Our modern culture is fixated on child molestation, predation, kidnapping, and pedophilia. It is obsessed with the concept of children getting picked off and preyed upon, and there is no low the media won't stoop to, no far-fetched connection they won't try to harmonize with, and no half-baked conclusion they won't try to draw, in order to connect child molestation to every depiction or reference to children and childhood in popular culture, whether real or fake. Children in fiction as well as life seem to exist solely to perpetuate the narrative of "predation and rescue," or "child in distress," if only to soothe the guilty adult conscience for the state of society, but the repetition of this narrative has its unforeseen consequences.
Children and youth still have no standing or legitimacy for themselves under the predation narrative, because it exists for the benefit of adults. Such thoughts do not flow from the spring of respect or dignity, and only produce the tainted waters of iniquity and conceit. It may even get to the point where we can't bring children to mind without conjuring the imagery of abduction and molestation, abuse and dismemberment. Such a schema is not child-centric, or even child concerned, since it only exists for the adult's purposes. Predator panic is a function of selfishness. It soothes the adult mind and guilt. It's about justifying the decadence of adult indulgence and maintaining adult control of youth. Why do you think vigilantes latch onto it with such zealotry and demagoguery? Selfishness is their raison d'etre. Why do you think victimology is such a profitable market? It is a sickness, and many have already fallen prey to it. But I suspect its time is slipping away, and soon the tide may turn and we may see a generation more immune to the sickly fascinations that prey upon the mental defects of this current one.
This molestation fixation is neither healthy, nor does it benefit children anything. In fact, it may even be one causal factor influencing our reactions toward minor misconduct, particularly toward minor sexual expression, formed in zealotry and expressed with draconian simplicity. Easing the worried mind, troubled by the constant thought of destruction, becomes the highest priority when all we are lead to believe is that destruction is everywhere. The moment we lose sight of reality, we lose a hold of our future. And if children are our so-called future, inhabiting reality, you'd think it would behoove us to keep our minds firmly rooted, rather than let them drift to fantasize the inevitable destruction of children and childhood at every turn of the page, every flip of the channel, and every thought in the head. Some are rooted well, still others are out to sea.
In any case, fixation on child endangerment by its ceaseless repetition in our thoughts and culture does nothing to stem the tide on actual child abuse, which has no total abatement, nor does it actually inform us of the reality of it. Instead, this fixation only contributes toward the increasing infantilization and marginalization of all young people by the paranoid and restless adult psyche. Teachers may have their own "teacher's pet" without gaining the assumption of pedophilia. Coaches may still pat their players on the back without
gaining the same assumption about their motivations for doing such. Boys may still be allowed to perform in Catholic church choirs, and sign up for Boy Scouts without the need for viewer-hungry tabloid journalists to assume potential child abuse connections between everyone involved. Girls may be allowed male tutors or mentors without the need for bureaucratic entanglements -for if we were to suspect all men of being pedophiles when it comes to working with girls, we may as well outlaw every daughter's father, every niece's uncle, or every sister's older brother as well.
When we have broken up enough families though, disallowed enough youth from community outreach organizations, and severed all bonds between adult and child in society, do you think our fearful minds will finally be at ease, even then? Do you think that children will be safe, even then? It takes a perverse mind, a sick mind, to look upon that which has no sexual or abusive context and contrive out of it "sex abuse of children," so even if every draconian reaction were set in stone, that perversity already there would only continue to infect and grow. It takes a healthy mind to look upon things for what they are and see them for what they are--to look upon children and see them as children rather than "potential victims." Children grow into adults, and will serve the future. "Potential victims" only serve the current paranoid adult's darkest fantasies.
Showing posts with label Victimology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Victimology. Show all posts
Monday, February 20, 2012
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Severity over Statistics
I don't believe in putting people down and hiding behind statistics to justify doing it. I despise that mentality of compartmentalizing people by numbers, or assigning respect by numbers, or thinking about people in terms of averages and percents rather than faces and names. Statistics is a tool used to justify the inequality of respect and reverence shown to human variation, particularly in regards to tragedy. It doesn't have to be that way, and it would be great to live in a world where people were people and received the respect or disdain they deserve regardless of what group they belong to and what the average crime rate for that group is, or what the average poverty rate for that group is, or what the average grade point average for that group is...etc.--but sadly, that is not the world we allow ourselves to live in. Individuals get credit or criticism based on the characteristics most common to their group, and statistics makes it possible.
Statistics is often used to engineer equality by pouring resources into a priority group at the expense of the so-called "stronger" group, but social engineering promotes nothing but unequal opportunity--mainstreaming for one, and disenfranchisement for the other. True "equality for all" means exactly that (if one values equality, that is), so you can't both organize to benefit or prioritize one group (ie. women/children/men/wealthy/poor...etc.) at the expense of another group, and still remain an egalitarian. But there's no question that the facts of a situation are indeed the facts--that men earn more than women for instance--but the general facts shouldn't blind us and keep us from respecting and observing that people do exist outside the "average." This we tend to forget as we cater to the mediocrity of the middle. Our minds fall prey to heuristics and stereotypes, ignorance rules the day, and statistics makes it possible.
Furthermore, if it's wrong to claim about individuals, then it's wrong to claim about groups of those same individuals. Insensitivity is more than just being disrespectful to individuals, it should also include showing disrespect to groups of people. This isn't to say that we should censor ourselves, just that we should not tolerate disrespectful speech, even if the thrust of that disrespect is supported by evidence (statistics). We might agree that saying "Bobby is stupid," is insensitive, but how much less insensitive is saying, "the group that Bobby belongs to ("boys," for example) is a whole batch of stupidity"? We think we're good people when we dodge the bullet of hurting someone's personal feelings as we use statistics to justify our personal prejudices against the group that person belongs to, but it doesn't make it right, or valid, to do such. We ignore individuals and insult groups of humans en mass, and we think these numerical truths we are using to accomplish this categorization are doing society a service. They are most likely not.
