No.
Nobody is ever going to relate to a pedophile's perspective because nobody but the pedophile is a pedophile. It's kind of like a guy who has been blind since birth, trying to tell a
room full of sighted people what the room looks like. They know what
the room looks like, so anything he says isn't going to convince them to
un-see what is right before their eyes. In the case at hand, what is right before our eyes is that any advocacy for pedophiles is superfluous and meaningless to the treatment of children in society, and therefore, it is a perilous distraction.
Advocates for that particular group continue on under this blindfold, attempting to dictate to a world full of non-pedophiles the shape of that world without ever having seen it first hand. They mangle sighted science to fit their blinded perspective. They distort sighted opinion to fit into their blinded schema of personal oppression. They do not do this consciously though, as society often thinks. They genuinely believe that they are better apt to see a sighted world with their blinded set of eyes than the sighted are--to see children better under their own eye than society does under its eye.
Neither eye is all that partial, and both seem exploitative. To society, children are garden plants which just absorb services from the environment like plants, and have to be cultivated like plants for proper harvest. To pedophile advocates, that "garden plant" perspective is just an obstacle in the path of their agenda for personal self-fulfillment in a world that hates them, to be fought against for their own sake, or stepped around. Children have nothing to do with either perspective, which is why pedophilia and Childlove are not the same thing and can never be the same thing.
The childlover does not love a child because an aspect of his biology (for example, his sexuality) compels him or her to, he or she does it because to not do it would result in two deprived souls--one a child, and another an adult, who would otherwise be crying out for love, attention, and guidance. Intercourse never amounts to something this intimately deep or strengthens the human bond on its own (without love being present), and therefore, should not be prescribed for children or adults in the manner that the pedophile advocates do (as good "in and of itself"). Nothing is good in and of itself, for anyone, least of all sex (adults included).
Showing posts with label The Movement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Movement. Show all posts
Friday, June 10, 2011
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Coming Off the Community
The thrust of everything I do is not to distance the childlover from society, but to invite society into his world. I wish to compromise the extremism in the fringe group that is Childlove and instead appeal to the combined better nature of humanity with the better nature of this movement. I want to help redirect the undeserved resentment for either side of the divide into something that we can all work together on for society's own benefit. I don't want to be a part of any agenda that seeks only to separate mainstream people from the childlover, and the childlover from the mainstream of society, society from the child, and the child from society, but I will support any agenda that wishes to find common ground among all members.
The fringe groups bound up in this want nothing more than to alienate society with their "outsider behavior" just as society has alienated them. There is however no chemical on the skin, no mutant formation, nothing to distinguish them apart from society on the face alone, and even still, they prefer to alienate the society which may have never personally alienated them. They complain of how "their kind" is treated, and then do nothing on the "personal" level to rise above the treatment of "their kind" as an individual.
Keep in mind, they assigned themselves the category of "outsider," not society. Society can't tell the difference between someone who has declared himself an "outsider" and someone who has not. It can only judge them by their works. And because, on the whole, they have no works to speak of, they can only be judged on their words. And because their words only revel in their own self-mockery and ironic stabs at being clever, there is nothing to judge them by, and must simply be left to their own disintegration.
Those who assign themselves "outsider" put so little value on the clarity of their face, which appears no different than anyone else's, and instead put such a large value on the obscurity of the community they assigned themselves. They place so much value on being supported by that community, and so little value on supporting themselves so that they may learn and grow by their own initiative. They don't teach themselves to walk. They maintain their communities because they're comforted enough by them to keep crawling back.
The fringe groups bound up in this want nothing more than to alienate society with their "outsider behavior" just as society has alienated them. There is however no chemical on the skin, no mutant formation, nothing to distinguish them apart from society on the face alone, and even still, they prefer to alienate the society which may have never personally alienated them. They complain of how "their kind" is treated, and then do nothing on the "personal" level to rise above the treatment of "their kind" as an individual.
Keep in mind, they assigned themselves the category of "outsider," not society. Society can't tell the difference between someone who has declared himself an "outsider" and someone who has not. It can only judge them by their works. And because, on the whole, they have no works to speak of, they can only be judged on their words. And because their words only revel in their own self-mockery and ironic stabs at being clever, there is nothing to judge them by, and must simply be left to their own disintegration.
