As someone who was sent to a counselor in grade school for being "too detached", I can say that the counselor did not try to force me to conform, she was more concerned with finding out why I was the way I was.
Then, perhaps your experience was atypical.
It all depends on the choices you make. Just because one has the ability to make choices doesn't guarantee that all choices will be good ones, IE the choice to harm others.
There is a difference between harming others, and dressing differently, or having different interests.
My question to you would be, if a child makes the choice to become a skinhead, and adopts the racist views that go with it, should we as a society say, "Aw look, little Johnny has decided to express his individuality!", or should we attempt to do something?
If the racism is passive, i.e. not wanting to associate with those of a different race, wishing that he could join exclusionary organizations, I say go ahead (build your little enclave, you dumbsh*t). I honestly think that racism would be less of a problem if passive discrimination were legal. Surprisingly, a vast percentage of those that have suffered active racial discrimination that I have met agree with me on this: the dufus standing on a street corner yelling "nigger", "kike", or "honky" isn't a threat (though that tests the limits of what I consider passive). It's the guy who says he doesn't discriminate and then does (defrauding you in the process) that's evil.
Once you get into active racism, hate mongering, and racially motivated violence, you've got another issue.
I've encountered "skinheads" who's racist views run the gamut from passive avoidance to active hatred. You generally can't tell them apart by looking. Furthermore, I've seen the same distribution of racist tendencies in people that look perfectly normal. At least with skinheads, they don't pretend to hide their unpopular views. At some level, I have to respect such honesty.
...but what harm is there in having them talk to a couseler?
To what end? About the only thing a decent counseler can do is make it clear that with choice come repurcusstins: if you choose to be different, then you will alienate many with which you might otherwise wish to associate. If the freedom to be yourself is worth such a price, then there is nothing wrong with you. Some, however, are not quite ready or willing to pay this price for their individuality, and help understanding this consequence is welcome.
However, this i not what many counselers do: they try to force you to fit in. Worse, some may harass you even after you have chosen to be different and accept any resulting alienation.
Kids who are beaten do not need counseling - they need to have the same rights in the security of the person respected as any adult.
The counceler should be competant enough to sort out which kids merely "look different" and which ones are truly disturbed and need help.
And what form should this help take? Learning to fit in? Or, security from battery? You don't need a counseler for that, you need rights and the power to back them up, hopefully vested in a trusted third party. There is no such third party available to many battered kids, and, in such circumstances, using force, deadly if necessary, against their batterers, is perfectly justified. Where there is no law, it is perfectly acceptable to take it into one's own hands (and avoiding this is one of the reasons to have law in the first place). Unfortulately, abuse often leads to misperceptions about who one's abusers are. This does not justify simply countering the dangers of such misperception, but, if anything, is a stronger incentive to counter the abuse in the first place: you can't blame a crazy person for being crazy.
You are born a jew, you are born black, these are not lifestyle choices. One is not born a Goth, one is not born with body-piercings all over ones body, etc.
Ah, the old "nature vs. nurture" debate. Tell me, are some peopleborn gay, or do they become gay? honestly, I don't think we know. But, people are born with the capacity to choose, and the fact that they do should, by itself, not be a reason to deprive them of their rights.
The point missed here is that while "evil and violent" does imply "different", the converse, that "different" implies "evil and violent" is not necessarily true. Unfortunately, the powers that be apparantly never took a course in logic.
The U.S. was built upon some pretty important principles, one being that one is innocent until proven guilty. Supposedly, before investigating and othewise violating someone's private life, one should have reasonable suspicion or, after the fact, probable cause. There's a reason why the police are supposed to get a search warrant before searching someone's property. Looking different isn't enough.
Your line of thinking is frighteningly close to how Hitler managed to strip Jews of their basic rights, and kill them by the millions -- with the help of Goebels (minister of propaganda), he innundated the population with true stories in the media of Jewish rapists, murderers, thieves. (We tend to do the same thing with non-whites, sadly) To simply be Jewish was now enough reason to "investigate" and act.
