14 April 2019

Are Men Afraid of the #metoo Movement?

Talk about an assumed attitude of privilege which also embraces ageism!  On a news program, today, a young woman was saying one of the negative side-effects of the #metoo movement was that men no longer feel comfortable around young women.  Really?  Really!  I mean Really?!  All I could think was are you sure you don’t want to rethink and reword that comment?

I agree that the
#metoo movement has an effect of  making some men uncomfortable because of fearing they could be falsely accused.  Men, in general, do not deserve to have to be fearful because of those in their ranks who are violators, especially those who are serial offenders.  But woman, in general, also do not deserve to be in fear of being attacked by men, because when they do report violations they are not believed so those who violate get away with violating instead of being apprehended. 

The problem is with dishonesty, and an unwillingness and inability to discern what is and is not factual - to the point of denial which results in a lack of thorough investigation.  The only people who do not invite investigation are the violators and those who enable them.  That is a truism.

It is the men violating who are at the foundation of the fear some men have of being dishonestly accused, not the  woman who  have chosen to report violations and expect to be believed to the point of an investigation being mandatory because of reporting the violation.   If there was not so much refusal to believe woman and investigate the violations they report, then there would not be so much fear in men who are not violators. 

And what about men who may not be sure about whether or not they have been considered violators? Well, wondering, alone, makes a statement.  If a man makes an effort to contact someone he may need to find clarity from, then it is a statement which is an indicator of decency, as long as the intention for contact is not intended to be obnoxious and threatening.

Clearly, the refusal to believe woman is associated with the high numbers of violators, and repeat offenders in particular, who  have the power of influencing others to the point that others choose the corruption of enabling the violators and their offenses.  So it is understandable there has been an increase in some  men fearing they could be unjustly accused.  I think that fear is likely to be directly proportional to the amount of women who are unjustly accused simply because they are not believed and their claims are not properly investigated when they do report violations.

The way to minimize fear is for thorough, objective, investigations which are never subject to the corruption of threats and/or  pay-off by violators who claim their careers and lives will be ruined when they are held accountable.  They, and apparently, the mores of our society have been buying into not ruining the lives of violators, and instead condoning the ruining of the lives of those who were violated. 

And of course it must be stated that some boys and men have been violated, and that some people have been violated by same sex violators. I
t also must be stated that #metoo is not only about sexual assault, rape, unwelcome touching and sexual innuendo in the workplace, but that it is also about harassment of all types in the workplace and everywhere else. 

However,  the issue is about reporting violations which are not believed and not investigated which  becomes a situation that precipitates the fear of  being unjustly accused because of not being believed, and adequate investigation being withheld.  It is the conundrum  of a stereotypical "vicious circle".  In reality logic tells us that the problem is disbelief, and that the only way to alleviate that is to investigate claims until all the facts make evident exactly what happened.  It really is that simple.

What I do not agree with, and what stinks of privilege and ageism in a young woman "of a certain age" who is clearly old enough to know better, is that she said men do not feel comfortable around “young women” - as if older women invited violation, or acquiesced to and wanted to be violated in their younger years - as if they are not still considered potential targets of violation along with anyone else violators want to violate and believe they can get away with violating. 

If it would not come across as sexism and ageism I might say that perhaps part of the problem of fear is actually the attitude of righteous privilege which some young and not so young woman want to assume - those who have not learned the wisdom of extending forgiveness to individuals who give them the opportunity to do so.  When in doubt, extending that opportunity is always the correct choice and the only one which will alleviate fear.

10 April 2019

Prosecute the Scoundrels to the Full Extent of the Law

What is wrong with this damned state of New Mexico, and this damned city of Albuquerque, which together refuse to stop children from being brutally killed by those who are supposed to care!!!!  There has to be an end to it.  I can not believe there are people in the lives of the children and the adults responsible for being their parents or guardians, who  have not realized there are dangers for the children and reported the huge red flags indicative of those dangers!!! 

In fact, if news reports are accurate, I know the dangers have been reported, even several times in some cases, and that either law enforcement, or the social agencies which are supposed to handle such problems, often both, have failed to respond appropriately to the warnings of wrong-doing!  There must to be an end to accommodating the evil of ill-intended bottomless hate and incompetency, together, that is the cause. An end!!  Anyone who makes a decision to allow children to stay in dangerous homes or puts them in the care of those who should not be trusted with their care, is wrong to criminal extent. 