Those who assign themselves "outsider" put so little value on the clarity of their face, which appears no different than anyone else's, and instead put such a large value on the obscurity of the community they assigned themselves. They place so much value on being supported by that community, and so little value on supporting themselves so that they may learn and grow by their own initiative. They don't teach themselves to walk. They maintain their communities because they're comforted enough by them to keep crawling back.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Affectionate Men
This is a culture that honors work over family, so it is no surprise that the struggle to gain women equal standing with men in the workplace and therefore in society in general, has been generally promoted. It is also no surprise that the struggle to gain men equal standing with woman over the family, the children, has never taken root. This work based culture seems to want nothing to do with raising its own children. The majority of men are pushed away from the care of children, and just as many seem more preoccupied with the workforce, with careers. With the arrival of feminism, it was finally declared that women sought the same. For both, having and raising children has become just a side project on a path toward personal fulfillment within the work place--something you have to do just to stay in keeping with social expectations.
These expectations have done nothing to raise us out of the sexist, 1940's culture that permeates family law in the United States. It has even been conveniently overlooked by the feminist movement itself--once again, because it doesn't concern the workplace. Family law arises from the belief that men are breadwinners and women are housewives and child caretakers. This is how a man and woman can divorce, and along with fifty percent of the marriage effects, the woman is typically granted the children, child support, and alimony. Many fathers who have weathered divorce have been brought into extreme poverty and even bankrupcy and homelessness as they've watched the mothers of their children reap the rewards of 1940's sexism in a modern equal opportunity culture. This is especially true if the man was not indeed the true breadwinner.
Regardless, all this stems from a pervasive and destructive cultural belief that men can not and should not be affectionate with children, and certainly are not equipped to be sole caretakers of them. As the old adage goes, we're fast becoming a culture that fears it may never cross a bridge designed by a woman, but couldn't care less if its children are raised by a man. Stereotypes, comedic tropes, and sexist cliches reinforce prejudice and embolden standards. Men who express any affection in public toward children, even fathers toward their own children, are often mistaken to be pedophiles, to be deviants. They are often ridiculed openly and harassed rather than celebrated.
The problem is not feminists, who have conveniently overlooked matters of family law and long ago demeaned and diminished the importance of raising children. The problem is not with men, who have been belittled from birth against showing affection toward anyone, and certainly not toward children, until they accepted this without complaint. The problem is with the underlying culture that does not allow men to complain about their diminished importance within the family, within childcare, as the feminists did about their status in the general workforce. Society looks up to work, it looks down on child raising. If a group of men come out and declare that they want to be taken seriously as child caretakers, it becomes a comedic trope at best rather than a genuine statement of desire. Why should a group of men who are not being discriminated against in the glorious and glamorous workforce want to do something as demeaning in the eyes of the culture as raise and nurture children? Society can not grapple with this concept.
Most men aren't like me. Most men don't place a high value on parenting either, as culture has dictated, so it's only the disaffected men (those who have been spit through family court) that complain. Many men will be reluctant to demand equal rights under family law because doing so makes them appear effeminate. What was a strength among the women's movement--the calculating, un-feeling, career-minded, self-fulfilled, self-dependent ideal woman of the future--becomes the unraveling of the men's movement--the nurturing, loving, reliable, educational, invested, selfless ideal male child caretaker of the future. It's seen as a sign of weakness to devote oneself to the ones society generally demeans anyways. The women's movement goes with the flow of western civilization (self-fulfillment, making money, children as a means to an ends...etc.) while the men's movement resists it (self-fulfillment in the fulfillment of a child's needs, children as a ends in and of themselves). There's no money in staying home and taking care of the kids, so western culture has no use for this new breed of man, and roots for his demise.
Feminists may have overlooked the affectionate man, male chauvinism may have tried to keep them down, culture may be trying to do away with them like shedding a malignancy, but the one group that needs the affection of a man is the only group we care about--the children, the boys and girls. In the end, raising them up is its own vindication where all else has failed them. If society wants nothing to do with the demeaning aspects of raising a child, then it's high time someone steps up to do the most important job of them all. Automation will erode the glorious western workforce, but children are always going to need affection.