I also believe in focusing on severity over statistics. Numbers are used as a form of distancing oneself from tragedy. To headline on "only 20 people killed" kind of makes whatever happened in the story seem insignificant. That's a lot different than simply saying, "20 people killed." Likewise, if only one kid got raped in a juvenile detention center in the last hundred years, who am I to disqualify the significance of that for the victim by referring back to numbers--by saying, essentially, "well, it wasn't so bad, you were the only one in the last hundred years!" The point being, if it was severe enough, and it hurt the victim, then no other quantity should get in the way of that "fact". Severity over statistics. Bruises over averages. Humans over outliers. Cases over representative samples. People before numbers.
I think this constant need to frame tragedy in a numerical context is a defense mechanism built into us to maintain our personal perspective rather than have it subject to the full weight of the tragedy itself. This is normally supposed to be of great benefit to the human, but in these times of constant information, we find ourselves turning away from tragedy at a rate unseen in human history. When you read something appalling, you automatically search for reasons to discredit what you're reading so as to not have to feel upset over it, even if it's a minuscule piece of information missing, or any tiny part that may not relate to your personal circumstances (so you don't have to believe that it happened).
This is especially true if the victim is not your typical victim (a "man" getting raped, for instance). People only seem to get fired up about things when they fit into a preconceived schema (ie. "women are always victims"), and otherwise ignore and underestimate all else to distract themselves from the validity of the tragedy before them. In all truth, I don't know what is worse, a mind like mine (which tends to take all sources of information at their word), or the multitude of minds that need constant verification for every detail before they feel any human emotion, period.
If you can find a reason not to feel bad about something you see, do you not feel better as a result? You could say then that the reason we study things at all is so we can "feel" in control of a situation we feel powerless about. Instead of feeling that gut reaction of disgust regarding rape, for instance, we study it and put a whole bunch of numbers in our heads to persuade ourselves into thinking of it in terms of percents and averages rather than faces and names. And when we do that, we underestimate the names and faces, particularly those we have cast to the side as "outliers." We create a society, an organization, that caters to the statistical average, and not only ignores the "outlier" but even flat out mocks him, and takes pleasure in his dejected circumstance. The male victim of rape is one such outlier that is routinely mocked and underestimated.
People underestimate the human element in the rightfully quantitative social sciences. I don't. I concern myself with that which people underestimate.
I also believe in focusing on severity over statistics. Numbers are used as a form of distancing oneself from tragedy. To headline on "only 20 people killed" kind of makes whatever happened in the story seem insignificant. That's a lot different than simply saying, "20 people killed." Likewise, if only one kid got raped in a juvenile detention center in the last hundred years, who am I to disqualify the significance of that for the victim by referring back to numbers--by saying, essentially, "well, it wasn't so bad, you were the only one in the last hundred years!" The point being, if it was severe enough, and it hurt the victim, then no other quantity should get in the way of that "fact". Severity over statistics. Bruises over averages. Humans over outliers. Cases over representative samples. People before numbers.
I think this constant need to frame tragedy in a numerical context is a defense mechanism built into us to maintain our personal perspective rather than have it subject to the full weight of the tragedy itself. This is normally supposed to be of great benefit to the human, but in these times of constant information, we find ourselves turning away from tragedy at a rate unseen in human history. When you read something appalling, you automatically search for reasons to discredit what you're reading so as to not have to feel upset over it, even if it's a minuscule piece of information missing, or any tiny part that may not relate to your personal circumstances (so you don't have to believe that it happened).
This is especially true if the victim is not your typical victim (a "man" getting raped, for instance). People only seem to get fired up about things when they fit into a preconceived schema (ie. "women are always victims"), and otherwise ignore and underestimate all else to distract themselves from the validity of the tragedy before them. In all truth, I don't know what is worse, a mind like mine (which tends to take all sources of information at their word), or the multitude of minds that need constant verification for every detail before they feel any human emotion, period.
If you can find a reason not to feel bad about something you see, do you not feel better as a result? You could say then that the reason we study things at all is so we can "feel" in control of a situation we feel powerless about. Instead of feeling that gut reaction of disgust regarding rape, for instance, we study it and put a whole bunch of numbers in our heads to persuade ourselves into thinking of it in terms of percents and averages rather than faces and names. And when we do that, we underestimate the names and faces, particularly those we have cast to the side as "outliers." We create a society, an organization, that caters to the statistical average, and not only ignores the "outlier" but even flat out mocks him, and takes pleasure in his dejected circumstance. The male victim of rape is one such outlier that is routinely mocked and underestimated.
People underestimate the human element in the rightfully quantitative social sciences. I don't. I concern myself with that which people underestimate.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Unworthy Victims
One of the problems with victimology and unwavering victim-worship is that it is unevenly distributed. In western culture we're almost lead to believe, whether by accident or not, that certain people are more deserving of our sympathies than others for matters having nothing to do with the circumstances of their victimization, all things being equal. The "usual suspects" are always our template for villainy, and the "typical victims" are always getting hammered into our sympathetic nerves, time after time. All else who don't fit the narrative need not apply, even if they have been objectively victimized too.
