulteries. “To refuse one’s spouse a reasonable request to participate in the act of sexual intercourse is to commit a mortal sin. ”
I’m not a Catholic anymore, but I always thought this was one of the Church’s more practical doctrines.
http://maggiemcneill.wordpress.com/2010/09/09/a-whore-in-the-bedroom/
Go to the index tab and it’s pretty easy to find.
When I did the Ctrl-F search thing, I typed in “bedroom” as a search term, but didn’t think to UNcheck “match case.” As a result, my searches kept coming up empty. I’m a moron, carry on.
Exactly so, Laida; they were absolutely infuriated by the idea that it’s irresponsible to neglect the needs of a creature under one’s care. These women have been fed a line of nonsense about some relationship Utopia where all sex is equally wanted by both partners, and get angry when someone points out that the real world isn’t like that.
the thing that was most absurd was that only sex was an unreasonable request.sex was not a serious reason for a pair to have conflicts or break up and the one that made the advances was at fault(but only if it was the male).i used to ask them”are you ready to get married or have children?”they said no,of course.”if you dated sb who wanted theese things asap,would that be a serious reason for a break up and why?”they said,yes,because they would be with someone who had different needs and priorities.” would you begrudge the person who wanted theese things?”.”no”.i then asked them why they dont think its the same with their boyfriends and their need for sex and they answered that sex is not that important and said their slogan once more”whoever loves,waits”.if they continue like this, when they get married divorce because of adultery wont delay much(except if they dont find out that their husbands cheat,of course.)
Please read a history of the mongol empire or a book on counter insurgency. Something about how people who were actually cold and ruthless behaved.
Because this is like the kind of attitude that reminds me of the logic of those Robo-Dragon furries plotting to defend their island from the evil humans that I laughed at a while ago.
You’re applying the same attitude toward rattlesnakes attacks to 140 characters at a time arguments and that doesn’t work.
A group of people trying to destroy your way of life is not a fucking viper about to kill you. And you’re screwed regardless of whether or not you feel sorry for the “venomous serpent about to strike” because they will kill you really quickly and humans cannot react fast enough to stop a striking serpent.
No venomous serpent is of sufficient size to eat a human being, so serpents only attack when they feel threatened, and if you felt a little empathy for the serpent you’d realize that all you have to do to avoid getting bit.
If you are trying to win an argument, ruthlessness doesn’t work. It’s an argument, you can’t break into their city, kill everyone and pile their skulls in the main square. And even then, that was done to terrorize people into surrendering, not just because they made you feel bad. An argument is attempt to win the hearts and minds of the non-allied population of Facebook and twitter. It’s doesn’t matter how many six year old girls you blow up, because the fanatics can always find more. What matters is being able to make the people that don’t care like you better than the other side.
Six year old girls make terrible suicide bombers too, as they are too small to conceal large amounts of explosions and suicide bombers need to be covert anyway, so the fact that people will shot them isn’t that important. If it happens the attack pretty much failed anyway. I’m pretty sure that has never happened either.
Also, I’m guessing you wouldn’t restrict soldiers from visiting local sex workers, even though it’s a danger to operation security and creates resentment among the local population, because that would be mean. And that would be too far, wouldn’t it.
Best line in this essay:
“weaponized “survivor” narratives”
This term should enter the lexicon. It’s easily the most elegant term for much of what passes as testimony.
Survivor narratives have much more in common, as a rule, with Christian “confessions” and other such statements. Most of them reek of exaggeration, narcissism and false attribution.
Sad, really.
But this is a great term.
Thank you! I was rather pleased with it myself. 🙂
Thanks for that Maggie, I totally agree with because I experienced that so many times. Together with your recent blog Imagination pinned down and my personal research on identity-making for many years and my need for necessary deconstructions of others narratives to find out the roots of their ideologies that hurt others. In many discussions I was blamed as cold-hearted only by my independent analysis. BTW: the opposition of rational and emotional is a popular false opposite and a rhetoric weapon to knock out the rational. This juxtaposition is a thinking trap and leads to wrong conclusions. The opposite of “rational” is not emotional but irrational and the opposite of emotional is certainly not rational but emotionless. In fact reason and feeling are still often mutually exclusive. Your writings represents for me very well reasoned positions with great passion. Conversely without any sign of emotion people position irrational things all the time.
I don’t understand what you wish to accomplish by outing Stella. She already posts full-face pictures and is careless with conceiling her own persona, so it’s not really something that puts a lot of pressure on. And if it did, it’s simply bullying. I believe that Stella actually is a former prostitute who should never have entered the trade, and that’s why she is so confused and doesn’t want to accept simple facts such that most madams actually are former or even current sex workers. And now everyone has “proof” about what evil bullies sex work activists are. You’re doing the same thing many sex workers themselves are threatened with. Even if someone says incredibly stupid things online and lies (maybe even believe their own lies), that’s not cool. Besides, there are many sick people out there who like to stalk, harrass or even rape sex workers, also former sex workers or “survivors”.