I think this is an excellent idea, but it has to go further. I'd email you but you did not provide an email address, so I'll post my suggestions here.
Your idea of a "black ribbon" is an example of a powerful force: symbolism. Excellent. Symbolism is what makes the notion of a national flag, ribbon, or even swastika powerful: it is a compact representation of support for an idea, good or bad.
The wearing of a symbol shows support for the idea and instantly allows those who share a common view to come together. It also allows a demonstration of just how string support for a particular idea is.
You need to take this symbol to the national level.
Consider starting an organization, and give it a catchy name, say something like (and this is only a suggestion), KAST: Kids Against School Tyranny. Your black ribbon could become a symbol of what such an organization stands for, and the organization itself allows otherwise diverse supporters of the idea to come together as a cohesive group.
Some suggestions:
KAST (change the moniker if you don't like it) should be fundementally run by kids: they're the closest to what's going on. This shouldn't preclude adult membership, and support (which would be necessary for legal reasons), of course (since we were all kids at some time), but the danger to turn it into another bogus adult-run "counselling and support" group should be avoided. Adults can help with funding, legal aid, etc., and offering the benefits of greater life experience.
The fundemental principle of the organization, and a requirement for membership, should be something like the golden rule, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." No, I'm not particularly religious, but that sound-bite is pretty good advice. It stresses tolerance without imposing forced acceptance of those that are different.
The basic goal should be raising awarness of the causes and effects of tyranny in schools. By tyranny, I mean anything where a victim is permitted lesser rights than her tormenter. Certainly, this includes any act that would be illegal if perpetrated by an adult, and that an adult has constitutional protection against. Verbal, and of course, physical abuse, count here. If you can't do it (legally) to an adult, it should be illegal to permit a kid to be subject to it, and opposed vocally.
Start small, go with your black ribbon design, and encourage others to copy it, giving credit to KAST. Then you can encourage the formation of local KAST groups, perhaps with web-pages to address concerns local to a particular school. The internet can serve to bring these groups together, and provide input to a national KAST organization. This should be a para-educational group, so as to not fall under the control of a school. It shouldn't be a school "club", for example, though offers of school resources, without having to give up control could be cautiosly accepted.
These might seem like big ideas for a kid in school, but you have the luxery of youth in which to "think big" and the resources of the internet at your disposal.
Oh yes. Is it any wonder that it was the monster hit album that it was? (and banned in half the "civilized world). Wasn't it in the top 100 album list for over a DECADE? Selling a million copies a DAY for over a month at its peak?
Damn, it seams that the same nerve just for struck again.
"The Wall" was released in 1979, I believe, just about 20 years, or a generation ago. I guess we haven't learned.
It was a "theme album" adopted by three of us when in graduate school (all on scholarships) in 1982-1984.
It remains one of my favorite albums (and my tastes usually tend more toward Tangerine Dream and Jean-Michel Jarre, so it's a stretch) to this day.
I think that the messages here need to be presented with a louder voice. This needs to be shouted from the streetcorner, from the roofs, and mountain tops. From our front yards, in our places of work, study, and worship. I am pleased that some have taken the initiative to collect stories of wrongdoing. These need to be collected, tallied, reproduced, printed and bound in volume after volume as a testiment to the legacy of torture we have endured, to serve as a symbol of our survival and determination to end the madness.
Our collective voices must rise to become a deafening roar that can not be silenced by the earplugs of indifference. We have an opportinity here.
Carpe Diem.
"Sieze The Day"
The message is clear: so long as we are tortured, some of us will kill as sure as the caged animal might killl it's keeper. This is not a theory, a threat, or a speculation. It is a fact.
Hmm, I wonder whether he was psychotic, picking his targets at random, fighting back at representatives of "society", as it were, or did he pick his targets primarlily because they were his chief tormentors.
If the latter, we're seeing deliberate, premeditated, retaliation, in the absense of any justice available to victims of abuse. This is closer to guerilla warfare than insanity (and, IMHO, a lot more likely to spark repeats).