These expectations have done nothing to raise us out of the sexist, 1940's culture that permeates family law in the United States. It has even been conveniently overlooked by the feminist movement itself--once again, because it doesn't concern the workplace. Family law arises from the belief that men are breadwinners and women are housewives and child caretakers. This is how a man and woman can divorce, and along with fifty percent of the marriage effects, the woman is typically granted the children, child support, and alimony. Many fathers who have weathered divorce have been brought into extreme poverty and even bankrupcy and homelessness as they've watched the mothers of their children reap the rewards of 1940's sexism in a modern equal opportunity culture. This is especially true if the man was not indeed the true breadwinner.
Regardless, all this stems from a pervasive and destructive cultural belief that men can not and should not be affectionate with children, and certainly are not equipped to be sole caretakers of them. As the old adage goes, we're fast becoming a culture that fears it may never cross a bridge designed by a woman, but couldn't care less if its children are raised by a man. Stereotypes, comedic tropes, and sexist cliches reinforce prejudice and embolden standards. Men who express any affection in public toward children, even fathers toward their own children, are often mistaken to be pedophiles, to be deviants. They are often ridiculed openly and harassed rather than celebrated.
The problem is not feminists, who have conveniently overlooked matters of family law and long ago demeaned and diminished the importance of raising children. The problem is not with men, who have been belittled from birth against showing affection toward anyone, and certainly not toward children, until they accepted this without complaint. The problem is with the underlying culture that does not allow men to complain about their diminished importance within the family, within childcare, as the feminists did about their status in the general workforce. Society looks up to work, it looks down on child raising. If a group of men come out and declare that they want to be taken seriously as child caretakers, it becomes a comedic trope at best rather than a genuine statement of desire. Why should a group of men who are not being discriminated against in the glorious and glamorous workforce want to do something as demeaning in the eyes of the culture as raise and nurture children? Society can not grapple with this concept.
Most men aren't like me. Most men don't place a high value on parenting either, as culture has dictated, so it's only the disaffected men (those who have been spit through family court) that complain. Many men will be reluctant to demand equal rights under family law because doing so makes them appear effeminate. What was a strength among the women's movement--the calculating, un-feeling, career-minded, self-fulfilled, self-dependent ideal woman of the future--becomes the unraveling of the men's movement--the nurturing, loving, reliable, educational, invested, selfless ideal male child caretaker of the future. It's seen as a sign of weakness to devote oneself to the ones society generally demeans anyways. The women's movement goes with the flow of western civilization (self-fulfillment, making money, children as a means to an ends...etc.) while the men's movement resists it (self-fulfillment in the fulfillment of a child's needs, children as a ends in and of themselves). There's no money in staying home and taking care of the kids, so western culture has no use for this new breed of man, and roots for his demise.
Feminists may have overlooked the affectionate man, male chauvinism may have tried to keep them down, culture may be trying to do away with them like shedding a malignancy, but the one group that needs the affection of a man is the only group we care about--the children, the boys and girls. In the end, raising them up is its own vindication where all else has failed them. If society wants nothing to do with the demeaning aspects of raising a child, then it's high time someone steps up to do the most important job of them all. Automation will erode the glorious western workforce, but children are always going to need affection.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
In a Nutshell
CL is an old-world child-rearing practice, outmoded by the swing of western civilization in the throes of a bureaucratic authority (where the state has assumed the essential functions), that survives through the charitable actions of independent agents (CLs) standing in opposition with, or at least parallel to, mainstream "decadence" and western cultural practices in child guidance. All too much is made of the cultural constructs separating children from humanity (childhood "innocence"), and such idealizations have done nothing to benefit actual living children, so the CL advocates recognizing a child as a whole individual--the good, the bad, and everything mental and physical about them.
It is an idealistic "love doctrine" standing in opposition to cultural and social modes of child subjection, control, abuse, and over-protectionism, that stresses being responsible for a child over simply "having" responsibility, good works over legislation, on a pretext of "do no harm." All too often what is there to protect children chokes them of a nurturing development, and should be regarded with the same disdain as child molestation itself. CL takes nothing material for itself, for it is primarily motivated aesthetically, spiritually, biologically and socially, and is given with genuine charity rather than flimsy officialness.
The essential belief is that human beings are social, children develop in a social world, and that modern society is and has been systematically cutting off a child's ability to form an intimate, positive, social relationship with the world around them and the people in it after decades of sensationalist paranoia, over-liability and protectionism, and sentimental pleas over common sense. CLs see their work as a slow rebuild of humanity in its children, essentially getting back those primitive human-to-human bonds between adult and child in a modern social context. It is an adult and child spending time together for no other reason than the fact that they are benefiting from each other.
