Some Pro-Life groups like to posit a character to represent the evils of abortion.   She's a young woman having  frequent casual sex, who, finding herself pregnant, carelessly trots to an abortion clinic to kill the baby.

They hate this imagined individual, and want us to hate her.  They believe that banning abortion will make her behave "morally", or possibly no longer exist.  

I don't hate her.  I feel sorry for her.  Why is she so careless with her health and safety?  Does she enjoy her sexual encounters, or is she doing it for survival?  Does she not have access to birth control?  

I think abortion is a tragedy, and it would be nice if the procedure was never needed.

But, banning it won't change anything for the people who have sought it.

They will still be lost, or confused, or frightened, or abused, or struck by a medical disaster.   They will still need help.  

I believe that addressing poverty, mental illness, medical access, and education issues will not only reduce the use of abortion, but help society in general.  It's a solution that does not require judgment or hate. 

Can we try that?

 

.

 

 

 

 
Much has been said about how bad virginity cult is for women's mental health, but I want to take a look at how it really messes with men's heads as well.

Virginity cult is easily traceable to Patrilineal societies, where knowing the father of a child is critical to the passing of property and power.  Virginity becomes a Virtue because it is the most certain way to knowing paternity.   

For a man in such a Patriarchal culture, potential sexual partners are divided into two groups.  There are Good Girls, who are welcome in society, and can command respect, and there are Whores who are pariahs, and not worthy of respect. 

The difference between these two groups is that one has been touched by a penis.  That's all.  Touch a Good Girl with a penis, and *poof*, she's a Whore.  Even if she didn't want the touch.  While it's not overtly stated, the internalized message for men is this:

PENISES ARE CURSED.

The curse can be abated by a religious ceremony.  After the Wedding ceremony, he can touch her with his penis, and she changes from a Good Girl into a Good Woman.   But, the penis curse is still active.  Any other woman the man touches with his Cursed Object still becomes a Whore.  If any other Cursed Object touches the Good Woman, *poof* she's a Whore again.  The curse is that powerful.

What a terrible head trip.    A part of his body that ought to be a source of intimacy and fun is a metaphysical deadly weapon.  Wanting to have sex with a woman is the same as wanting to defile her.   It's no wonder this culture generates abuse.  

Looking at Patriarchal culture in the light of this superstition explains some things, though.

It's what makes "Fuck you" an insult.

It's why women in politics get rape threats. (and men don't)  The threat is not about sex, it's about destroying her ability to command respect through use of the Cursed Object. 

This also explains the Patriarchal view that lesbians are hot, but gay men are not.  Two Good Girls having sex with each other are not defiled, not matter how lascivious they get.   But... if a Cursed Object touches another Cursed Object... do they curse each other?  Does it set up feedback for an Ultimate Curse?   Might it defile the entire world?  

It can be the cause of violence against trans women.   What the superstitious man thought was a harmless Whore turns out to be concealing a Cursed Object.  

And, to drift a little from the topic of how this twists men's thinking, this idea is also where TERFs come from.  They are so afraid of the Cursed Object,  they believe even surgery can not remove the curse.

 

.

One of the yeasts in this horrible brew is the concept of being "tough on crime".

It's a convenient political stance, because nobody is really FOR crime.  So, it's politically safe, and sounds good in a political campaign.

Most voters don't really look deeply into the histories of the people they vote for.  We make judgements about an elected official's character like personal associations, rather than assessing a them as someone applying for a job (which is what they really are).   We don't want to do the tedious work of rational evaluation, and tend to respond with our "gut feelings".

Anything that leads voters to get a positive "gut feeling" and not look any deeper will get the votes.

To be "tough on crime", a candidate must show people two things, crime, and toughness.  So, the proper use of police as Keepers of the Peace won't do.  If nothing bad happens, how can they be seen to fight it? 