It is past time those responsible for not responding appropriately are removed from their jobs, and apprehended for their crimes of willful neglect which encouraged and enabled the continuing perpetration of the crimes.  They are accomplices who enable the continuing intolerable abuse resulting - predictably resulting - in the deaths of children.  Fact is the same happens to adults in danger - but this is primarily about how and why young children end up in environments which result in them being killed.

 

Prevention

There is an underlying issue which can be preventative, and that is birth control.  However some people are so obsessed with preventing abortion they can not see past the noses on their faces to recognize that birth control is the answer to preventing later crimes, even  if that form of birth control must sometimes be abortion in the early stages of pregnancy.  Instead those people want to create policy that forces child-bearing, which then results in young children  being killed by those who are supposed to care, but never did. 

Yes, birth control to include the extreme of abortion, is an  impossibly difficult choice for people who want to accommodate superimposed religious control in their lives instead of their own common sense when it comes to choices they have the foresight to know will do the least possible harm all the way around.  But people are able to come to terms with the choices they make.  The problem is the hypocritical politicians who want to try to create  cognitive dissonance in individuals, and at a societal level.  They are the worst perpetrators when they try to redirect political attention to personal issues which can not and should not be legislated based on superimposed religious beliefs of specified religions.  That effort is  unconstitutional,
actually i.e. the superimposing of beliefs associated with specified religions. 


Family Planning Is a Personal Matter Not a Legislative Matter

For example, and please correct me if I am wrong, but I know of no Bible verses which say birth control is not permissible.  As I recall, be fruitful and multiply  is advised.  I did say advised not dictated because my personal view of religion is that it is advisement not dictatorial governing which tries to deny and discredit one's own divine connection and ability to discern guidance from it.  Most reasonable people have a similar perspective which is why the conditions associated with being fruitful and multiplying are a personal choice for true believers.

A
llow me to point out that be fruitful and multiply prolifically like rabbits do, is not what is advised in the Bible. I take that to mean that reasonable and responsible people can be trusted to plan the amount of fruitfulness they can accommodate and when they are prepared to start being responsibly fruitful.  This is an example of religion concerning itself with birth control as a tacked-on people-made dictate of religion which really is not a tenet of religion, is it.  As such, neither birth control nor abortion are included in sacred religious texts.  It is not as if either was unknown and unpracticed in time and place.  They simply are not addressed in religious texts.

It is not my job to tell people what to believe.  But it is the job of all of us to prevent the superimposition of the tenets of any specified religions in the form of efforts to legislate policies dictated by people-made tacked on interpretation to specified religions which some buy into, personally.  Family planning needs to remain at the personal level - not be superimposed as unconstitutional national policy.  When all is said and done birth control is about family planning. 
And family planning is a personal choice and responsibility in which policies demanding forced births have no place.


Irresponsible Family Planning and Killing of Young Children Are Connected

Morality and kindness can not be legislated.  They are personal choices.  We all know this.  It is not new information.  The extent to which individuals choose religion(s) to inform morality and kindness is also a personal choice - not a choice for politicians to try to make for we, the people, then try to superimpose with unconstitutional policy-making.  Of course this can be said about all issues which is why it is the job of we, the people, to remain vigilant about policies our elected and appointed government officials want to legislate - so that we can do our jobs of advising those who represent us, of our wishes.

When it is about the connection between preventing birth control and the killing of young children, if a specified religion really was that important to those individuals who want to use religion to make political issues out of choices individuals must make about responsible family planning because of personal necessity, then there would not be pregnancies in the first place would there - unless pregnancy was a result of rape, or failed birth control.  For someone else, especially politicians, to try to pick and choose what is and is not acceptable about the dictates of any specified religion, then to try to superimpose that as policy, is the height of intolerable hypocrisy - as well as unconstitutionality. 

That is the environment in which abortion as an extreme form of family planning is being politicized when family planning should not even be a political issue - unless it is to limit the number of children a couple is allowed to have, like China successfully did, as a way to handle the problems of overpopulation.  Genocidally neglecting vulnerable populations is not an appropriate way to handle overpopulation.  Neither is a national budget that dedicates more than half of the available resources to defense.  Yes, that pertains, because redirecting funds away from domestic needs highly contributes to the problems we experience that exacerbate over-population because of the reduction of needed available resources.