Because both the child and the adult in this relationship stand in contrast with cultural practices, they run into conflict with its basic tenets (political correctness, nanny state policies...etc.), and are therefore often ridiculed. Because of this social ridicule, CLs feel they are better able to relate to a child, an entity also put upon by adult decadence and narrow-mindedness. The CL is truly a man of the past living in the present, walking in the future.
It is an idealistic "love doctrine" standing in opposition to cultural and social modes of child subjection, control, abuse, and over-protectionism, that stresses being responsible for a child over simply "having" responsibility, good works over legislation, on a pretext of "do no harm." All too often what is there to protect children chokes them of a nurturing development, and should be regarded with the same disdain as child molestation itself. CL takes nothing material for itself, for it is primarily motivated aesthetically, spiritually, biologically and socially, and is given with genuine charity rather than flimsy officialness.
The essential belief is that human beings are social, children develop in a social world, and that modern society is and has been systematically cutting off a child's ability to form an intimate, positive, social relationship with the world around them and the people in it after decades of sensationalist paranoia, over-liability and protectionism, and sentimental pleas over common sense. CLs see their work as a slow rebuild of humanity in its children, essentially getting back those primitive human-to-human bonds between adult and child in a modern social context. It is an adult and child spending time together for no other reason than the fact that they are benefiting from each other.
Because both the child and the adult in this relationship stand in contrast with cultural practices, they run into conflict with its basic tenets (political correctness, nanny state policies...etc.), and are therefore often ridiculed. Because of this social ridicule, CLs feel they are better able to relate to a child, an entity also put upon by adult decadence and narrow-mindedness. The CL is truly a man of the past living in the present, walking in the future.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Death of a Thousand Cuts
Maybe it's contributing subtle, well written and difficult to refute points to wikipedia. Perhaps it is anonymously engaging groups in thought experiments, or exposing irrational issues surrounding the periphery of the topics like sex offender registries, or Megans' Law or "Amber Alerts" in the US, but each point of refutation is a cut at the thick skin of indifference.
We want a delusional belief system to die "the death of a thousand cuts", and since we lack the resources to nuke it, the alternatives are few. One potential hazard to this multi-pronged attack approach is that, almost inevitably, we will wind up shooting some of our own side in the ensuing crossfire. There are shibboleths enshrined in that delusional belief system - the veneration of childhood is one instance. If society and the law is to treat with kids as fully functioning people, it must first set aside this faux-Victorian adoration of childhood, and its supposed "innocence".
The sex-negative culture can be attacked without any mention of P. The promulgation of victimhood can be attacked, without any mention of P. The surveillance society, and over-intrusive law. The nanny culture which smothers children in a straitjacket of "protection", shutting off from them most avenues of socialising outside the home--the paranoid "vetting" of any adult who wishes to work with children. It's not hard to draw up the various prongs of an attack.
We want a delusional belief system to die "the death of a thousand cuts", and since we lack the resources to nuke it, the alternatives are few. One potential hazard to this multi-pronged attack approach is that, almost inevitably, we will wind up shooting some of our own side in the ensuing crossfire. There are shibboleths enshrined in that delusional belief system - the veneration of childhood is one instance. If society and the law is to treat with kids as fully functioning people, it must first set aside this faux-Victorian adoration of childhood, and its supposed "innocence".
The sex-negative culture can be attacked without any mention of P. The promulgation of victimhood can be attacked, without any mention of P. The surveillance society, and over-intrusive law. The nanny culture which smothers children in a straitjacket of "protection", shutting off from them most avenues of socialising outside the home--the paranoid "vetting" of any adult who wishes to work with children. It's not hard to draw up the various prongs of an attack.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
What Love We Speak Of (Cont.)
Within all historic civilizations there existed a transmission of the present culture invested toward the youth generation and the potential in them they had to continue to live as a community. This is biological. It is an evolutionary investment in civilization we inevitably bestow onto our youngest, and it occurred as a deeply social ritual. Little of this exists today in western culture that has not been demonized and vilified by complexity--having turned into an impersonal industry or qualified service delivery. Where people have been replaced by paper, and love replaced by industry, we have gone astray.