Chiefs of police, Mayors and Governors, for decades, have been deliberately telling their officers NOT to de-escalate situations.  More arrests keeps the votes.  "Look!  Crime!  And we're getting tough on it!"   The fact that most of it is just noise, and doesn't solve or prevent crimes is shoved aside.  Exciting, highly visible arrests to get that "gut approval" keeps people in office better than the un-glamorous process of investigating and solving real law enforcement issues.

There is no evidence that getting "tough" reduces crime rates.  There is plenty of evidence that it reduces effectiveness of law enforcement.  It burdens the legal system with junk arrests that wind up being dismissed.  It also leads to bad cops staying in the system, because they're happy to make showy and pointless arrests.  It leads to distrust in the system.
 
The last, and fatal flaw is that this only works so long as majority voters aren't the ones getting arrested.   That positive "gut feeling" is only generated if the "criminals" fit popular stereotypes.   Getting "tough on crime" always means "getting tough on minorities".  Catering to the stereotypes reinforces the prejudice.   The average, comfortably lazy voter sees multiple images of minorities being arrested, and it settles in their mind as "these people are criminal".   After all, there's the evidence, right there on the news. 

Which leads us to our current dumpster fire.  Elected officials interested only in keeping their position, rather than serving their constituents, have been doing terrible things for short term gains.   They've been screwing the future. 

Remember this when you vote.  Don't just vote in the National elections, vote in the local ones.  Pay attention, look more closely.  Don't let this amoral shell game continue. 

.
Metacognition.

The ability to think about how you think.
Some people seem to lack that.

We've all seen it.  Someone has concluded that this chair will fit in that car, and is trying to put it in there.  They try through the door, through the hatchback, right side up, upside down, and sideways.  It doesn't fit.  Onlookers can see that it won't fit, and may tell the person so, but they keep trying.

Sometimes this is admired as "determination", but that's not what is going on.   It's difficulty in re-assessing.  This individual is unable to switch from making the chair fit to finding another way to get the chair home.  Sometimes, they will even resort to damaging the chair to follow their initial plan.  The important mental process of, "Could I be mistaken?" is not happening.

Once metacognition clicks in, problem solving can advance. 

Without metacognition, someone who has decided they like a particular person, political party, program or platform will continue to try to make their ideals fit into reality just as ineffectually as the sad case trying to cram a sofa into a smartcar.  They'll look just as stupid, and make as little progress toward their goals.

The ability and willingness to re-assess is crucial to survival.

Is the person you voted for last time still a good choice?  Have they changed?  Have the issues changed?  Are the decisions you made in March still wise in May?

Is your relationship really working?  Has the person you concluded that you love changed?  Have you changed?  Have your needs or their needs changed?

Is the career you chose in high school still a good fit for you?  Does that pile of "collectibles" still have any value?  Is alcohol still a good choice?  Are you sure that Nigerian Prince is honest?

Time to think about what you think.

.

 
Anger is a malfunction.

Something or someone doesn't behave the way we expect, and we become angry.  It never helps.  Stopping to assess the situation, and moving to problem solving, is what is needed.

These people make us angry.  Does it help the situation to be mad at them?  Even if they could see our anger, would it change them?  Probably not.

If we look at this situation without anger, what DO we feel?

I feel pity.  I see that these people are afraid.

They are afraid that the rest of the world thinks like they do.

They despise "poor people".  They are afraid of becoming poor, because that would make them despicable. 

They are afraid of losing "their liberty" because they know how they treat disenfranchised people.  

They see their power and influence fading, and they are terrified, because they only know their own paradigm. 

Perhaps a better response to them would be to try to reassure them that we don't think like they do.  Perhaps we can try to see them as fellow human beings who need our emotional support.  They've gone mad, but they're not rabid dogs.  Hating them won't fix anything.

Getting angry and attacking these people will only more solidly confirm their biases.  They think we want to devour them.  We don't.  All we really want is for them to let us be.