Religion as a Legislative Motivator

When intentional confusion is created about any religion based on a variety of different people-made interpretations tacked onto the sacred texts of religions through the years, then people either buy into the religious belief or they do not.  True believers do not decide to do and not do some things because of the slavish codification of later interpretation by people into what become dictates to, and in some cases corruptors  of a religion.  They do not misconstrue actual teachings about attitude and behavior, i.e.  morality issues, associated with the shared wisdom within sacred texts of the ways in which people can successfully peacefully coexist with one another.  

Let us not be coy.  Every reasonable adult who is literate is capable of understanding religious texts and interpreting them for oneself, and does so, no matter who does and does not approve.  Why else would there be so many folks who identify as a specific religion, but do not appear to actively practice the religion,  or to frequently  participate in the religious community except to socialize or unless they have children and need religious community to reinforce the values they are teaching their children? For some, religious beliefs are at the foundation of  spiritual evolution rather than primarily a competition associated with piety that is intended to be demonstrated to the religious community.  I mean really.  Those in the clergy
with whom I am acquainted, associated with several religions and subdivisions within religions, are much more authentic people than a good number of the followers of the religion.  They simply do not have cause for concern about how pious they are perceived to be by others.

Given reality, legislators have no business trying to superimpose as policy what any specific religion dictates - what is and is not a violation according to a specified religion's tenets.  And they also have no business trying to selectively make some tenets of a specified religion into  political issues but not other tenets, particularly when the ones they want to legislate are based on religious morality which is dependent on the ones they do not want to legislate.  It is simply not done to attempt to superimpose the interpretation of sacred texts of any specified religion
onto everyone through legislation - IF one is  a decent person who supports and defends our constitution.  It really is that simple.

Since the initial existence of all religions, they have been subject to having been politicized based on a variety of tacked on people- made interpretations associated with oral tradition and/or recognized sacred texts and beliefs.  And that type of confusion resulting in convoluted
cognitive dissonance associated with religious beliefs, is a major reason why our founders decided on it not being allowable for government to specify a national religion.  By extension that decision is intended to protect government from religion, and religion from government, and we, the people, from superimposed politicized religious beliefs that are not our own. 


Birth Control/Abortion Issues Target the Rights of Single Woman

Consider, for example, if the religion whose tenets you want legislators to superimpose as legislation specifies marriage as a prerequisite to creating children, then you can not ignore the prerequisite of marriage and try to legislate family planning as being disassociated from that prerequisite, without creating a hypocritical double standard because of politically choosing what is and is not enforceable as a religious tenet.  Fact is it should be a moot point because superimposing religious tenets is unconstitutional.  But that has not stopped legislators from trying to superimpose a tenet of a specified religion associated with the part of family planning that is about scheduling children i.e. birth control, including the extreme of abortion when necessary.  So this is not a foolish comment I make about legislators wanting to superimpose selective religious tenets they buy into while ignoring prerequisite tenets.

Fact is that any legislation associated with birth control, including the extreme of abortion is intended to interfere with the unmarried single woman's right to family planning.  It puts all responsibility on the single women who become pregnant, by trying to religiously guilt trip them and  force them to give birth without being married, even when their family plan does not include being a single parent.  In other words it takes male responsibility out of the equation even though both a male and a female are required to create a life.  If this does not make sense yet, then stay with me because it will.  But first do not try to make this into an
LGBTQ gender issue or a technology issue, because it is neither.  It is about making pregnancy solely an individual woman's responsibility and/or punishment when in fact it is a couples issue and choice even if half of the couple is irresponsible and not part of making decisions about family  planning. 

Why do I say single women are targeted by birth control and abortion legislation?  Because legislation of birth control is a moot point when it comes to married couples and simply not subject to legislation, marriage being considered sacrosanct, which means among other things that family planning within a marriage is not subject to the judgment of others.  So the fact is that birth control/abortion legislation is intended to prevent a  single woman from the right to schedule family planning, thus is a violation primarily of the rights of a single women.   A woman has a right to choose to bear children within a marriage rather than to be forced to bear children outside of a marriage.