In past history, the former generation entrusted the future survival of the race onto the boy, as he left the realm of the home, dominated by the female, and came onto the realm of the hunt, the realm of the protector. It was at this stage alone that the boy was taught and trained to be a future hunter or scribe, whether it was studying war, or interpreting sacred texts, or the arts, the occupation itself differing according to talent and proficiency. More importantly, it was the place in which he became a man. It was a place in which he was allowed to be human, to learn and develop his natural aggression in ways he could use it to be useful. All through this process into healthy adulthood, his own talents were guided and observed by non-parental men who taught and helped the boy discover himself. It was the men of the society who made the decision that a boy had achieved the honorable title of being a contributing member of society--not an artificial line in the sand age limit.
There are many similarities within the home. An extended kinship-based network of older women taught girls. They were taught all the inner necessities of preparation for the hearth, maintenance of the living space, the garden, the nursery, and the proper raising of the young. Modern society has made very little honor out of such important tasks as these, by a period of male chauvinism, ultimately dismissing them as menial or unimportant, followed by a more feminist inspired detestation toward these important tasks, and an understandable eventual break from them all together. These days, and rightly, boys and girls are free to explore paths to adulthood that don't hinge on biological assignment.
However, due to this, political correctness has raised few with a healthy interest in the positive upbringing of children, so that the desire to do so overwhelms their life by that same evolutionary force that summoned non-parents to guide children. No doubt adults who are already parents feel this. Nonetheless, how many have an inherent interest in the benefit of children as a purpose to live before they personally bring the child into the world? Is it no wonder so many parents abort, neglect, abandon, orphan, or abuse their child in some way due to this obvious disinterest in raising one in the modern world? Child abuse has always existed and will always exist, it is the glue that holds society together, but never was it done as much out of disinterest as it was out of necessity. The modern world no longer finds it necessary to abuse children for their own good, it simply continues to do so out of a disinterest in the so-called menial task of raising them.
There are a group of people, who may or may not have children of their own, but have a continued a healthy interest in befriending and helping a child grow in a world were raising a child is considered the most demeaning responsibility a person can commit themselves to. Perhaps this could serve as a testament to the overall degradation of youth that occurs within the modern society, destroying the optimism that once was so prevalent in the adolescence of that primordial past.
In past history, the former generation entrusted the future survival of the race onto the boy, as he left the realm of the home, dominated by the female, and came onto the realm of the hunt, the realm of the protector. It was at this stage alone that the boy was taught and trained to be a future hunter or scribe, whether it was studying war, or interpreting sacred texts, or the arts, the occupation itself differing according to talent and proficiency. More importantly, it was the place in which he became a man. It was a place in which he was allowed to be human, to learn and develop his natural aggression in ways he could use it to be useful. All through this process into healthy adulthood, his own talents were guided and observed by non-parental men who taught and helped the boy discover himself. It was the men of the society who made the decision that a boy had achieved the honorable title of being a contributing member of society--not an artificial line in the sand age limit.
There are many similarities within the home. An extended kinship-based network of older women taught girls. They were taught all the inner necessities of preparation for the hearth, maintenance of the living space, the garden, the nursery, and the proper raising of the young. Modern society has made very little honor out of such important tasks as these, by a period of male chauvinism, ultimately dismissing them as menial or unimportant, followed by a more feminist inspired detestation toward these important tasks, and an understandable eventual break from them all together. These days, and rightly, boys and girls are free to explore paths to adulthood that don't hinge on biological assignment.
However, due to this, political correctness has raised few with a healthy interest in the positive upbringing of children, so that the desire to do so overwhelms their life by that same evolutionary force that summoned non-parents to guide children. No doubt adults who are already parents feel this. Nonetheless, how many have an inherent interest in the benefit of children as a purpose to live before they personally bring the child into the world? Is it no wonder so many parents abort, neglect, abandon, orphan, or abuse their child in some way due to this obvious disinterest in raising one in the modern world? Child abuse has always existed and will always exist, it is the glue that holds society together, but never was it done as much out of disinterest as it was out of necessity. The modern world no longer finds it necessary to abuse children for their own good, it simply continues to do so out of a disinterest in the so-called menial task of raising them.
There are a group of people, who may or may not have children of their own, but have a continued a healthy interest in befriending and helping a child grow in a world were raising a child is considered the most demeaning responsibility a person can commit themselves to. Perhaps this could serve as a testament to the overall degradation of youth that occurs within the modern society, destroying the optimism that once was so prevalent in the adolescence of that primordial past.
