Friday, September 6, 2013

Thanks for the Enlightenment, Slut-Shaming Mom Mrs Hall!

so i read that post - the one Mrs Hall wrote to explain to teenaged girls in her community why she had unfriended them from her boys' facebook  (basically, that her boys were helplessly in thrall to their hormones and couldn't be trusted alone with cute girls).

i'm not posting a link because i don't want to give the satisfaction - but you've probably already read it anyway but you have got to read this rebuttal by Iron Daisy:  -- i just about died from laughing!

i wasn't sure at first - on the surface, Mrs Hall seemed to make a lot of sense.  it seemed nothing more than motherly concern... and then i thought "wait a minute, what kind of family checks out teenaged girls' braless selfies around the dinner table?!" and it all started to unravel.  i mean, even when i had to go hardline on one of my kids, it was between her and me; i didn't go dragging out everything all over the dinner table and ask for  committee approval and the only ones i absolutely forbade her from communicating with again had no business talking to her in the first place!  (not kidding).  when she finally got herself sorted, that was it - end of subject, here's your internet back, don't ever make it necessary for me to do that again.

i was upstairs making chocolate muffins (and experimenting with replacing the oil with puréed mandarin sections - didn't work but they did well as part of the liquid) and i thought about girls who commit suicide because of embarrassing photos posted online and i thought about ppl who lost jobs or job opportunities or clients or whatever bec of stuff posted years before and i thought holy fuck - even rape has a statute of limitations!

in california, aggravated (type 3) rape carries a 3-yr statute of limitations:  if no charges are laid within 3yrs, the rapist walks free.  if he posts a picture of the victim, there's a chance she'll be dead within three years and if she's not, she could be 30 years older and here comes her grandchild asking "is this you, gramma!!!?  what's he DOING to you!???".

and i thought about girls dressing skanky.  i've always thought that there is an element of responsibility when a girl dresses in a sexually provocative manner.  i'm not saying that "men are pigs" - i'm saying that to go into a club where ppl are drinking, doing drugs, and basically ensuring they are not in full possession of their normal good judgment is rather tantamount to walking into a burning building carrying a gas can.  i figured it was that element of provocation - kind of like how someone gets the crap kicked out of them but then the court finds out he'd been taunting the guy for the past three weeks - that resulted in reduced sentences.

but then i had an epiphany!  a blinding burst of enlightenment!

ppl who rape prostitutes and sexually promiscuous women shouldn't get reduced sentences - they should be punished even more harshly!

think about it.  who gets the worse sentence:  the guy who robs a bank or the guy who robs a lady on her way home from shopping?  the one who steals smokes from a convenience store or the one who steals smokes from someone's house while visiting?  drugs stolen from a pharmacy or from some little old pensioner while doing the house cleaning?

in all three cases, the business crime nets the higher sentence.  why?

because the goods were there for the asking - all you have to do is meet the contract!  if you want money from the bank, just meet their lending criteria.  if you want drugs from a pharmacy, get a prescription.  if you want cigarettes from the store, hand over the money.

prostitutes and sexually promiscuous girls ARE willing to have sex with you - you just need to meet the requirements (hint:  regular use of soap and water is a good start).

so not only did the aggressor commit violence against their person,  but it was *gratuitous* violence.  all that was needed was to buy the girl a drink or hand over a 20 or a 50, and there you go - sex on tap.

instead, no - you had to go beating her up.

why?  because that's what Mrs Hall told you to do!  she's written you a Mrs Hall pass!  remember:  you're just a man so you can't help yourself from acting on your impure thoughts!

i was so amazed by this realization, i had to go eat some muffin batter.

Wednesday, August 14, 2013

Afraid of dogs? Get past it!

My youngest daughter was born afraid of animals.  Didn't matter what kind, large or small.  Couldn't even have stuffies in her room without her screaming herself purple.  I'm not talking a year old, here - I'm talking a month old and she totally lost her shit when I tried to use a stuffed pink bunny to prevent her from rolling off the couch while changing her diaper.