... if you can actually say thing like 'if I am arrested' or contemplate the idea of her doing so for such a silly reason, I don't see grounds for not having an divorce.
Those grounds being?
Seriously, this sounds like a communications problem to me.
Difference of opinion, more likely. What part of "I don't agree" can lead to a semantic gap?
Yes.
IThe right to free speech was developed specifically for unpopular speech.
Except that does not apply here. One can not be forced to listen to what one does not wish to hear in one's home. She can argue that my stating a different point of view in the home amounts to verbal abuse.
If you can't sit down with your wife and share the same kinds of feelings that you are sharing with your fellow Slashdot'ers, there's something seriously wrong in your marriage.
My wife is not a geek, and can't possibly understand geeks in the same way that another geek can.
...but she should still be able to listen and emphasize with you...
Empathy requires a common experience, at some level. I am not about to suggest that she be subject to constant beatings all the while being told that they are her fault (though I have gently knocked her in jest and suggested she "fit in" to show the absurdity of that suggestion) just so she can empathize. Besides, I want her to understand, not empathize. Empathy is dangerously close to sympathy.
I suspect that her reaction is one of "turning the blinder's on" instead of facing the magnitude of the horror that goes on. Sort of like people refusing to believe that the Nazis could actually engage in the atrocities they did.
It also sounds like her constant 'idle threats' are a way of her controlling you.
Perhaps, but that is understandable: I earn all the money, she couldn't get a job back home (and can't here in the U.S. because of visa restrictions), can't or doesn't cook, and can barely keep the house clean while dealing with a sometimes over-active 5 year old. A desire for "control" is not surprising.
Is that the position you want to be in - submissive to her demands versus part of an equal relationship?
Ah, but I choose the demands to which I submit, and at what price. That is called compromise. Right now I happen to be very stubborn about a few things (like not wanting a second child when she can't handle one, and the fact that I was advised that she shouldn't get pregnant).
Consider that I can buy what I want, go wherever I want, stay at work as long as I want, and she's stuck at the mercy of receiving an "allowance" from me (though I provide an equal allowance for myself after the usual expenses are paid) and burdened with looking after a child. It is not surprising that she desires control, though it is sometimes upsetting how this manifests itself.
Yeah, I know I pry sound like a damn psychologist and am probably butting into someone else's business, but then again, I call 'em as I see 'em.
If I didn't care for feedback, I wouldn't share my views.
The bottom line is that even the people who supposedly know us best sometimes recoil in horror and act irrationally at some of our different views. I was merely providing an example of this.
P.S. Don't send mail regarding this to my published address -- she reads it. If you wish, send mail to rhollan@flashmail.com
But, of course, I expected as much when I got married. Though, I find that my tolerance for some of my wife's antics is greater than up with which most people would put (with apologies to W. Churchill). Perhaps because I've seen much worse.
(Atlas Shrugged is a novel by Ayn Rand that explores the question of what would happen if all the people who make the world "work" just stopped, is if the mythical Atlas, holding up the world, shrugged.)
She refuses to go. And, unless she agrees to go, there's little point to spending the money. I've already been advised that it is pointless to seek counseling alone if she is not willing to cooperate.
In her defense, I must add that she barely has a high-school education, and some community courses. I suppose I should not be surprised that she is influenced so heavily by the mainstream media.
She usually echos mainstream views for a while after some incident and then settles down.
Occasionally, she realizes that my views are more in-line with reality, but it is a tough slog at times. This is one of those times.
It doesn't help that we're both extremely stubborn in defending our respective views.
My wife has gone so far as to threaten to turn me in for sharing many of the non-mainstream-media views expressed here.
If you quote me, please do not do so out of context, or at least use ellipses (...) when truncating a sentence of mine. Thanks.
As for the threats, they're not grounds for divorce. Beside, I'm happy to call her bluff. If I am arrested, she has no means of support and no right to work in the U.S. She makes idle threats all the time.
There is a difference between verbal ostracization and physical abuse.