What Love We Speak Of
We advocate the love of children. Simply, that answer is correct. Yet, there is little simplicity in human beings, and the resolve prompted by love can easily turn from advocating alongside youth to arguing on their behalf, especially among the establishment and parents, who have already claimed the child realm. Humans by nature designate simple thoughts such as affection with complex social attitudes and procedures, thus de-emphasizing the natural relationship. This relationship is the essential socially complex organism that we want to work to simplify for them.
Any complication is avoided when children are on the table, and thoughts as well as insights are portrayed with such conviction and certainty that it produces a tangle of beliefs so knotted that the children are practically left hanging on the end of the advocate's rope by the head. The more grand the explanation, however, the more vivid the picture becomes, and the greater our understanding. So somehow we have to strike the balance between appreciating human relationships as the complex things they are, and not bog it down with unnecessary complications born out of our media-fed preconceptions.
CL is the ultimate emancipation of children from forces that seek to control or minimize their human rights, that among them are the central human liberties extended to all human beings. It is a break from the world of the material and the possessive and a replacement into the world of charity, love, and humility. All of them are traits that define the higher and more beautiful and optimistic aspects of human life. It is necessitated in the modern world, as the caring adult in effect assists in raising that which the parent put into the world. It is a personal choice to help in the raising of the child, out of love and not reward or biological requirement.
This "natural non-parent method" of raising children was nowhere near as complicated or demonized in our collective past. The allowances of general historical templates on which the ideologies are derived from are necessary to understand. They present the modern human being with the destiny of continual change, by representing that most basic principle in the form of what had come before to create the present (that ruled by paper), in order to shape the future (that ruled by love). CL is demonized because it no longer fits in the modern world that has eclipsed its charismatic elements with cold-hearted bureaucracy. It has its roots in the infinite past, and has not been crushed under the bureaucratic rubber stamp--quite the contrary--CL has continued to evolve since the earliest days in human history.
To be continued.
Any complication is avoided when children are on the table, and thoughts as well as insights are portrayed with such conviction and certainty that it produces a tangle of beliefs so knotted that the children are practically left hanging on the end of the advocate's rope by the head. The more grand the explanation, however, the more vivid the picture becomes, and the greater our understanding. So somehow we have to strike the balance between appreciating human relationships as the complex things they are, and not bog it down with unnecessary complications born out of our media-fed preconceptions.
CL is the ultimate emancipation of children from forces that seek to control or minimize their human rights, that among them are the central human liberties extended to all human beings. It is a break from the world of the material and the possessive and a replacement into the world of charity, love, and humility. All of them are traits that define the higher and more beautiful and optimistic aspects of human life. It is necessitated in the modern world, as the caring adult in effect assists in raising that which the parent put into the world. It is a personal choice to help in the raising of the child, out of love and not reward or biological requirement.
This "natural non-parent method" of raising children was nowhere near as complicated or demonized in our collective past. The allowances of general historical templates on which the ideologies are derived from are necessary to understand. They present the modern human being with the destiny of continual change, by representing that most basic principle in the form of what had come before to create the present (that ruled by paper), in order to shape the future (that ruled by love). CL is demonized because it no longer fits in the modern world that has eclipsed its charismatic elements with cold-hearted bureaucracy. It has its roots in the infinite past, and has not been crushed under the bureaucratic rubber stamp--quite the contrary--CL has continued to evolve since the earliest days in human history.
To be continued.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Come Gather Round (A Song)
I wrote this a few years back. It was published in an ezine in support of the cause. Please feel free to distribute it if it moves you as much as it does me. It's meant to uplift our spirit and resolve in most difficult times.
Come Gather Round
Come gather 'round--you loners and lovers and others
who're beaten in the streets and defeated by mothers
who've been breakin' us and takin' us and not givin' love
to the young cryin' and hidin' and playin' and sayin'...
"You just leave us be!"
They've been sighin' and lyin' and buyin' and tryin'
to trip us and trap us, hit us and slap us for bein' us,
and all but feeling free--
Come gather 'round--while the ink's are pressin'
and court's are messin' round and second guessin'
and tongues' professin' and hate repressin'
and stop confessin' and window dressin'...
Tell them we'll be free!