That was totally incomprehensible to me - I love animals.  I think they're great, they're awesome, and a house is not a home without at least one furred, finned, or feathered denizen.  The only thing I could think of was that she picked it up from her father, who really is afraid of dogs.  He has reason to be - the country he grew up in is not known for its progressive attitude toward animals and he has the scars on the back of his thigh just below his buttock to prove it.

After we separated, I moved to the country with predictable results - absolute hysteria every time she saw a dog, cat, horse, cow, sheep, whatever.  It was intolerable.

So I took the only reasonable course of action:  I got myself a cat.  Then two more were dumped on my doorstep and before I knew it, I was knee-deep in felines.  Then I got a dog - "she" was supposed to be a medium-sized dog (border collie) but "she" came with deluxe mixed nuts:  with his St John's Markings, he's clearly some kind of lab cross but he is definitely border collie too.  But he's big - oh, not to me.  To me, 65lbs and 22" high at the shoulder is just "dog" sized.  But to city dwellers with their passionate love affair with the pocket pooches, he's humongous.

Hubbie was out with friends and he called - "put the dog away, we're bringing in the shopping".  My dog is 100% not aggressive - I'm not just blowing smoke:  he's been *well* tested.  For him to actually attack, it means somebody's life is in danger.  Even the times he's been involved in dog-on-dog conflicts (which does happen in any normal dog's life), there was never any blood - just a lot of slobbered-up fur.  But he's hyper and he always goes bonkers when someone comes to the house - he's just SO DAMNED HAPPY TO SEE YOU!!!!  HI!!!! HI!!!!  RUB MY BELLY!!!! WHAT'S ON YOUR HEAD!!!!?  HEY YOU SMELL GREAT!!!!!  IS THAT SUMMER'S EVE!!??? - so yeah, if we have to go in and out and in and out bringing in bags and boxes, it's just easier to park the dog.

He came in with his friends and the shopping was stowed in the kitchen so all right, I go to let the dog out.

"Oh, I don't know," he says, "Danny [the kid, about 10yrs old] doesn't really like dogs."

Well, I'm not going to keep my dog locked up just because someone doesn't like dogs - ignore the dog, if that's your issue, I'm not forcing you to play with him.

I had just finished renovating the room I'd put the dog in and the mother came to see.  I opened the door, dog shot out like a rocket, dancing and scrabbling on the slick floor, and I hear "Oh, no - she let the dog out!!" from the father and next thing I know, this kid is going MENTAL!  Screaming, crying, slapping out at the dog (who had only been sniffing his toes), and generally acting like a fool.

Okay, harsh - but still!

My dog, now frightened and confused over what he'd done wrong, kept trying to belly up to the kid who kept striking out at him until his father picked him up and shoved my dog away with his foot.   My dog's trying to come back to me, I'm trying to get out to him, but the mother is standing in the doorway with this world-weary expression on her face saying "No, no, it's okay, it's okay, he'll be fine" and, all in all, it's just one giant clusterfuck.

Here's the thing:  YOU CANNOT ALLOW YOUR CHILD TO ACT LIKE THAT and no, I'm not going to keep my dog locked up because your child has not been taught how to behave around dogs!

Reality:  the world has dogs in it.  The world has a LOT of things in it that you, your child, or whoever, is going to find frightening or scary or gross or disgusting or whatever.

Reality:  the world does not bend to accommodate you or your child.  Maybe the school made everybody keep peanuts at home because of your kid's allergy but good luck phoning your child's boss and telling him he has to ban peanuts at work!

Reality:  being afraid of dogs, just like being allergic to peanuts, can get you hurt or killed!

Danny was lucky - my dog lives to please and he's a really great dog.  Far too many dogs out there are not.  They are not well socialized with children, they are not taught bite inhibition, and they are just plain not taught good manners.  If your child goes freaking out, panicking and squeaking and flapping and bolting off, then your child has just turned himself into prey - get a dog with a high prey drive and that dog will chase your child and take him down.  No, there's not a whole lot anybody can do about it because prey drive is not something humans have.  It's not "fear", it's not "aggression", it's simply the dog (or cat) turning into a pure hunting machine.  It's the dog *being* a dog.