Certainly, if one is different, it is not surprising that some might make cruel comments. If one to be different, they should expect it. The price of individuality is often rejection. Many of us consider that a fair trade.
But, in the vein of "sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me," a line has to be drawn between verbal taunts and actual battery.
Even though the perpetrators may not "understand" the consequences of their actions, this does not mean that victims must accept them: as adults we do not imprison the violent mentally ill - we institutionalize them (that such institutions closely resemble prisons in many cases is unfortunate, but at least we distinguish between criminal behavior and mental illness). In any case, we serve to protect the innocent.
Methinks you need to be a victim more often. Perhaps if you had got a good beating at least once a week for three years like I did, you'd have a different perspective.
While too many people portray themselves as victims to excuse their behavior, ANY one who has suffered assault and battery is clearly a legitimate victim of their agressors.
Assuming a free market, which is not the case when it comes to NAFTA professionals.
If Canada's so great in computers, they why do they lag the US so much?
Lag in what sense? Canada has (or recently had -- the figures are a bit dated) the greatest per-capita proportion of programmers in the world. It also produces some of the most sophisticated telecom equipment (kind of necessary when basic communications to a large part of the native population REQUIRES satelite technology).
But Canada is a small country, population-wise. So it certanly lags in terms of GNP. Furthermore, the exorbitant taxes result in a great brain-drain of people to the U.S. (like 90% of engineering graduates leave for jobs south of the border).
Me? I figure that if you can pay your own way, and support the local economy WITHOUT being a burden on so-called social services despite funding them via tax dollars (and not being able to benefit: if I collected any form of social assistance here, it would be a deportable offense), then you should be welcome. Stay long enough, pay your dues, and start to be eligible for some of those programs in time of need. But, that's a different thread.
So the people that get to make the decisions are those that use "reason"? And who made them Pope?
Of course, that's why I'm a Libertarian and not an objectivist, though the two political (in the sense of politics=philosophy of ethics) views are similar.
Given that we nerds are about the only ones who understand the workings of an increasingly networked and information processed world, perhaps it is time for Atlas to shrug.
Heh, I AM one of the "million" foreigners, though immigration requires that I be paid at least a certain amount so as not to depress the local job market.
FWIW, I am already over the 35 hill, at 37.
Frankly, if the U.S. educational system REWARDED smart students, there would be less need to import people like me -- many of the recent college grads I've encountered working here wouldn't even make the ENTRY requirements to a good Canadian Computer Science university program (though at my alma mater we had (small) riots for this reason).
Hmm, I wonder if you are responsible for where your vehicle is left even if it IS stolen.
Presumably, you'd have a civil case against the thief, but are still responsible for the car.
Now, if this were the case, I'd expect that the lot owner would still have to mitigate his damages, i.e. move quickly to have the car removed and not let it set there for a year and try to charge you "rent".
Shortly after I moved to Lake Zurich, Il, and had telephone service from Ameritech, I got a nasty letter that said, in effect, pay your overdue bill within two days or else.
Now, I had moved here from Canada (a temporary high-tech NAFTA import) and was very anxious to quickly establish the equivalent of my excellent Canadian credit rating (funny, I could get a mortgage right away, but no credit card for 8 months).
It appeared that Ameritech had lost last month's payment, and in fact, credited a strange (but far too small) amount to my account that didn't match any cheques I had written recently.
I immediately contacted their acocunts department, and verified my cheque number and the fact that I had written my Ameritech account number in the memo field of the cheque (I keep duplicate cheques). However they wanted payment today or a cancelled cheque as proof. This was a problem.
First, I couldn't pay them "TODAY" because their offices were closed, though I didn't know this until after going to what their rep said was their office -- turned out it was a collection agency. Second, while the cheque had cleared the bank, I hadn't yet received the cancelled cheque back from the bank, and couldn't request it for another two days, it being Saturday afternoon. It later took the bank a week to send it to me earlier than my statement, and they (rightly) charged for the priveledge.