And that the world is reelin' and you're not stealin'
no child's feelin's or are concealin' no unappealin'
thoughts that make you be--
Come gather 'round--to light your candle and not
the scandal and fight the vandals and not mishandle
the child's will you love, and still be there to fill
and be ye filled and work to build a
better life for you and me!
And make it known that it's you who owns your love
that's real, that all you feel's not made to kneel
for all the world to see--
Come gather 'round--and keep on steady and at
the ready for the gangs and chains and those who fear
and keep out your ear for their lyin' and trashin' and
sighin' and bashin' and repressin' and guessin'...
From fear they won't be free.
And never stop goin' while your soul is slowin' or
age be showin' 'cause children keep growin', and never
stop knowin'...
Our Time is Soon to Be.
Come Gather Round
Come gather 'round--you loners and lovers and others
who're beaten in the streets and defeated by mothers
who've been breakin' us and takin' us and not givin' love
to the young cryin' and hidin' and playin' and sayin'...
"You just leave us be!"
They've been sighin' and lyin' and buyin' and tryin'
to trip us and trap us, hit us and slap us for bein' us,
and all but feeling free--
Come gather 'round--while the ink's are pressin'
and court's are messin' round and second guessin'
and tongues' professin' and hate repressin'
and stop confessin' and window dressin'...
Tell them we'll be free!
And that the world is reelin' and you're not stealin'
no child's feelin's or are concealin' no unappealin'
thoughts that make you be--
Come gather 'round--to light your candle and not
the scandal and fight the vandals and not mishandle
the child's will you love, and still be there to fill
and be ye filled and work to build a
better life for you and me!
And make it known that it's you who owns your love
that's real, that all you feel's not made to kneel
for all the world to see--
Come gather 'round--and keep on steady and at
the ready for the gangs and chains and those who fear
and keep out your ear for their lyin' and trashin' and
sighin' and bashin' and repressin' and guessin'...
From fear they won't be free.
And never stop goin' while your soul is slowin' or
age be showin' 'cause children keep growin', and never
stop knowin'...
Our Time is Soon to Be.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Life on the Fringe of the Fringe
I've seen it said before--it's better to die for something than live for nothing. Can this bit of wisdom factor into our community at all? Most of us seem to end up living in the middle, as in, "living for something" (since living for something is obviously better than dying for it, and also preferable to living for nothing or dying for nothing), but far too often that something we end up living for begins and ends within us. While we spend our times in our communities living for our idea of "something," others end up dying for nothing, literally and figuratively. You follow me?
There are obviously a number of choices we face in this day in age, and regardless of what path we choose, we're still left facing the same intolerance and ultimately end up with preserving the society's status quo. At the root of the issue, the cancer that has grown malignant to any social movement we could try to muster, the problems are numerous--in fact, perhaps more numerous than almost any other social movement in all of history. The social prejudice is so strong that half the people will reject anything we say out of hand and the other half won't let us say it to begin with. We have nothing to show to appeal to mainstream society--people will always side with their gut instincts over facts even if we were to go around sticking facts in their mailboxes and windshields. We can't enlist the support of other social groups to sympathize with the plight, and lastly, we ourselves have problems even keeping our own involved. In short, we are the fringe of the fringe groups. The stigma against this point of view is just that strong. So what choices do we have if we really believe in this cause?
Choice 1: We "live for nothing."
Like it or not, we are a force in this world, and unfortunately, the repercussions of our presence only inspire the ignorance. The media knows about the MAA community, the government knows we exist. They know our talking points, they're just not sure what to think of us. They're just waiting for one of us to do something wrong so they can go and do what they do best. As we are, we're a big joke to them. Unfortunately, it's not a harmless one. They know they can use our presence on the forums to stir emotions in the people who never set foot there. Just by hanging out and kicking back in some far off corner of the web, apart from society, and generally being non-responsive to it (out of the fact that any PR is absolutely pointless to engage in), we enable politicians to platform against us (rally their caucuses) and secure their seats of power, parents to restrict children's lives even more out of fear for their protection, and of course, the media to spin every story they can get their hands on and somehow tie it to us. Indeed, we are a force in the world, but unfortunately it's not one we want to be a part of.
Choice 2: We "die for something."
