Which some of you doubtless knew already.
I was walking to the bus stop this morning and mulling over my blogroll when I realized I didn't have Murphy on it. (Actually, I was wondering why I hadn't seen his blog on the list yesterday when I was catching up, and made the leap from there.)
Situation remedied.
In other news, I am currently wearing this bitchin' t-shirt, although in the older version with the graphic on the front. I'm sure y'all were breathlessly awaiting that little update.
One last thing, in order to make sure this post validates its heading...Why is it COSA (City of San Antonio) closes streets for the Cesar Chavez parade but not the St Patrick's Day parade?
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Friday, March 28, 2008
Somebody's got to say it...
This is based on another local news story.
A mentally-retarded woman was just sentenced to 80 years in prison for killing her boyfriend's 3-year-old son. (Story.) I'm not going to go into the details, as they are pretty horrific and not precisely germane to what I'm going to say.
Before I get into my rant, I want to make it very clear: I'm not feeling any sympathy for this woman, nor do I think there's any mitigating what she did. It was heinous, disgusting (even for child murder), and I only wish it was possible to give her the death penalty. But nowhere have I seen addressed a secondary but still important issue. Not in the newspaper (even letters-to-the-editor), nor on WOAI's "local" show. Here's the deal, the very first thing I said to my mother after reading the first article:
What the hell is wrong with a man that he wants a mentally retarded woman as a partner?
For all that she was apparently high functioning (she held a job), she was still not quite right, to be politically incorrect about it. Her mother warned her boyfriend against her, telling him that she wasn't really mature enough emotionally for such a relationship, and definitely shouldn't be taking care of the man's child.
We have laws to protect those deemed unable to give informed consent. That's why a 25-year-old can't legally screw a 15-year-old, even though from a biological standpoint such a liasion makes perfect sense. Our society frowns upon, say, a university professor having an affair with one of his students, because it is considered that his influence over her (hers over him) is such that actual consent is questionable.
I think that most reasoning men probably will agree with me, that a woman with the mental and emotional capacity of a child should be essentially regarded as one, sexual maturity aside.
But there's always someone willing to take advantage.
This hits home for me, as one of my cousins is married to a woman with diminished mental capacity. (She's the only grownup I've ever met who still has a legal guardian.) I have always questioned this particular person's motivations, to be honest. It's not a balanced relationship; it cannot be. As I know the woman, I know that she is very high functioning, and chances are if you didn't know her well you wouldn't realize to begin with that she's not "normal". Heck, I've got another cousin (I've got one for every season) who, though there's nothing on paper, is fairly obviously slightly retarded, and yet there's never been a shortage of men ready to take advantage of her. (She's been sexually abused as an adult, something which may be a little hard to comprehend.)
I don't get it. I just don't. I understand that there is love and that love is irrational, but in many of these relationships it seems to me that it is, like with pedophilia or rape, much less about love than about power. Because a dumb woman (and I don't mean that in a mean way, really, just a factual one) is easier to control.
We rightly worry about men who feel a need to control their wives when said wives have full mental capacity. Seems to me we need to be asking questions when they do it because the woman actually has to be led in order to do anything.
A mentally-retarded woman was just sentenced to 80 years in prison for killing her boyfriend's 3-year-old son. (Story.) I'm not going to go into the details, as they are pretty horrific and not precisely germane to what I'm going to say.
Before I get into my rant, I want to make it very clear: I'm not feeling any sympathy for this woman, nor do I think there's any mitigating what she did. It was heinous, disgusting (even for child murder), and I only wish it was possible to give her the death penalty. But nowhere have I seen addressed a secondary but still important issue. Not in the newspaper (even letters-to-the-editor), nor on WOAI's "local" show. Here's the deal, the very first thing I said to my mother after reading the first article:
What the hell is wrong with a man that he wants a mentally retarded woman as a partner?
For all that she was apparently high functioning (she held a job), she was still not quite right, to be politically incorrect about it. Her mother warned her boyfriend against her, telling him that she wasn't really mature enough emotionally for such a relationship, and definitely shouldn't be taking care of the man's child.