How to behave around animals is, I firmly believe, something that should be taught in schools by experts.   It's not "automatically" or "instinctively" learned and it's not an innate skill.  Dogs have an entire vocabularly that, unfortunately, is very similar to humans' in appearance but not in meaning.

For example:

If your child is afraid of dogs, then as a responsible parent, you MUST get that child educated.  I'm not saying your child must become St Francis of Assissi - I don't care if your kid loves or hates animals.  But your child must learn to respect animals, to give them their space, and not become a victim.  If your child is attacked by a dog, it's the dog that will get killed for it - but I can almost guarantee that it was your child's fault.

Correction:  I can almost guarantee that it was YOUR fault for not providing your child with the tools she needs to stay safe.

We're not going to lock away all our dogs to accommodate your child and your child's life will be a miserably uncomfortable one if he spends it trying to avoid all dogs.  Teaching your child proper behaviour and self-control around dogs is the right thing to do.

Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Pro-Life, eh?  Exactly *whose* life?

Today, got into it with pro-lifers as a result of a really smarmy, emotionally manipulative pro-life post on facebook.  Summary:  woman with a 2yr old discovers she's pregnant again, goes to the doctor for an abortion bec she can't handle two babies at once, dr suggests she instead kill the baby she already has so she can have a nice rest before the next one arrives [because naturally pregnancy is such a restful, relaxing time of life!].  of course the woman is horrified and the doctor pats himself on the back and no doubt faps to his own saintly image in the bathroom mirror after she leaves).

My view is that if you want to be pro-life for yourself, knock yourself out, more power to you, good on you, kudos, and all the rest of that congratulatory crap.

But KEEP it to yourself.  

You have no right to guilt, manipulate, blackmail, or otherwise frighten women and girls into keeping babies they don't want.

And what if your little emotional blackmail works really well and the woman can't bear to give the baby up for adoption and keeps it - are you doing to be there when it's 2am and she is so stressed out that she'd like nothing better than to slam it through the drywall and it's only because she's taken herself out to the backyard to chainsmoke half a pack until the infant has cried itself to sleep from exhaustion that she hasn't done so?  Are you going to top up her income so she can afford the basic necessities that aren't covered on social assistance or because she gave in to the monkey on her back?  Are you going to babysit the child so she can keep up her university studies or will you make the student loan payments she can't meet because she had to drop out because of the baby?

"Adoption is an option" - unless you have a legally binding offer in hand, you can't say that.  How can you possibly make a promise on behalf of some unknown random person that they will adopt the baby?  What if the child is born with the consequences of drug or alchohol abuse?  Have you seen the statistics detailing the number of disabled and handicapped kids languishing in care waiting for someone to get sick and tired of waiting for the perfect blonde, blue-eyed baby to show up?

For that matter, why should ppl who can't have kids be obligated to take a disabled child because it's the only one going?

"Oh, she smiles when she sees the sun on her face" - the child was in her early teens, blind, deaf, and with a mental age of approximately 9 months.  She had frequent seizures and the feeding port in her stomach often got infected.  Every penny the father got from his very well-paid job was sunk into keeping her alive while the house rotted down around his, his wife's, and their other two children's ears.  The other two kids were gifted - son, a brilliant athlete; daughter, gifted academically and musically, and was a very good artist.

So the parents are sinking everything into keeping the disabled child smiling in her wheelchair while the other two kids have no hope at all of a future because their education funds had to be cashed in.  When the parents die, they will have to assume care of their sister.

Why is the disabled child's right to smile in a wheelchair when she feels the sun on her face more important than the other two kids' right to develop to their full potential?

How is it benefiting society for that child to just sit in the chair while her two siblings grow up to flip burgers and sell used cars, get married, have kids, get divorced because of the stress of looking after the handicapped girl?

I find it curious that the parents didn't believe in abortion - they knew what was going to happen, the problem was detected during pregnancy by amniocentesis - but they sure had no problem throwing two healthy kids who would've benefited society and maybe even humanity under the bus!