Anyone who has ever been around children knows they deserve two parents who love one another, and who actually have planned for and want to give birth to and/or raise children together.  A woman has a right to plan family around a prerequisite of marriage.  And she also has a right to prioritize marriage so that she is not forced into marriage before she has prepared herself for marriage.  That often means education and career are priorities for young single women because following one's heart brings all that is good and right into one's life whatever that may be.  That is a concept associated with Spiritual Evolution 101.  However the troubles some folks cause because they do not even make it that far with their spiritual evolution by recognizing that is part of everyone else's spiritual evolution, also, are mind-boggling.  When it is meant to be, marriages happen when
purposely harassing obstacles are not used to redirect and demand the attention and resources of individuals who are seeking and reaching the goals which enable them to serve their purposes in life.  That is true synchronicity which manipulated coincidences can not successfully masquerade as, no matter how clever and far-reaching the manipulation is.

At issue is, that if legislators want to concern themselves with family planning then they need to stop being concerned about connecting religious morality to
birth control and abortion, just like they stopped associating religious morality with the LGBTQ issues - which actually should have been a harder sell than abortion given what is and is not stated in religious texts.  As such that is an indicator of how politicized family planning has become which focuses primarily on abortion and the foundation it rests on of specified religious belief that does not condone  birth control.  If legislators continue to want to be intent on regulating family planning, then they need to legislate mandatory preliminary conditions associated with child birth which are best for a couple and the children.  That would be marriage, economic stability which affords necessities and the cost of raising  children, plus agreement on when to start fitting into their lives, together, the creation of their own family, and how many children  can realistically be provide with the quality of life they deserve. 

In other words birth control and abortion are total non-issues when legislators focus on the requirements necessary for family planning and stop trying to make hot-button political issues out to birth control and abortion for single women who do not choose to raise children outside of marriage, or to have their priorities co opted by an unwanted marriage and/or an unplanned pregnancy.  Society has moved on from the 50's/60's forced-marriage-after-pregnancy-occurs problem so it is high time for legislators to move beyond it also and stop trying to victimize single women as if they alone are responsible for unplanned pregnancies and need to be prevented from making the best decisions for themselves and their future families.


The Environment in Which Young Children Are Killed

Let me be very clear.  It is not acceptable to apply the tenets of any religion in an effort to  legislate personal choice - in this case birth control, including early term abortion, because so many unwanted children end up dead when both birth control and abortion are legislated against.  Yes, that is directly related to the killing of young children.  And anyone who does not understand how targeting single women as intended victims of marriage with someone they do not want to marry, and targeting them as victims of unplanned childbirth, can and does highly contribute to the killing of young children, is neither paying attention nor thinking clearly. 

The social welfare system can not and does not provide all that is required to safely and successfully raise children as a single parent.  Sure some single parents can do it because of their already formulated good character, determination, drive, self discipline, even though they do not have training which allows them to do the work they would like to do.  And some single parents have an education and are working in a field that is fulfilling and includes a livable income which does not require them to depend entirely on social services to meet the needs of their families.  But what about those single and married women who were totally unprepared to become parents, then  become dysfunctional, perhaps
were surrounded by people not good for them, and/or resorted to drugs, prostitution, theft, cheating the welfare system, and anything they could do to escape from that dimension of desperation, pain, and revulsion their lives had become?  That is the environment into which children are born who too frequently are abused and exploited until they end up dead.  It must stop. The first line of defense which can prevent the deaths of young children is effective birth control, including the extreme method of abortion when necessary.

Women have the right to avoid co-opting their life plans instead of being forced by circumstances they did not create to unexpectedly become single mothers who are dependent on welfare.  They have the right to not be  forced into marriage with someone they do not want to marry. 

The young children who are killed are a symptom of all that I have addressed and more.  But they also are a direct result of the negligence of those who could have prevented the deaths, but instead enabled them and are not being held accountable and prosecuted for what can only be understood as a combination of collective willful negligence and incompetency. 

God help us all if those same people in law enforcement and social services have been lead to believe they are protected  because of abiding by superimposed unwritten s.o.p. they must accommodate as a condition of keeping their jobs.