We have laws to protect those deemed unable to give informed consent. That's why a 25-year-old can't legally screw a 15-year-old, even though from a biological standpoint such a liasion makes perfect sense. Our society frowns upon, say, a university professor having an affair with one of his students, because it is considered that his influence over her (hers over him) is such that actual consent is questionable.
I think that most reasoning men probably will agree with me, that a woman with the mental and emotional capacity of a child should be essentially regarded as one, sexual maturity aside.
But there's always someone willing to take advantage.
This hits home for me, as one of my cousins is married to a woman with diminished mental capacity. (She's the only grownup I've ever met who still has a legal guardian.) I have always questioned this particular person's motivations, to be honest. It's not a balanced relationship; it cannot be. As I know the woman, I know that she is very high functioning, and chances are if you didn't know her well you wouldn't realize to begin with that she's not "normal". Heck, I've got another cousin (I've got one for every season) who, though there's nothing on paper, is fairly obviously slightly retarded, and yet there's never been a shortage of men ready to take advantage of her. (She's been sexually abused as an adult, something which may be a little hard to comprehend.)
I don't get it. I just don't. I understand that there is love and that love is irrational, but in many of these relationships it seems to me that it is, like with pedophilia or rape, much less about love than about power. Because a dumb woman (and I don't mean that in a mean way, really, just a factual one) is easier to control.
We rightly worry about men who feel a need to control their wives when said wives have full mental capacity. Seems to me we need to be asking questions when they do it because the woman actually has to be led in order to do anything.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
I'm comically late on this, but I'm goin' there anyway.
I totally, shamelessly <3 Scalpel, which is kinda funny because I generally don't like doctors. This post is tangentially related to this post of his, but is really more about the comments section, wherein the great one says the following (which is why I refer to him from now on as the great one):
Of course, he is right. We are generally superior in almost every way. I didn't really believe this until I married a sailor & moved to the Northeast. Of course, Groton and San Antonio aren't really a fair comparison on any level. But that was followed by moves to Norfolk and then to Honolulu.
One thing that always amused me about Norfolk: Most of the people who retire from the Navy there seem to stay there. Except the Texans. They always go home. (Even if they don't start out with that plan, it always seems to happen.) There would be these occasional, brief conversations along the lines of
"So, are y'all planning on staying once your husband gets out?"
"Dear God, no. We're going back to Texas the second he's processed out."
"Oh. That makes sense."
I really did used to get out of the car at the welcome center in Texarkana and kiss the ground.
San Antonians have an odd sort of inferiority complex about our city. The people who grew up here seem to think there's something better elsewhere. There's not. Not even Honolulu, which I loved and adored (because, face it, there's something wrong with you if you don't love Hawaii). There's the new conversation I have here.
"So you lived in Honolulu? Why'd you come back?"
"Because it's not San Antonio."
I loved Hawaii, and I miss Zippy's and the twenty thousand Korean barbeque joints that Hawaii boasted, but it ain't Texas. It's the bluest of the blue states (they're quite proud of having legalized abortion in 1970, three years before the rest of the country was forced into it), hypocritical as hell on social issues (it's illegal for you to let your dog bark & annoy your neighbors, but it's a-OK to kill your baby by constantly taking meth during your pregnancy, including on the day the child is born), even more crippled by unions than Ohio, and hellaciously overpriced. They've got something like the #46 or #48 school system in the country (still better than the olden days, when they flunked out people on purpose to supply the sugar plantations with ignorant workers), a raging racial divide, and a collective ego that'd even make a Texan blush. (Hey, at least we've got stuff to be proud of! Besides palm trees and coqui frogs.) Our monthly housing allowance, had we not been in base housing, would have been larger than one of Rob's biweekly checks and still not paid for rent & utilities like our allotment in Virginia did. Rooms start at about $900 there, and there's this lovely little law they passed that allows an "ohana unit", essentially a second house, to be built on a normal-sized residential lot.