There should be a law that anybody who counsels someone out of getting an abortion should be held liable for what happens afterward - for good or ill.

The states have this sick law requiring pregnant women to listen to the baby's heart and watch it on an ultrasound before an abortion will be approved (and naturally, any woman who does that and goes ahead with it will be judges as basically being a psychopath who is probably unfit to have children anyway).  I think it should cut both ways:  anybody who counsels a woman out of getting an abortion should be required to visit her every month and see how things are going.  Maybe once they see the consequences of their action, they won't be so quick to flap their yaps.

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

pro-ana morons (cross-post from my other blog)

i HATE HATE HATE so-called "pro-anorexics" - those who actively encourage and enable anorexia.

i think they should be charged under the criminal code with counselling to commit suicide since it's been soundly proven that, left untreated, anorexia leads to death.

anorexia is nothing more or less than suicide by starvation and, to my mind, it's the most selfish, vengeful, and malicious way to choose. the anorexic - knowing full well she (statistically speaking) has a problem because her parents, her friends, her teachers, and her freaking doctor have TOLD her she has a problem, is basically sinking in a deep pool of shit. all her loved ones are on the shore calling to her and throwing her ropes to pull her out but does she grab them and help save herself!? hell no - she makes damned sure that rope lands in the shit before she throws it back to slap them across the face.

refusing to get treated for a condition such as anorexia or schizophrenia, that's a big FUCK YOU to everybody who knows and loves you.

and honestly, to all those moronic pro-anorexics out there: do you *honestly* think THIS is, by any stretch of the imagination, "sexy"?!?

anybody who finds that image "sexy" would be equally turned on by:


or even

Monday, October 11, 2010

environmental extortion!.... or is it?

i first learned about the situation when i caught the front page of the National Post (kind of a cross between the globe and mail and the toronto sun). it read something like "ecuador demands the world pay [some number of billions] to save the rainforest". basically, ecuador was "demanding" the world pay it to not drill for oil in one of the last remaining intact tracts of rainforest.

my first reaction - "the blackguards! that's blackmail! extortion!"

basically, same reaction as this decidedly VERY biased article:

Under the noble rubric of protecting the environment, native habitat, and local, indigenous peoples, as well as "preventing the discharge into the atmosphere of more than 400 million metric tons of carbon which would result from the burning of fossil fuels if oil were extracted," Ecuador has devised a plan through the U.N. Development Group (UNDP) to receive remuneration for its good deeds. There are few subtler ways to blatantly extort the world than under the guise of the U.N. Contributions are rarely directly funded, therefore the 2009 budget -- 22% of which is funded by U.S. taxpayers -- rarely gets dissected, scrutinized, and exhibited. Who wants to read about their constant stupidity and inefficiency? But this new fiasco is worth learning. The Yasuni-ITT Initiative, co-opted by the UNDP, requires 50% of the foregone value of the reserves to be paid by a collaboration of industrialized countries directly to Ecuador...or they will move forward with drilling. At a rough estimate of $76 a barrel, that's almost $32 billion due Ecuador for the pleasure of not becoming an oil producer.

and then i got to thinking: "i'm poor. i have barely enough money to scrape by from month to month. i discover i have gold in my back yard that would generate enough money not only to meet my needs but to leave me quite comfortable - BUT!

my much-wealthier neighbours (who've been telling me for years how i should decorate the house and landscape my front yard while somehow never managing to have the money on hand to help me keep up with the standards they demand) have decided i can't sell it to a mining company because it would ruin the look of the place and bring down property values and then some eco-tree-hugger bunch announces my back yard is one of the last remaining territories of some straggly little weed or a bedraggled little bird or maybe even some unappealing rodent-y little thing and they jump on the bandwagon to prevent me from tearing up my back yard with a horrible ugly ol' mine.

kinda puts a different slant on the whole thing, doesn't it?

quite frankly, i find it laudable that ecuador even opened the door to the option - were it pretty much any of the G8, they'd've had the drills sunk and the geysers gushing long before the rest of us had time to open our eyes over our morning coffee!

so, bottom line, there it is: if the world wants the rainforest preserved, the world better be prepared to put its money where its mouth is.