With the threat of disconnection of telephone service within 24 hours (for some reason Ameritech's notice was dated quite a while before it was postmarked), and a damaging entry in my credit file, I had no choice but to cough up $200 "under protest" to the collection agency. I was not pleased that my receipt was from them and not Ameritech (despite their assurances that they would issue me a receipt from Ameritech, acting as Ameritech's agent).
It took another two months for Ameritech to "find" my payment (and, for a while, even my copy of a cancelled chqeue was considered insufficient proof of payment: they insisted on the original, which I refused to surrender), and credit my account for the extra $200 I sent them.
Now, in all fairness, I have dealt with some very nice people at Ameritech, who even showed me how I could save a couple bucks on my regular bill.
But, businesses take note, it's the bad apple that spoils the bunch, and buggy procedures combined with rude customer representatives do not give rise to customer satisfaction. To this day, I have not received an apology for Ameritech's error.
Slashdot Mirror
As someone who was sent to a counselor in grade school for being "too detached", I can say that the counselor did not try to force me to conform, she was more concerned with finding out why I was the way I was.
Then, perhaps your experience was atypical.
It all depends on the choices you make. Just because one has the ability to make choices doesn't guarantee that all choices will be good ones, IE the choice to harm others.
There is a difference between harming others, and dressing differently, or having different interests.
My question to you would be, if a child makes the choice to become a skinhead, and adopts the racist views that go with it, should we as a society say, "Aw look, little Johnny has decided to express his individuality!", or should we attempt to do something?
If the racism is passive, i.e. not wanting to associate with those of a different race, wishing that he could join exclusionary organizations, I say go ahead (build your little enclave, you dumbsh*t). I honestly think that racism would be less of a problem if passive discrimination were legal. Surprisingly, a vast percentage of those that have suffered active racial discrimination that I have met agree with me on this: the dufus standing on a street corner yelling "nigger", "kike", or "honky" isn't a threat (though that tests the limits of what I consider passive). It's the guy who says he doesn't discriminate and then does (defrauding you in the process) that's evil.
Once you get into active racism, hate mongering, and racially motivated violence, you've got another issue.
I've encountered "skinheads" who's racist views run the gamut from passive avoidance to active hatred. You generally can't tell them apart by looking. Furthermore, I've seen the same distribution of racist tendencies in people that look perfectly normal. At least with skinheads, they don't pretend to hide their unpopular views. At some level, I have to respect such honesty.
Your followup is better, but...
...but what harm is there in having them talk to a couseler?
To what end? About the only thing a decent counseler can do is make it clear that with choice come repurcusstins: if you choose to be different, then you will alienate many with which you might otherwise wish to associate. If the freedom to be yourself is worth such a price, then there is nothing wrong with you. Some, however, are not quite ready or willing to pay this price for their individuality, and help understanding this consequence is welcome.
However, this i not what many counselers do: they try to force you to fit in. Worse, some may harass you even after you have chosen to be different and accept any resulting alienation.
Kids who are beaten do not need counseling - they need to have the same rights in the security of the person respected as any adult.
The counceler should be competant enough to sort out which kids merely "look different" and which ones are truly disturbed and need help.
And what form should this help take? Learning to fit in? Or, security from battery? You don't need a counseler for that, you need rights and the power to back them up, hopefully vested in a trusted third party. There is no such third party available to many battered kids, and, in such circumstances, using force, deadly if necessary, against their batterers, is perfectly justified. Where there is no law, it is perfectly acceptable to take it into one's own hands (and avoiding this is one of the reasons to have law in the first place). Unfortulately, abuse often leads to misperceptions about who one's abusers are. This does not justify simply countering the dangers of such misperception, but, if anything, is a stronger incentive to counter the abuse in the first place: you can't blame a crazy person for being crazy.
You are born a jew, you are born black, these are not lifestyle choices. One is not born a Goth, one is not born with body-piercings all over ones body, etc.