Sina, I m also concerned about this public outing and reminds me of the eye-for-an-eye-principle of the old testament in the name of justice. Have you followed recent discussions on twitter and in fb-groups? Stellas accusations against sexworker rights activists and advocats as pimps to vilify the sexworker rights movement? And why Norma takes the right for legal action? To discredit the messenger for her lies. Its complicated indeed.
Thank you, Ariane; yours is only the second really nuanced view on this I’ve seen (the other was Charlotte Shane’s). Had it been up to me I would’ve played this differently and much more slowly, but after the story was broken on July 4th the djinni was out of the bottle. That’s why when I published my column five days later I still redacted her last name. I think it’s interesting that many have stated that I was the one who broke the story, when in fact it broke from several activists simultaneously days earlier; I reckon that’s the dark side of getting more popular.
My feeling on what this might accomplish: schoolyard bullies like Stella and her mentor, Melissa Farley, are drawn to targets who don’t fight back; they are cowards at heart and don’t want to be hurt. If a bully’s target just sits and cries, the bully never stops; if, however, the target fights back even once the bully generally desists thereafter. Stella is now being taught that her targets can and will hit back; that is not revenge (which would continue beyond the point necessary to cause the bully to desist) but rather demonstrating that sex worker activists will not meekly submit to whatever attacks she cares to hurl. I think it’s important to note that nobody cared what ridiculous stories Stella told until they became both personal and widespread thanks to Farley’s grant money behind her; it was only after she became an active threat that at least three of her OWN COLLEAGUES took action to stop her by leaking her information. It has even been suggested that the first leaker was Stella herself, trying to set up the situation Sina describes, but that she was surprised when two others joined in without her permission and gave more than she expected.
About bullies. This story I am about to tell is true, and while a single anecdote doesn’t prove anything, I think it might help illustrate things.
It was early in my freshman year of high school. Some of the other boys in class were bigger than I was, some were smaller, and most were about the same size. I’m not sure why, but after class as we were heading off across campus a HUGE boy started ragging on me. I snarked right back. I don’t remember what it was all about (it was more than thirty years ago), but it got to the point that we were going to fight. I threw my best kick and landed it in his gut. He didn’t seem to feel it. Then a fist which looked like it was the size of my head collided with my head and I was on the ground. I got up, spit out some blood, and clenched my fists, trying to find an opening. He said, “Nah, we’re done,” and walked off. I was happy to let him.
He never bothered me again. I didn’t know why; he sure as hell wasn’t afraid of me. His senior year he finally told my sister why. Turns out the whole time he was in high school, only two guys had stood up to him when he started his business. I was one of them. He respected that and didn’t want to hassle somebody he respected. And knowing that, I respected him more. It’s sad to think that we could’ve been friends.
Standing up to is important, whether you win or lose the ensuing fight, or if the fight ends up not happening at all.
I just like to add some thoughts to this incredible story and thanks Maggie to offer this space for me:
Firstly Stella’s attacks follow the wrongful act of a reversal of perpetrator and victim carried out in which it is alleged that advocates exploit the ones entrusted to them; secondly the lies terrifying activists and advocates and threaten their social protection and reputation in a criminalised environment that makes them more vulnerable for law enforcement than in countries like NZ or Germany where advocates and activists live more safely. Thirdly and not only in the case of Norma Jean to take legal action is not only justfied but necessary to defend herself. I m not sure if anyone can realise the consequences it has if people are under false suspicion. Its shattering and destroy peoples lifes and will be charged for nothing. And thats exactly what Maggie wrote: the attackers dont expect that the targets fight back. In a criminalised and stigmatised environment attackers estimate that we stay calm and keep our mouths. Sorry, we dont.
[…] Heart of Ice « The Honest Courtesan. What do you think of this post?Awesome (0) Interesting (0) Useful (0) […]
It always upsets me that neither side of the vaccination debate allow for their sides failings. Everything has to be all in or nothing at all.
It’s horrible that Jenny McCarthy & her ilk have gotten people to avoid giving their children treatments that can save their lives.
On the other hand, & in a completely different way, that vaccines are over-prescribed for illnesses that they are completely ineffective at preventing is also horrible.
One of the commonest complaints of the anti-vaccine crowd is against thimerisol because of it’s mercury content, which is now only contained in flu vaccines. There’s no good reason for the current flu vaccines. They only provide a 33% better chance of avoiding the flu, assuming the CDC actually select the correct vaccine to give that year, which historically they have only gotten correct once in every three years. In exchange for this 1 in 9 chance of actual benefit, you are almost certain to have negative side effects regardless.
If there’s a newborn in your house, I can see the benefit of having everyone ELSE in the house getting the flu shot to try to prevent the newborn from coming in contact with the virus. If you work with, or are a senior, it may be worthwhile as well, but for everyone else, the cost benefit of flu vaccine doesn’t add up.
Why does this position get me lumped in with people saying not to give children MMR shots?
Funny you should mention that.
I had to find out the hard way.
I still feel sorry for it though.