The image of a girl being raped by a shadowy man, even as tragic as it is, has been turned into little more than a thought-stopping cliche. It is indeed the prototypical image in our heads when we think of sexual exploitation, simply because of its incessant repetition in film, television, and the news media. Its depiction no longer makes us think, we merely become anesthetized to it, and we ignore and become incapable of seeing exploitation in other forms perpetrated on less-prototypical human beings. Not only does its repetition rob our emotional minds blind to the real tragedy of it (just because we've seen it a hundred times), but it holds that emotional mind hostage and blocks its rational ends from seeing the travesties committed on those our sympathetic acuity has been blinded to.
One wants to talk about how the predator manufactures the consent of his victim when he exploits her, but what about when culture has done the same to you, and has manufactured your consent to feel one way or another toward or against someone, at its discretion, by repetition? When the mere gender of a person, the age of a person, or social class of a person, has more to do with your outrage, your indignation, your sympathy for them, than the act that they have become victim to or perpetrated, you've already become a victim to the cliche of the media narrative yourself. That is how culture and the propaganda, the "thought-stopping cliches," have molested your will and alienated your compassion from you by their constant mercantile presence. Herman and Chomsky wrote on this phenomenon in like manner:
According to culture, men and boys are unworthy victims, so society does not care when they are victimized, abused, and maltreated en mass. Boys may only be sympathized with because they also fit the class of "child," but not because they are boy children. According to culture, teenagers are unworthy victims, so society does not care when they are victimized, abused, and maltreated en mass. So by these two observations alone, we should expect society to feel more sympathy for a six-year-old girl that has been mishandled, than a 15-year-old "young man" who has suffered the same--or even still, has been murdered, or sold into sexual slavery as a bacha bereesh in Afghanistan, even as much attention has been given to the treatment of girls in that country.
That which we assume "en mass" dictates how we respond to individuals within that mass. It would certainly lend an explanation as to why it does, and why male offenders are touted as "beasts" while female offenders of the same crimes are given the "mother of three" treatment. Where do you think your sympathy is "supposed" to go, given the choice between a beast and a mother of three? What if the "beast" had children too? Nobody is given the chance to care, and it is not important anyways.
So while we are all required to feel sympathy toward the typical cases, and hatred toward the "usual suspects," let's not forget those our culture has forgotten to take seriously. The moment you have an image in your mind about a typical case victim, fill her in with her exact opposite, and remember that it happens too, and how nobody cares about it when it does. Nobody's singing the lamentations of a teenage boy who has been violently raped by a woman, no matter how traumatic, just because it doesn't fit the typical schema of "offenders and victims." Nobody's asking for the head of the female rapist either. And when you realize this, you'll see real sexism, real ageism, real classism at work in ways the focus group didn't think would be commercially viable enough to wrest your "unquestionable" sympathy for.
All media is the same story being sold, over and over. Don't buy it.
The image of a girl being raped by a shadowy man, even as tragic as it is, has been turned into little more than a thought-stopping cliche. It is indeed the prototypical image in our heads when we think of sexual exploitation, simply because of its incessant repetition in film, television, and the news media. Its depiction no longer makes us think, we merely become anesthetized to it, and we ignore and become incapable of seeing exploitation in other forms perpetrated on less-prototypical human beings. Not only does its repetition rob our emotional minds blind to the real tragedy of it (just because we've seen it a hundred times), but it holds that emotional mind hostage and blocks its rational ends from seeing the travesties committed on those our sympathetic acuity has been blinded to.
One wants to talk about how the predator manufactures the consent of his victim when he exploits her, but what about when culture has done the same to you, and has manufactured your consent to feel one way or another toward or against someone, at its discretion, by repetition? When the mere gender of a person, the age of a person, or social class of a person, has more to do with your outrage, your indignation, your sympathy for them, than the act that they have become victim to or perpetrated, you've already become a victim to the cliche of the media narrative yourself. That is how culture and the propaganda, the "thought-stopping cliches," have molested your will and alienated your compassion from you by their constant mercantile presence. Herman and Chomsky wrote on this phenomenon in like manner:
“Our hypothesis is that worthy victims will be featured prominently and dramatically, that they will be humanized, and that their victimization will receive the detail and context in story construction that will generate reader interest and sympathetic emotions. In contrast, unworthy victims will merit only slight detail, minimal humanization, and little context that will excite and enrage.”
—E. S. Herman and N. Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent
According to culture, men and boys are unworthy victims, so society does not care when they are victimized, abused, and maltreated en mass. Boys may only be sympathized with because they also fit the class of "child," but not because they are boy children. According to culture, teenagers are unworthy victims, so society does not care when they are victimized, abused, and maltreated en mass. So by these two observations alone, we should expect society to feel more sympathy for a six-year-old girl that has been mishandled, than a 15-year-old "young man" who has suffered the same--or even still, has been murdered, or sold into sexual slavery as a bacha bereesh in Afghanistan, even as much attention has been given to the treatment of girls in that country.
That which we assume "en mass" dictates how we respond to individuals within that mass. It would certainly lend an explanation as to why it does, and why male offenders are touted as "beasts" while female offenders of the same crimes are given the "mother of three" treatment. Where do you think your sympathy is "supposed" to go, given the choice between a beast and a mother of three? What if the "beast" had children too? Nobody is given the chance to care, and it is not important anyways.
So while we are all required to feel sympathy toward the typical cases, and hatred toward the "usual suspects," let's not forget those our culture has forgotten to take seriously. The moment you have an image in your mind about a typical case victim, fill her in with her exact opposite, and remember that it happens too, and how nobody cares about it when it does. Nobody's singing the lamentations of a teenage boy who has been violently raped by a woman, no matter how traumatic, just because it doesn't fit the typical schema of "offenders and victims." Nobody's asking for the head of the female rapist either. And when you realize this, you'll see real sexism, real ageism, real classism at work in ways the focus group didn't think would be commercially viable enough to wrest your "unquestionable" sympathy for.