Thursday, June 10, 2010

what do you mean, "not my problem"!?

so, okay - this morning, mea maxima culpa (latin for "my big bad"). never mind all the lectures, i *know* it wasn't the greatest option but it was the only one i had.

factor #1: i have a 3yr old. she's *very* strong, weighs 50lbs - if she doesn't want to do something, trust me: there's no way of forcing her without actually hurting her because of the force required to overcome the amount of inertia she can create which can probably generate its own gravitational pull. add to that a temper that registers on the fujita scale and you can see why dealing with her when she's stressed, frightened, or just woken up is SO not my idea of a party.

factor #2: i have a border collie mix, weighs 70lbs, and is hyper, hyper, HYPER. he *has* to be walked twice a day or he is out of control and demo's the house when left alone.

factor #3: mondays, tuesdays, and thursdays, i have a very tight morning schedule. we have to be out in the driveway at 9am or we miss our ride into town. hitch-hiking is pretty crappy in the mornings because the bugs are *fierce*. wearing mosquito gear is fine but even though it's mesh, you still end up hot and sticky because now you can't scratch and wipe it away.

last night, she got up around midnight - bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, ready to par-TAY. didn't get back to sleep until about 2am.

the usual schedule is:

0600 - wake up, get dressed
0630 to 0700 - walk the dog
0700 to 0830 - breakfast while going over Dog Whisperer and other PVR'd shows while she watches Caillou, Max and Ruby, etc.
0830 - 0900 - we watch Dora the Explorer together while i do her hair
0900 - outside waiting for our ride.

today, she didn't get up at 6. when i poked her softly to test for doneness, she shrieked "NOOO!!!!!" and whacked me across the side of the head before pulling the pillow over her head. i waited but when she started snoring, i figured i'd give her a little more time.

i spent the next little while going over the TV shows, brushing the dog, straightening the livingroom, drinking too much tea. i checked her again at 7, but she was dead to the world. by now, i was getting a bit nervous and the dog was definitely anxious - i let him out in the backyard to pee but when i called him right back in, he almost balked.

8am, she was still comatose. by now, the dog was literally going out of his mind. he would run from me to the door whining and pawing at it in between sessions of rolling on the floor at my feet.

when he rolled onto his back in front of me and peed all over himself, i realized we were out of time - i locked the front door, locked the gate separating the livingroom and bedroom from the rest of the house, loaded the dog's backpack up with six pounds, and headed up the road to the top of the hill and back - total walk time is only ten minutes but with his loaded backpack on, it drains him out pretty good. add a minute for him to do his number two (couple of them, actually) and that's it.

except on the way back, a pickup stopped and asked if i lived at the house across the bridge. i said yes and he said "your baby's in the road, you know".


i *ran* back to the house and sure enough, there's saari, naked except for panties and crocs on the wrong feet, smiling and beaming at two girls who were giving me the stink-eye.

then all three of them start lecturing me! i tried to explain but they wouldn't even let me talk, just kept yammering.

finally i said "tell you what: since you're so concerned, why don't you come here every morning and watch her so i can give the dog a proper workout?"

"oh, well, that's not our problem," he said while the two girls sneered.

i said "if it's not your problem, why are you standing here getting all holier than thou on me? give me a solution."

then i asked him if he was a single father and he said no. i said how nice that he has a wife at home to do all the hard work for him. then i said until you know what it's like trying to split yourself into three pieces trying to look after everything all by yourself, don't you dare judge me.

he said if it happened again, he'd report me, i said that's certainly your right and took saari and the dog into the house.

today, i buy a lock for the bedroom door because i can't figure out for the life of me how she got out. the gate was still locked, the front door was still locked (it's a latch up at the top of the door, not the lock on the handle) so unless she managed to dematerialise through the actual wall of the house, i have no idea. the last thing i need is to have her pull the same stunt while i'm in the tub or doing laundry or something!