There are no martyrs within our ranks. Our martyrs don't have a day of vindication, only relentless persecution long after they've thrown in the towel. Then we're right back to square one aren't we? The same recourse of events as the effects in choice one will inevitably follow. The people responsible for carrying the movement forward will be harassed and perennially vilified (especially if they've done nothing wrong or illegal, because it's like a rule--the better you are, the more they got to work, and our enemies love to work), and the movement is foiled all over the media, never to be taken seriously again. We become just a cog perpetuating their mechanism rather than the one causing it to jam.
Choice 3: We play along.
These are obviously not our only choices, but these are the most dramatic ones. Between these extremes there are a slew of strategies to turn things in our favor, many of which I'll be discussing here in the future, but these strategies usually involve working within the system to get the system to recognize itself as the monster--a strategy not for the impatient or those who really want to make a difference in the world. It's a path fraught with compromises, some the average MAA will no doubt find contrary to his own beliefs or cause them to come into conflict. It seems this is what it's come to though. If you really love furthering the cause, it means playing by the rules and remaining silent on the part of the issue that offends people the most. It's a long, tedious infiltration, aimed at presenting people with the opportunity to at least consider a different take on a more acceptable issue (youth rights for instance)--not as an outsider, but as someone very much on the inside.
It seems, loving the cause means abandoning the primary cause and refocusing to more socially acceptable secondary causes that impact the primary ones. It's the boring way to go, but it does the trick.
There are obviously a number of choices we face in this day in age, and regardless of what path we choose, we're still left facing the same intolerance and ultimately end up with preserving the society's status quo. At the root of the issue, the cancer that has grown malignant to any social movement we could try to muster, the problems are numerous--in fact, perhaps more numerous than almost any other social movement in all of history. The social prejudice is so strong that half the people will reject anything we say out of hand and the other half won't let us say it to begin with. We have nothing to show to appeal to mainstream society--people will always side with their gut instincts over facts even if we were to go around sticking facts in their mailboxes and windshields. We can't enlist the support of other social groups to sympathize with the plight, and lastly, we ourselves have problems even keeping our own involved. In short, we are the fringe of the fringe groups. The stigma against this point of view is just that strong. So what choices do we have if we really believe in this cause?
Choice 1: We "live for nothing."
Like it or not, we are a force in this world, and unfortunately, the repercussions of our presence only inspire the ignorance. The media knows about the MAA community, the government knows we exist. They know our talking points, they're just not sure what to think of us. They're just waiting for one of us to do something wrong so they can go and do what they do best. As we are, we're a big joke to them. Unfortunately, it's not a harmless one. They know they can use our presence on the forums to stir emotions in the people who never set foot there. Just by hanging out and kicking back in some far off corner of the web, apart from society, and generally being non-responsive to it (out of the fact that any PR is absolutely pointless to engage in), we enable politicians to platform against us (rally their caucuses) and secure their seats of power, parents to restrict children's lives even more out of fear for their protection, and of course, the media to spin every story they can get their hands on and somehow tie it to us. Indeed, we are a force in the world, but unfortunately it's not one we want to be a part of.
Choice 2: We "die for something."
There are no martyrs within our ranks. Our martyrs don't have a day of vindication, only relentless persecution long after they've thrown in the towel. Then we're right back to square one aren't we? The same recourse of events as the effects in choice one will inevitably follow. The people responsible for carrying the movement forward will be harassed and perennially vilified (especially if they've done nothing wrong or illegal, because it's like a rule--the better you are, the more they got to work, and our enemies love to work), and the movement is foiled all over the media, never to be taken seriously again. We become just a cog perpetuating their mechanism rather than the one causing it to jam.
Choice 3: We play along.
These are obviously not our only choices, but these are the most dramatic ones. Between these extremes there are a slew of strategies to turn things in our favor, many of which I'll be discussing here in the future, but these strategies usually involve working within the system to get the system to recognize itself as the monster--a strategy not for the impatient or those who really want to make a difference in the world. It's a path fraught with compromises, some the average MAA will no doubt find contrary to his own beliefs or cause them to come into conflict. It seems this is what it's come to though. If you really love furthering the cause, it means playing by the rules and remaining silent on the part of the issue that offends people the most. It's a long, tedious infiltration, aimed at presenting people with the opportunity to at least consider a different take on a more acceptable issue (youth rights for instance)--not as an outsider, but as someone very much on the inside.
It seems, loving the cause means abandoning the primary cause and refocusing to more socially acceptable secondary causes that impact the primary ones. It's the boring way to go, but it does the trick.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)