All media is the same story being sold, over and over. Don't buy it.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Justice for Caylee
Way to honor a child's life, with a perpetual shouting match on national television. One wonders if this child hadn't been as cute, as photogenic, whether anyone would have paid her death more than a momentary notice. If she had been instead a ten-year-old black boy on the streets of West Philadelphia having gone missing, no national coverage would have even taken place, never mind a three year headline involving a play-by-play depiction of the trial chased with righteous indignation disguised as commentary. It would have been seen almost as "appropriate" by the very same so-called arbiters of social justice.
No, this is where all their righteous indignation leads, once it is distilled to its main ingredient--if Caylee Anthony wasn't cute, if she wasn't white, if she wasn't three years old--if she wasn't the exploitable tot, the perfect victim that the news media so callously could turn her into, they wouldn't have cared if she got justice or not, and nor would the viewing public. It can be concluded because it happens every day. This story would have ended with the search in the local media, three years ago, and that would have been that, and you know what else? It would have been far more just, and righteous, than the disgusting circus they turned this little girl's death into.
The so-called arbiters of social justice in the media saw this child not as a child, with her own rights and dignity, but as some expensive commodity, a platform from which to pilot their fledgling cults of personality straight into the living rooms of America. The more well-meaning their intentions, the less respect they showed, as Caylee's images were sprayed across the screen when they spoke, as if to repeatedly underscore their moral high ground. In like manner, Caylee's image might be blown up on the screen before cutting to a commercial break, as if to prime the viewing public for that coveted eye time. It was sentimentalism for the sake of gaining eyes, and sensationalism in the service of exploiting them--the propaganda of the consumer culture for the well-intentioned public.
Even overtly, their message was insulting--that child rights only exist to protect these pieces of property from society. Talk of "children's rights" only seems to matter to these people after the kids are injured or killed, and even at that, is only extended to the extent that it renders them lifeless victims which need protection against adult interventions. Such a mindset only serves to perpetuate their lifeless, infantilized victimhood, to stand them out from the crowd and paint a sign on their backs that screams "I am a child, I am a victim! Target me!" whether they have been victimized or not, for which more restrictions are proctored. Victimhood has replaced childhood.
If there ever was going to be justice for Caylee, it ended the moment the story broke on the national scene. From there on, any hope of justice for a little girl was thrown out the window and replaced with endless repetition of the child's inhuman victimhood, or the glorification of her now-sanctified existence--neither of which extreme did a little girl any justice. All it served was to give absolution to adults who would have felt guilty if they didn't join with the cults of personality and the talking heads in singing praise for the existence of this little girl and her tragic end. Adults feel all too guilty for the decadence of their culture, and they find an outlet in the death of children.
No, this is where all their righteous indignation leads, once it is distilled to its main ingredient--if Caylee Anthony wasn't cute, if she wasn't white, if she wasn't three years old--if she wasn't the exploitable tot, the perfect victim that the news media so callously could turn her into, they wouldn't have cared if she got justice or not, and nor would the viewing public. It can be concluded because it happens every day. This story would have ended with the search in the local media, three years ago, and that would have been that, and you know what else? It would have been far more just, and righteous, than the disgusting circus they turned this little girl's death into.
The so-called arbiters of social justice in the media saw this child not as a child, with her own rights and dignity, but as some expensive commodity, a platform from which to pilot their fledgling cults of personality straight into the living rooms of America. The more well-meaning their intentions, the less respect they showed, as Caylee's images were sprayed across the screen when they spoke, as if to repeatedly underscore their moral high ground. In like manner, Caylee's image might be blown up on the screen before cutting to a commercial break, as if to prime the viewing public for that coveted eye time. It was sentimentalism for the sake of gaining eyes, and sensationalism in the service of exploiting them--the propaganda of the consumer culture for the well-intentioned public.
Even overtly, their message was insulting--that child rights only exist to protect these pieces of property from society. Talk of "children's rights" only seems to matter to these people after the kids are injured or killed, and even at that, is only extended to the extent that it renders them lifeless victims which need protection against adult interventions. Such a mindset only serves to perpetuate their lifeless, infantilized victimhood, to stand them out from the crowd and paint a sign on their backs that screams "I am a child, I am a victim! Target me!" whether they have been victimized or not, for which more restrictions are proctored. Victimhood has replaced childhood.
If there ever was going to be justice for Caylee, it ended the moment the story broke on the national scene. From there on, any hope of justice for a little girl was thrown out the window and replaced with endless repetition of the child's inhuman victimhood, or the glorification of her now-sanctified existence--neither of which extreme did a little girl any justice. All it served was to give absolution to adults who would have felt guilty if they didn't join with the cults of personality and the talking heads in singing praise for the existence of this little girl and her tragic end. Adults feel all too guilty for the decadence of their culture, and they find an outlet in the death of children.
Friday, February 4, 2011
Bullying
Impinging on a child's right and ability to defend him or herself is the greatest way adults have concocted to ensure the victim's dependence and empower their aggressors. If you want to weaken a child's resistance, teach them that all their squabbles should be arbitrated by an adult, give the bullies reason to believe in their own physical superiority over their victims, and better yet, punish victims for fighting back. This is a "tell an adult" culture, and in teaching our children to swear to never lift a finger in their own defense, we not only empower bullies and punish those who would fight back, but we victimize children who could have otherwise handled the situation easily without becoming a victim.