How can we persuade them that the danger is not from us?  What can we do to reassure these people, so they will calm down, and go home?



.

I have been trying to figure out how to explain to a friend why people get so mad at her when she helps.  She thinks people are just ungrateful.  (note: yelling at her to mind her own damn business is not "ungrateful", it's "totally pissed off")

Name changed to protect the guilty, here's a dramatization of  asking Mona to do you a little favor.
-------------------------------

You're hanging out with some friends, and talking about things to do, when Mona mentions that a friend of hers has this big portable grill that ten people could cook on at the same time.  You know a lot of people who think they grill the best burgers, and think it would be fun to have a cookoff in your back yard.

You say to Mona, "Could you ask your friend if I can borrow or rent that grill? I could set up a really fun weekend for everybody!"  She says she will ask.

You and your friends talk about this for a bit.  Everybody has ideas... maybe get a band, or belly dancers, a beer fountain, hire Chef Ramsey, ha ha... not really planning, just tossing ideas around.  Then conversation moves on.

When you get home, you look up all your grill fanatic friends, and tell them about your cookout idea.  They like the idea, and if you can get the big grill, are eager to come have a good time. 

You don't hear back from Mona for a few days, so you text her:

          Have you talked to your friend yet about me borrowing that big grill?

Plans have been falling through, but I found some performers.

          What?  I was asking about that big grill.  Is your friend willing to lend or rent it?

Oh, I spoke to him the next day,  he loves the idea, but he's so busy with this lawsuit about his neighbors' claim that he had sex with their cat, and the jugglers are vegan, but I'm sure we can work it all out, I'm going to look at the grill tomorrow.

          Ok, whatever you're planning sounds interesting, but I need to talk to this guy about the grill.

We're going to look at the grill tomorrow, you can come if you want to

By this point in the conversation, you are filled with a creeping dread.  Who is "we"?  What has Mona been doing and saying in your name?  Did she take all that batting ideas around seriously? Is Chef Ramsey going to turn up in your yard?  Why didn't Mona tell you right away that her friend was willing to lend you his grill?  WHAT IN MIDAS' GOLDEN BUTTHOLE IS GOING ON?

After much texting, and some phone calls, and mysterious paragraphs about her friend's lawsuit, and what really happened with the neighbor's cat, you extract contact information from Mona, and call the guy, now two weeks later.

          "Hello, I'm the person Mona spoke to you about borrowing your portable ten person grill."

"Oh, the grill isn't portable.  It's set in concrete behind my restaurant."

          "I see.  Sorry to bother you then, there has apparently been a misunderstanding."

"So you don't want to rent it after all?  If $2000 for the weekend is too much, we can work something out."

          "No need, it's not really suitable for what I had in mind.  Thanks for your time. Bye."

You disconnect the call with the quivery feeling of having climbed out of an arroyo just before the flood came down.  To make sure you are safe, you send one more text to Mona: I AM NOT HAVING A COOKOFF.  I DO NOT WANT TO BORROW YOUR FRIEND'S GRILL.

Later that night, as you are sinking into exhausted sleep, the full terror strikes you.  Sitting bolt upright, you wonder, what if you hadn't followed up?  What if, not hearing back from Mona in the first place, you simply decided to do something else?

What if she hadn't been stopped...

And Mona wonders why people scream at her.  

------------------





          

Two thoughts just collided in my head.

One:  The crisis of China not wanting our trash any more. We haven't actually been recycling stuff, just selling it to someone else.  Millions of tons of it.

Two: The crisis of landfills filling up.  If you think about it, this translates to "We're running out of holes in the ground." 

Collision results:

If our trash is worth shipping to the other side of the planet, it's worth shipping somewhere closer. 

Like, some place that still has holes in the ground. 

So we can put the carbon back in the ground where it came from.

EXACTLY where it came from.

Commentary:  I don't know if I'm brilliant or stupid this morning.  I'll finish my coffee now.