Not somewhere I'd want to live the rest of my life, especially since quite frankly rich Mainlanders cause a huge amount of economic and environmental problems. (There just isn't the room to build Mainland-style McMansions on the islands, but they're doing it anyway.) Love the place, but Hawaii is best left to the Hawaiians.
'Sides, here in SA we've got low unemployment (which actually kinda sucks when you're looking for a job), a low cost of living, an economy that's growing by leaps and bounds, and a housing market that, thus far, has been largely insulated from the allegedly horrific housing crash.
And we have the Spurs, who are going to start winning again soon. Honest.
For that, I'll put up with Phil Hardberger and his constant, insane plans to enlarge the RiverWalk.
Re: Economic policy Texas/Ohio. Ok, but you don't see any other differences between the two? No confounders?
Well, in Texas we have lots of Texans, who generally are superior in almost every way. So, yeah.
But our low taxes and low tolerance for unions (and other forms of BS) are equally important.
Of course, he is right. We are generally superior in almost every way. I didn't really believe this until I married a sailor & moved to the Northeast. Of course, Groton and San Antonio aren't really a fair comparison on any level. But that was followed by moves to Norfolk and then to Honolulu.
One thing that always amused me about Norfolk: Most of the people who retire from the Navy there seem to stay there. Except the Texans. They always go home. (Even if they don't start out with that plan, it always seems to happen.) There would be these occasional, brief conversations along the lines of
"So, are y'all planning on staying once your husband gets out?"
"Dear God, no. We're going back to Texas the second he's processed out."
"Oh. That makes sense."
I really did used to get out of the car at the welcome center in Texarkana and kiss the ground.
San Antonians have an odd sort of inferiority complex about our city. The people who grew up here seem to think there's something better elsewhere. There's not. Not even Honolulu, which I loved and adored (because, face it, there's something wrong with you if you don't love Hawaii). There's the new conversation I have here.
"So you lived in Honolulu? Why'd you come back?"
"Because it's not San Antonio."
I loved Hawaii, and I miss Zippy's and the twenty thousand Korean barbeque joints that Hawaii boasted, but it ain't Texas. It's the bluest of the blue states (they're quite proud of having legalized abortion in 1970, three years before the rest of the country was forced into it), hypocritical as hell on social issues (it's illegal for you to let your dog bark & annoy your neighbors, but it's a-OK to kill your baby by constantly taking meth during your pregnancy, including on the day the child is born), even more crippled by unions than Ohio, and hellaciously overpriced. They've got something like the #46 or #48 school system in the country (still better than the olden days, when they flunked out people on purpose to supply the sugar plantations with ignorant workers), a raging racial divide, and a collective ego that'd even make a Texan blush. (Hey, at least we've got stuff to be proud of! Besides palm trees and coqui frogs.) Our monthly housing allowance, had we not been in base housing, would have been larger than one of Rob's biweekly checks and still not paid for rent & utilities like our allotment in Virginia did. Rooms start at about $900 there, and there's this lovely little law they passed that allows an "ohana unit", essentially a second house, to be built on a normal-sized residential lot.
Not somewhere I'd want to live the rest of my life, especially since quite frankly rich Mainlanders cause a huge amount of economic and environmental problems. (There just isn't the room to build Mainland-style McMansions on the islands, but they're doing it anyway.) Love the place, but Hawaii is best left to the Hawaiians.
'Sides, here in SA we've got low unemployment (which actually kinda sucks when you're looking for a job), a low cost of living, an economy that's growing by leaps and bounds, and a housing market that, thus far, has been largely insulated from the allegedly horrific housing crash.
And we have the Spurs, who are going to start winning again soon. Honest.
For that, I'll put up with Phil Hardberger and his constant, insane plans to enlarge the RiverWalk.
Friday, March 14, 2008
The requisite Eliot Spitzer Entry:
I don't actually give much of a damn about Eliot Spitzer. The adultery theme hits way too close to home for me, and I've spent much of the week ruminating on the "what lesson is he teaching his three daughters by doing this" subject.