Violence and self defense are two different things. This has been known forever, and yet, it appears the ancient warrior codes and chivalric honor is completely lost on modern civilization when it comes to children. In the old world, a bully could be subdued and rightfully punished. The resisting victim would be encouraged to go on resisting, standing up for him or herself. A victim that lay on the floor and received his beating would be encouraged to put his foot down should his aggressor come back with another round. In the new world, the victim is expected to lay there and absorb the beating, and wait desperately for an adult to intervene. Then they bully's needs are equally considered. If the victim doesn't resist, they are praised. If they fight back, they are punished too, perhaps with offender sentencing even. Both are considered victims, despite the fact that bullies and delinquents are often different things.
This new scheme has all the best intentions. It seeks to sympathize with the bully's plight (the very thing that shouldn't be reinforced), and it seeks to be a neutral overseer in the dispute, but only drives itself more partisan with its insistence that every act of aggression has a definitive victim and abuser. In this way, a child may be harassed by another student for weeks and months only to be dealt the swift hand of justice the moment he or she retaliates--only because the child refused to bring their problem to the ear of an adult who was most likely just going to do nothing about it anyways, or the equivalent of nothing. Is a "stern talking to" really going to set a bully straight? The bully's actions are not considered acceptable by no means, and are said to be the work of a "traumatized soul"--a soul that has to be "pampered" and provided "attention" so that it may somehow find alternative means to express itself, or so goes the theory. The so-called neutral overseers then coddle that soul rather than educate it, with the effect of only emboldening it.
The problem here is that this scheme rigidly applies the theory that children are utterly morally perfect and pure and incapable of handling their lives in all aspects, that only adults have the ability to intervene in children's squabbles (with their self-agrandised "higher wisdom), and that children's transgressions are solely a result of contamination from an outside aggressor. Therefore, even the victim isn't off the hook. To keep the victim from being "contaminated" by the bully, he or she must also be reprogrammed, along with his or her peers. They are given non-violent alternatives that basically amount to self-limiting victimization strategies (society having totally lost grasp of the difference). They are told to either submit to an adult's intervention or submit to the bully's. To a kid, there is very little to distinguish one from the other.
The victims need to know that the adults are in their sparring corner, and if the child comes to an adult requesting assistance to deal with a bully, then that request ought to be honored and non-violent solutions hashed out. Ultimately though, unless the situation is absolutely too hazardous, the child should be encouraged to be the one carrying out the solution, whatever is appropriate. We can all agree that children should not be taught to throw weight around needlessly and act out violently without provocation, and that in all possible circumstances they should find the least violent path possible, but there are one or two occasions where a child seems more than entitled to give another kid a good punch in the mouth. Not all bullying is the same and requires aggressive responses, but some do.
If all non-violent options fail, and the bully is still persistent, the victim really ought to be granted carte blanche to defend themselves, knowing of course, that such action will cause them disciplinary action too. If that's the price for finally subduing the bully (standing up for themselves), then it's well worth it. They ought to be encouraged to greet their disciplinary action with their head held high. Someone ought to shake their hand as they are banished to their room, to a detention hall, or wherever they are going. If, as the theory goes, the bully is simply acting out an inner sense of inferiority by choosing to dominate others, wouldn't it be wise not to give him submissive bodies in order to dominate? Empower the victims, even as they step up to receive their own discipline. The moment a bully lashes out at another student is the last point in time when they ought to be "attended to," such an action should have probably happened long before it reached that point.
And speaking of ignoring bullies until they lash out, let us not forget that girls are just as vicious, just as aggressive, if not always physically, but verbally. Boys bare the bunt of the adult attention when it comes to bullying because physical violence is always more visceral (and adults have a hard-on for all things viscerally arresting at an ignorance of all else), but girls who are relentlessly harassing other children verbally don't deserve to be ignored just because what they do may not result in "bloody noses" and "black eyes."
What we shouldn't be agreeing to is that violence can be eradicated in children if we all just join hands, victim and abuser alike, under the guidance of an adult, declare peace and assume that all is settled. Such claptrap is born out of the adult's shortsightedness, their ego, their feelings of superiority over kids (as if they are in any way the ultimate arbiters of morality that all children must just beg at the feet of), and their desire to be useful. It is nurtured by inaccurate ideas concerning the inhuman "purity" of children and their general shock that children can be just as destructive and downright evil as they themselves are. Bullies are nature's way of holding a mirror up to the adult world and reflecting its image onto a "manageable" size. When an adult sees themselves in a child, more often then not, it's because the child is a bully.
Violence and self defense are two different things. This has been known forever, and yet, it appears the ancient warrior codes and chivalric honor is completely lost on modern civilization when it comes to children. In the old world, a bully could be subdued and rightfully punished. The resisting victim would be encouraged to go on resisting, standing up for him or herself. A victim that lay on the floor and received his beating would be encouraged to put his foot down should his aggressor come back with another round. In the new world, the victim is expected to lay there and absorb the beating, and wait desperately for an adult to intervene. Then they bully's needs are equally considered. If the victim doesn't resist, they are praised. If they fight back, they are punished too, perhaps with offender sentencing even. Both are considered victims, despite the fact that bullies and delinquents are often different things.
This new scheme has all the best intentions. It seeks to sympathize with the bully's plight (the very thing that shouldn't be reinforced), and it seeks to be a neutral overseer in the dispute, but only drives itself more partisan with its insistence that every act of aggression has a definitive victim and abuser. In this way, a child may be harassed by another student for weeks and months only to be dealt the swift hand of justice the moment he or she retaliates--only because the child refused to bring their problem to the ear of an adult who was most likely just going to do nothing about it anyways, or the equivalent of nothing. Is a "stern talking to" really going to set a bully straight? The bully's actions are not considered acceptable by no means, and are said to be the work of a "traumatized soul"--a soul that has to be "pampered" and provided "attention" so that it may somehow find alternative means to express itself, or so goes the theory. The so-called neutral overseers then coddle that soul rather than educate it, with the effect of only emboldening it.