Ah, the old "nature vs. nurture" debate. Tell me, are some peopleborn gay, or do they become gay? honestly, I don't think we know. But, people are born with the capacity to choose, and the fact that they do should, by itself, not be a reason to deprive them of their rights.
The point missed here is that while "evil and violent" does imply "different", the converse, that "different" implies "evil and violent" is not necessarily true. Unfortunately, the powers that be apparantly never took a course in logic.
The U.S. was built upon some pretty important principles, one being that one is innocent until proven guilty. Supposedly, before investigating and othewise violating someone's private life, one should have reasonable suspicion or, after the fact, probable cause. There's a reason why the police are supposed to get a search warrant before searching someone's property. Looking different isn't enough.
Your line of thinking is frighteningly close to how Hitler managed to strip Jews of their basic rights, and kill them by the millions -- with the help of Goebels (minister of propaganda), he innundated the population with true stories in the media of Jewish rapists, murderers, thieves. (We tend to do the same thing with non-whites, sadly) To simply be Jewish was now enough reason to "investigate" and act.
I think this is an excellent idea, but it has to go further. I'd email you but you did not provide an email address, so I'll post my suggestions here.
Your idea of a "black ribbon" is an example of a powerful force: symbolism. Excellent. Symbolism is what makes the notion of a national flag, ribbon, or even swastika powerful: it is a compact representation of support for an idea, good or bad.
The wearing of a symbol shows support for the idea and instantly allows those who share a common view to come together. It also allows a demonstration of just how string support for a particular idea is.
You need to take this symbol to the national level.
Consider starting an organization, and give it a catchy name, say something like (and this is only a suggestion), KAST: Kids Against School Tyranny. Your black ribbon could become a symbol of what such an organization stands for, and the organization itself allows otherwise diverse supporters of the idea to come together as a cohesive group.
Some suggestions:
KAST (change the moniker if you don't like it) should be fundementally run by kids: they're the closest to what's going on. This shouldn't preclude adult membership, and support (which would be necessary for legal reasons), of course (since we were all kids at some time), but the danger to turn it into another bogus adult-run "counselling and support" group should be avoided. Adults can help with funding, legal aid, etc., and offering the benefits of greater life experience.
The fundemental principle of the organization, and a requirement for membership, should be something like the golden rule, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." No, I'm not particularly religious, but that sound-bite is pretty good advice. It stresses tolerance without imposing forced acceptance of those that are different.
The basic goal should be raising awarness of the causes and effects of tyranny in schools. By tyranny, I mean anything where a victim is permitted lesser rights than her tormenter. Certainly, this includes any act that would be illegal if perpetrated by an adult, and that an adult has constitutional protection against. Verbal, and of course, physical abuse, count here. If you can't do it (legally) to an adult, it should be illegal to permit a kid to be subject to it, and opposed vocally.
Start small, go with your black ribbon design, and encourage others to copy it, giving credit to KAST. Then you can encourage the formation of local KAST groups, perhaps with web-pages to address concerns local to a particular school. The internet can serve to bring these groups together, and provide input to a national KAST organization. This should be a para-educational group, so as to not fall under the control of a school. It shouldn't be a school "club", for example, though offers of school resources, without having to give up control could be cautiosly accepted.
These might seem like big ideas for a kid in school, but you have the luxery of youth in which to "think big" and the resources of the internet at your disposal.
Carpe Diem. Sieze the day.
Oh yes. Is it any wonder that it was the monster hit album that it was? (and banned in half the "civilized world). Wasn't it in the top 100 album list for over a DECADE? Selling a million copies a DAY for over a month at its peak?
Damn, it seams that the same nerve just for struck again.
"The Wall" was released in 1979, I believe, just about 20 years, or a generation ago. I guess we haven't learned.
It was a "theme album" adopted by three of us when in graduate school (all on scholarships) in 1982-1984.
It remains one of my favorite albums (and my tastes usually tend more toward Tangerine Dream and Jean-Michel Jarre, so it's a stretch) to this day.