But I have to bring up Nicholas Kristof's take on the subject:
Do As He Said
Most specifically this:
Generally speaking, I can take or leave (mainly leave) Kristof's columns. But when he discusses sex trafficking, it's smart to sit up & pay attention. He's done a lot of work in that area, and not of the Spitzer variety. Most of his columns on sex-trafficking concentrate on foreign affairs, but it's a problem that we have in America, even if it's one we tend to ignore, given the Liberal views on things like pornography & prostitution and that they can Never Ever Be Harmful.
What strikes me about most arguments in favor of legalizing prostitution is that they all seem to center around benefits for the men involved, and ignore the fact that there are women--all someone's daughter, mind--being taken advantage of. If you look closely at the legal sex trade in this country--something the foreign press seems to do much more of than the domestic variety--you will see that it's not pretty. The women who make porn films, for example are not, by & large, lusty women who found a way to make money doing what they love. They are broken women, quite often sexually abused as girls and exploited in more ways than the obvious. A similar tale is told with legal prostitution in Nevada, and it's quite often the same even when it comes to strippers. I'm not sure why there are those who think that legalized prostitution would be any different, and Kristof's column does a good job of explaining why it wouldn't be.
I also like his advocacy of a Swedish-style policy of criminalizing buying sex, not selling it. It makes a lot of sense.
(For the record, I didn't need to log in to view the column online, but in case it asks you, remember the wonderful BugMeNot.com)
But I have to bring up Nicholas Kristof's take on the subject:
Do As He Said
Most specifically this:
Yet the evidence is overwhelming that, in the United States, prostitution is only very rarely just another career choice. Studies suggest that up to two-thirds of prostitutes have been sexually abused as girls, a majority have drug dependencies or mental illnesses, one-third have been threatened with death by pimps, and almost half have attempted suicide.
Melissa Farley, a psychologist who has written extensively about the subject, says that girls typically become prostitutes at age 13 or 14. She conducted a study finding that 89 percent of prostitutes urgently wanted to escape the work, and that two-thirds have post-traumatic stress disorder — not a problem for even the most frustrated burger-flipper.
The mortality data for prostitutes is staggering. The American Journal of Epidemiology published a meticulous study finding that the “workplace homicide rate for prostitutes” is 51 times that of the next most dangerous occupation for women, working in a liquor store. The average age of death of the prostitutes in the study was 34.
“Women engaged in prostitution face the most dangerous occupational environment in the United States,” The Journal concluded.
We as a society forbid certain behavior by consenting adults because we deem it too dangerous or harmful. We do not permit indentured servitude or polygamy, or employment for less than the minimum wage. So why permit people to work in the unusually dangerous business of selling sex?
Generally speaking, I can take or leave (mainly leave) Kristof's columns. But when he discusses sex trafficking, it's smart to sit up & pay attention. He's done a lot of work in that area, and not of the Spitzer variety. Most of his columns on sex-trafficking concentrate on foreign affairs, but it's a problem that we have in America, even if it's one we tend to ignore, given the Liberal views on things like pornography & prostitution and that they can Never Ever Be Harmful.
What strikes me about most arguments in favor of legalizing prostitution is that they all seem to center around benefits for the men involved, and ignore the fact that there are women--all someone's daughter, mind--being taken advantage of. If you look closely at the legal sex trade in this country--something the foreign press seems to do much more of than the domestic variety--you will see that it's not pretty. The women who make porn films, for example are not, by & large, lusty women who found a way to make money doing what they love. They are broken women, quite often sexually abused as girls and exploited in more ways than the obvious. A similar tale is told with legal prostitution in Nevada, and it's quite often the same even when it comes to strippers. I'm not sure why there are those who think that legalized prostitution would be any different, and Kristof's column does a good job of explaining why it wouldn't be.
I also like his advocacy of a Swedish-style policy of criminalizing buying sex, not selling it. It makes a lot of sense.
(For the record, I didn't need to log in to view the column online, but in case it asks you, remember the wonderful BugMeNot.com)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)