The problem here is that this scheme rigidly applies the theory that children are utterly morally perfect and pure and incapable of handling their lives in all aspects, that only adults have the ability to intervene in children's squabbles (with their self-agrandised "higher wisdom), and that children's transgressions are solely a result of contamination from an outside aggressor. Therefore, even the victim isn't off the hook. To keep the victim from being "contaminated" by the bully, he or she must also be reprogrammed, along with his or her peers. They are given non-violent alternatives that basically amount to self-limiting victimization strategies (society having totally lost grasp of the difference). They are told to either submit to an adult's intervention or submit to the bully's. To a kid, there is very little to distinguish one from the other.
The victims need to know that the adults are in their sparring corner, and if the child comes to an adult requesting assistance to deal with a bully, then that request ought to be honored and non-violent solutions hashed out. Ultimately though, unless the situation is absolutely too hazardous, the child should be encouraged to be the one carrying out the solution, whatever is appropriate. We can all agree that children should not be taught to throw weight around needlessly and act out violently without provocation, and that in all possible circumstances they should find the least violent path possible, but there are one or two occasions where a child seems more than entitled to give another kid a good punch in the mouth. Not all bullying is the same and requires aggressive responses, but some do.
If all non-violent options fail, and the bully is still persistent, the victim really ought to be granted carte blanche to defend themselves, knowing of course, that such action will cause them disciplinary action too. If that's the price for finally subduing the bully (standing up for themselves), then it's well worth it. They ought to be encouraged to greet their disciplinary action with their head held high. Someone ought to shake their hand as they are banished to their room, to a detention hall, or wherever they are going. If, as the theory goes, the bully is simply acting out an inner sense of inferiority by choosing to dominate others, wouldn't it be wise not to give him submissive bodies in order to dominate? Empower the victims, even as they step up to receive their own discipline. The moment a bully lashes out at another student is the last point in time when they ought to be "attended to," such an action should have probably happened long before it reached that point.
And speaking of ignoring bullies until they lash out, let us not forget that girls are just as vicious, just as aggressive, if not always physically, but verbally. Boys bare the bunt of the adult attention when it comes to bullying because physical violence is always more visceral (and adults have a hard-on for all things viscerally arresting at an ignorance of all else), but girls who are relentlessly harassing other children verbally don't deserve to be ignored just because what they do may not result in "bloody noses" and "black eyes."
What we shouldn't be agreeing to is that violence can be eradicated in children if we all just join hands, victim and abuser alike, under the guidance of an adult, declare peace and assume that all is settled. Such claptrap is born out of the adult's shortsightedness, their ego, their feelings of superiority over kids (as if they are in any way the ultimate arbiters of morality that all children must just beg at the feet of), and their desire to be useful. It is nurtured by inaccurate ideas concerning the inhuman "purity" of children and their general shock that children can be just as destructive and downright evil as they themselves are. Bullies are nature's way of holding a mirror up to the adult world and reflecting its image onto a "manageable" size. When an adult sees themselves in a child, more often then not, it's because the child is a bully.
Aphorisms on Child Sexuality
And now for a few observations, shared between myself and a like-minded friend, NG:
Sex between consenting adults is one of the most ugly things on the face of this planet.
Since molestation is primarily a deprivation of sexual liberties, it seems reasonable to assume that some victims of molestation would grow up to be militant defenders of childrens' sexual freedoms.
Child victims who grow up with a vendetta to clamp down on childrens' sexual expression are the ones society likes. Child victims who grow up and move on with their lives are tossed to the ash bin.
Child abuse must be all-consuming on the victim. If they ever recover and grow from it, they are seen as "justifying" the abuse.
Society has taken the concept of child sexuality and equated it with satanic rituals. This is abhorrent, heinous and unforgivable.
For the law to call mutually consenting loving relationships rape, is an atrocity in keeping with rape itself.
Society's ignorance of the sexuality of children under 18 has made them totally oblivious to the term "sexual development".
*
Sex between consenting adults is one of the most ugly things on the face of this planet.
*
Since molestation is primarily a deprivation of sexual liberties, it seems reasonable to assume that some victims of molestation would grow up to be militant defenders of childrens' sexual freedoms.
*
Child victims who grow up with a vendetta to clamp down on childrens' sexual expression are the ones society likes. Child victims who grow up and move on with their lives are tossed to the ash bin.
*
Child abuse must be all-consuming on the victim. If they ever recover and grow from it, they are seen as "justifying" the abuse.
*
Society has taken the concept of child sexuality and equated it with satanic rituals. This is abhorrent, heinous and unforgivable.
*
For the law to call mutually consenting loving relationships rape, is an atrocity in keeping with rape itself.
*
Society's ignorance of the sexuality of children under 18 has made them totally oblivious to the term "sexual development".
*
Monday, November 29, 2010
Research Limits
The bulk of knowledge attainable from research in general is limited to the kinds of questions that have been asked. In the social sciences, the questions that are being asked are the ones our culture permits us to ask. In this case, culture informs objectivity. If culture assumes that children are being harmed by something, then the questions for research become: "What groups of kids are being harmed the most? Who does the harm affect the most? Who/What is doing the harm? and What can be done to stop the harm from happening?" No one comes forth to pose the question: is the cultural assumption even right to begin with?
If the culture says that X, then research asks, "given X, how does X affect Y?" If it would be culturally inappropriate to question X, then X is not questioned.