I think that the messages here need to be presented with a louder voice. This needs to be shouted from the streetcorner, from the roofs, and mountain tops. From our front yards, in our places of work, study, and worship. I am pleased that some have taken the initiative to collect stories of wrongdoing. These need to be collected, tallied, reproduced, printed and bound in volume after volume as a testiment to the legacy of torture we have endured, to serve as a symbol of our survival and determination to end the madness.
Our collective voices must rise to become a deafening roar that can not be silenced by the earplugs of indifference. We have an opportinity here.
Carpe Diem.
"Sieze The Day"
The message is clear: so long as we are tortured, some of us will kill as sure as the caged animal might killl it's keeper. This is not a theory, a threat, or a speculation. It is a fact.
End the torture, and you will end the death.
Hmm, I wonder whether he was psychotic, picking his targets at random, fighting back at representatives of "society", as it were, or did he pick his targets primarlily because they were his chief tormentors.
If the latter, we're seeing deliberate, premeditated, retaliation, in the absense of any justice available to victims of abuse. This is closer to guerilla warfare than insanity (and, IMHO, a lot more likely to spark repeats).
... if you can actually say thing like 'if I am arrested' or contemplate the idea of her doing so for such a silly reason, I don't see grounds for not having an divorce.
...but she should still be able to listen and emphasize with you...
Those grounds being?
Seriously, this sounds like a communications problem to me.
Difference of opinion, more likely. What part of "I don't agree" can lead to a semantic gap?
Yes.
IThe right to free speech was developed specifically for unpopular speech.
Except that does not apply here. One can not be forced to listen to what one does not wish to hear in one's home. She can argue that my stating a different point of view in the home amounts to verbal abuse.
If you can't sit down with your wife and share the same kinds of feelings that you are sharing with your fellow Slashdot'ers, there's something seriously wrong in your marriage.
My wife is not a geek, and can't possibly understand geeks in the same way that another geek can.
Empathy requires a common experience, at some level. I am not about to suggest that she be subject to constant beatings all the while being told that they are her fault (though I have gently knocked her in jest and suggested she "fit in" to show the absurdity of that suggestion) just so she can empathize. Besides, I want her to understand, not empathize. Empathy is dangerously close to sympathy.
I suspect that her reaction is one of "turning the blinder's on" instead of facing the magnitude of the horror that goes on. Sort of like people refusing to believe that the Nazis could actually engage in the atrocities they did.
It also sounds like her constant 'idle threats' are a way of her controlling you.
Perhaps, but that is understandable: I earn all the money, she couldn't get a job back home (and can't here in the U.S. because of visa restrictions), can't or doesn't cook, and can barely keep the house clean while dealing with a sometimes over-active 5 year old. A desire for "control" is not surprising.
Is that the position you want to be in - submissive to her demands versus part of an equal relationship?
Ah, but I choose the demands to which I submit, and at what price. That is called compromise. Right now I happen to be very stubborn about a few things (like not wanting a second child when she can't handle one, and the fact that I was advised that she shouldn't get pregnant).
Consider that I can buy what I want, go wherever I want, stay at work as long as I want, and she's stuck at the mercy of receiving an "allowance" from me (though I provide an equal allowance for myself after the usual expenses are paid) and burdened with looking after a child. It is not surprising that she desires control, though it is sometimes upsetting how this manifests itself.
Yeah, I know I pry sound like a damn psychologist and am probably butting into someone else's business, but then again, I call 'em
as I see 'em.
If I didn't care for feedback, I wouldn't share my views.
The bottom line is that even the people who supposedly know us best sometimes recoil in horror and act irrationally at some of our different views. I was merely providing an example of this.
P.S. Don't send mail regarding this to my published address -- she reads it. If you wish, send mail to rhollan@flashmail.com
There are good days and there are bad days.
But, of course, I expected as much when I got married. Though, I find that my tolerance for some of my wife's antics is greater than up with which most people would put (with apologies to W. Churchill). Perhaps because I've seen much worse.
... keeping things humming along?
For just a day, perhaps. Make it an annual event.