However, the social sciences are not uniformly like this. There are numerous examples of research and researchers who have pushed boundaries and ultimately changed cultural perspectives to align more with the reality of the world, but notice it only seems to work that way with questions that, even if controversial, are still within the boundaries of acceptability. The level of attention a particular research question receives is proportional to its level of cultural acceptability. So given this, it's a wonder anyone can regard the social sciences without skepticism at the least. For instance, it seems obvious the increase in interest in questions about homosexuality outside the strict context of "pathological abnormality" has more to do with our culture's growing tolerance of the gay lifestyle than it does the researchers' objective "thirst for knowledge."
One question that seems to be outside the boundaries of our culture, and therefore shut off from objective investigation, is "when are children capable of giving meaningful consent?" This is because culture tells us they are never capable until they are [16, 17, 18, 21...pick a number]. Scientific investigation takes this as a given, and then asks "because we all know kids can not consent, how are they being harmed by X?" Who among us is brave enough to ask "is this man-made, superstitious, legal construct wrong about a child's objective ability to consent?" Don't hold your breath.
Victimology research feeds off of cultural limitations.
If the culture says that X, then research asks, "given X, how does X affect Y?" If it would be culturally inappropriate to question X, then X is not questioned.
However, the social sciences are not uniformly like this. There are numerous examples of research and researchers who have pushed boundaries and ultimately changed cultural perspectives to align more with the reality of the world, but notice it only seems to work that way with questions that, even if controversial, are still within the boundaries of acceptability. The level of attention a particular research question receives is proportional to its level of cultural acceptability. So given this, it's a wonder anyone can regard the social sciences without skepticism at the least. For instance, it seems obvious the increase in interest in questions about homosexuality outside the strict context of "pathological abnormality" has more to do with our culture's growing tolerance of the gay lifestyle than it does the researchers' objective "thirst for knowledge."
One question that seems to be outside the boundaries of our culture, and therefore shut off from objective investigation, is "when are children capable of giving meaningful consent?" This is because culture tells us they are never capable until they are [16, 17, 18, 21...pick a number]. Scientific investigation takes this as a given, and then asks "because we all know kids can not consent, how are they being harmed by X?" Who among us is brave enough to ask "is this man-made, superstitious, legal construct wrong about a child's objective ability to consent?" Don't hold your breath.
Victimology research feeds off of cultural limitations.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Child Molestation
Let's not mince words or wax poetic on this. Child molestation, including all sexual exploitation and kidnapping, is evil. While vigilantes are consumed by hate to the point where they would not bat an eyelash at the mutilation of those who stand in the path of their lust, child molesters are just as sick. Both come in the guise of some savior and leave society scratching its scalp, disgusted and unable to come to terms with what would drive an individual to such depths. While vigilantes are gratifying themselves over the severed tongues of their adversaries and treading blood in the storm drains, child molesters are making them feel vindicated for doing it.
The doctor may be able to get away with the excuse that causing a child harm by the prick of a needle will create great benefit because of the injection, but the same logic will never justify any other harm done to a child, or to society because of a child. Unless you create a fanciful story whereby a child must be harmed in order to save their life, intentionally harming a child out of a need to protect them should go against your deepest principles. The first rule, the cardinal rule, of CL is "do no harm," and this is true no matter what form of it is manifested. As we shall see, this doesn't just mean "don't subject the child to harm" but also, do not seek any kind of benefit from children being harmed, because to do so is to be an accessory to their suffering.
Having said that, it should be surprising that when society says it wants to protect children from molestation, they do the opposite. Most child molestation, by wide margin, takes place between family members, not strangers. Most child molestation takes place within the home between people the family trusts, not strangers on the playground. Most child molestation occurs between parent and child. Very little child molestation occurs due to rogue slugs on the internet, but so much emphasis is placed on this tiny percent, and it happens at the ignorance of the more prevalent forms of child molestation. Society easily fails to accomplish what its best sentiments had directed it to do when its distraction by the tiny minority of cases overwhelms its attention toward the wide margin. Child molestation is child molestation, whether society has clearly painted a target on the perpetrator's back or not. Imagine that!
And with all the tear-jerking on the issue of a child being victimized, we can only conclude that selling child molestation as an entertainment format in the media is tough when the perpetrator is "one of the audience"--namely, all the parents lapping this stuff up. Nobody wants to insult their paying parental viewers or readers, so the perpetrator always must be some rogue slug instead. Parents just don't make very convincing villains to a parental public, no matter how much the child had to suffer at that particular perpetrator's hands. Rogues always make better villains, no matter how inoffensive the crime. Their priorities are backwards (the majority of child abuse is ignored, the minority is blown up to ridiculous super-villainy status), and because of this, child molestation continues to be a sensationalist epidemic, children suffer at the hands of this "child abuse entertainment industry", John Walsh gets rich on their unfortunate demise, and vigilantes have a never-ending vat of human beings to terrorize for their own pleasure.
No one who is benefiting from child molestation is in any position to preach morality on the topic, it doesn't matter if you're a child molester, a vigilante, or a media reporter earning a buck off the sale of your latest story. On the contrary, the groups who have any position to say anything on the issue are those who don't stand to benefit from child molestation in any way--the hapless public lead to believe anything, and those who love children--known as CLs.
The doctor may be able to get away with the excuse that causing a child harm by the prick of a needle will create great benefit because of the injection, but the same logic will never justify any other harm done to a child, or to society because of a child. Unless you create a fanciful story whereby a child must be harmed in order to save their life, intentionally harming a child out of a need to protect them should go against your deepest principles. The first rule, the cardinal rule, of CL is "do no harm," and this is true no matter what form of it is manifested. As we shall see, this doesn't just mean "don't subject the child to harm" but also, do not seek any kind of benefit from children being harmed, because to do so is to be an accessory to their suffering.
Having said that, it should be surprising that when society says it wants to protect children from molestation, they do the opposite. Most child molestation, by wide margin, takes place between family members, not strangers. Most child molestation takes place within the home between people the family trusts, not strangers on the playground. Most child molestation occurs between parent and child. Very little child molestation occurs due to rogue slugs on the internet, but so much emphasis is placed on this tiny percent, and it happens at the ignorance of the more prevalent forms of child molestation. Society easily fails to accomplish what its best sentiments had directed it to do when its distraction by the tiny minority of cases overwhelms its attention toward the wide margin. Child molestation is child molestation, whether society has clearly painted a target on the perpetrator's back or not. Imagine that!
And with all the tear-jerking on the issue of a child being victimized, we can only conclude that selling child molestation as an entertainment format in the media is tough when the perpetrator is "one of the audience"--namely, all the parents lapping this stuff up. Nobody wants to insult their paying parental viewers or readers, so the perpetrator always must be some rogue slug instead. Parents just don't make very convincing villains to a parental public, no matter how much the child had to suffer at that particular perpetrator's hands. Rogues always make better villains, no matter how inoffensive the crime. Their priorities are backwards (the majority of child abuse is ignored, the minority is blown up to ridiculous super-villainy status), and because of this, child molestation continues to be a sensationalist epidemic, children suffer at the hands of this "child abuse entertainment industry", John Walsh gets rich on their unfortunate demise, and vigilantes have a never-ending vat of human beings to terrorize for their own pleasure.
No one who is benefiting from child molestation is in any position to preach morality on the topic, it doesn't matter if you're a child molester, a vigilante, or a media reporter earning a buck off the sale of your latest story. On the contrary, the groups who have any position to say anything on the issue are those who don't stand to benefit from child molestation in any way--the hapless public lead to believe anything, and those who love children--known as CLs.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Endless Victimhood
The audacity to care for others in a hurting world is raped and ruined the moment it becomes a social expectation rather than an act of genuine love. It's hard to feel genuine sympathy for an individual when one's compassion is demanded or expected, and yet our tears are always at a pretty high premium when the subject of child victims comes up--in fact, they're demanded from us. Compassion becomes a credit system, it becomes a commodity, an investment that you pay down in respect of the victim--something that takes it's payments at every chance encounter and can not ever be paid in full. Once a victim, always a victim, even when the victim becomes the oppressor.
This is what the so-called science of victimology has turned the child into. The champions of the victim have turned individual children who have suffered a catastrophe into walking catastrophes, and turned genuine compassion into an evil force of nature playing out on the grand stage--Victims and Villains, the spectacle, and they, the victim worshipers, the heroes! Genuine compassion becomes the enemy of compliant compassion, because it's not as predictable. A person may find themselves feeling compassionate for a child in a way that celebrates the child's strengths and personality and rebirth after tragedy, and that simply doesn't make for good daytime television or sell self-help books. We can't be feeling good about victims, we have to feel sorry for them!
No victimologist is particularly concerned in turning tragedy into strength for children, too busy glorifying the weakness that is expected of them--the same weakness that was exploited to begin with. The more we exalt the so-called weakness in children, the more prey on that weakness, but of course, the more who prey on the weakness, the more people who can be given the label "victim." The more people have the label, the less freedom they have to be anything but, and the less ability we have to criticize the label.
The more people are hunted down and tagged with the label, the easier it becomes to push social agendas on their behalf but for the greater glory of the powerful on the backs of those who had suffered. It's a phony sentimental appeal to the fickle adult's own weakness of will that every child pinned down as a victim should never, ever, be allowed to escape being one. Of course, as with anything done for the so-called good of children, it is all done on their behalf and has nothing to do with them.
A child is a victim once, when they are abused or neglected. Once intervention has repaired a child's life, they cease being a victim and become a benefactor. They don't continue to be a victim until a victimologist gets a hold of them and puts their tears on the cover of a glossy. The trick is to get the victim to begin to believe and internalize their victimhood in order to use it to oppress others. Thus, the world never runs out of victims.
This is what the so-called science of victimology has turned the child into. The champions of the victim have turned individual children who have suffered a catastrophe into walking catastrophes, and turned genuine compassion into an evil force of nature playing out on the grand stage--Victims and Villains, the spectacle, and they, the victim worshipers, the heroes! Genuine compassion becomes the enemy of compliant compassion, because it's not as predictable. A person may find themselves feeling compassionate for a child in a way that celebrates the child's strengths and personality and rebirth after tragedy, and that simply doesn't make for good daytime television or sell self-help books. We can't be feeling good about victims, we have to feel sorry for them!
No victimologist is particularly concerned in turning tragedy into strength for children, too busy glorifying the weakness that is expected of them--the same weakness that was exploited to begin with. The more we exalt the so-called weakness in children, the more prey on that weakness, but of course, the more who prey on the weakness, the more people who can be given the label "victim." The more people have the label, the less freedom they have to be anything but, and the less ability we have to criticize the label.
The more people are hunted down and tagged with the label, the easier it becomes to push social agendas on their behalf but for the greater glory of the powerful on the backs of those who had suffered. It's a phony sentimental appeal to the fickle adult's own weakness of will that every child pinned down as a victim should never, ever, be allowed to escape being one. Of course, as with anything done for the so-called good of children, it is all done on their behalf and has nothing to do with them.
A child is a victim once, when they are abused or neglected. Once intervention has repaired a child's life, they cease being a victim and become a benefactor. They don't continue to be a victim until a victimologist gets a hold of them and puts their tears on the cover of a glossy. The trick is to get the victim to begin to believe and internalize their victimhood in order to use it to oppress others. Thus, the world never runs out of victims.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)