Hmm, "Atlas Shrugged" Day, anyone?
(Atlas Shrugged is a novel by Ayn Rand that explores the question of what would happen if all the people who make the world "work" just stopped, is if the mythical Atlas, holding up the world, shrugged.)
...but words cut much more deeply.
Unfortunately, it is much more difficult to objectively measure emotional harm, or whether it exists at all, compared to physical abuse.
At least end the physical abuse (that no adult has to tolerate, so why should children?). "Kill the fat rabbit first," as the expression goes.
Then start considering other forms of abuse who's effect is more difficult to detect.
Thanks for the FYI.
I suspected as much, though couldn't I be held under "anti-terrorism" laws or some such? (Not that that would be constitutional, IMHO).
She refuses to go. And, unless she agrees to go, there's little point to spending the money. I've already been advised that it is pointless to seek counseling alone if she is not willing to cooperate.
In her defense, I must add that she barely has a high-school education, and some community courses. I suppose I should not be surprised that she is influenced so heavily by the mainstream media.
She usually echos mainstream views for a while after some incident and then settles down.
Occasionally, she realizes that my views are more in-line with reality, but it is a tough slog at times. This is one of those times.
It doesn't help that we're both extremely stubborn in defending our respective views.
My wife has gone so far as to threaten to turn me in for sharing many of the non-mainstream-media views expressed here.
If you quote me, please do not do so out of context, or at least use ellipses (...) when truncating a sentence of mine. Thanks.
As for the threats, they're not grounds for divorce. Beside, I'm happy to call her bluff. If I am arrested, she has no means of support and no right to work in the U.S. She makes idle threats all the time.
Anyone have their familiy not get it or actually turn on you for telling them the truth?
My wife has gone so far as to threaten to turn me in for sharing many of the non-mainstream-media views expressed here.
Getting this message out is, however, worth any personal marital hell I may face for my views.
There is a difference between verbal ostracization and physical abuse.
Certainly, if one is different, it is not surprising that some might make cruel comments. If one to be different, they should expect it. The price of individuality is often rejection. Many of us consider that a fair trade.
But, in the vein of "sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me," a line has to be drawn between verbal taunts and actual battery.
Even though the perpetrators may not "understand" the consequences of their actions, this does not mean that victims must accept them: as adults we do not imprison the violent mentally ill - we institutionalize them (that such institutions closely resemble prisons in many cases is unfortunate, but at least we distinguish between criminal behavior and mental illness). In any case, we serve to protect the innocent.
A school environment should not be different.
Methinks you need to be a victim more often. Perhaps if you had got a good beating at least once a week for three years like I did, you'd have a different perspective.
While too many people portray themselves as victims to excuse their behavior, ANY one who has suffered assault and battery is clearly a legitimate victim of their agressors.
YES! www.hellmouth.org.
How, about it? Anyone care to register the domain and set up a message board? I'd contribute $10 toward domain fees.
seven women were killed by someone who obtained a rifle legally because the proper background check wasn't done.
In Canada it isn't the jocks you have to fear, it's the government.
Increasing Labor (oh, excuse me, "LABOUR") supply decreases wages.
Assuming a free market, which is not the case when it comes to NAFTA professionals.
If Canada's so great in computers, they why do they lag the US so much?
Lag in what sense? Canada has (or recently had -- the figures are a bit dated) the greatest per-capita proportion of programmers in the world.
It also produces some of the most sophisticated telecom equipment (kind of necessary when basic communications to a large part of the native population REQUIRES satelite technology).
But Canada is a small country, population-wise. So it certanly lags in terms of GNP. Furthermore, the exorbitant taxes result in a great brain-drain of people to the U.S. (like 90% of engineering graduates leave for jobs south of the border).
Me? I figure that if you can pay your own way, and support the local economy WITHOUT being a burden on so-called social services despite funding them via tax dollars (and not being able to benefit: if I collected any form of social assistance here, it would be a deportable offense), then you should be welcome. Stay long enough, pay your dues, and start to be eligible for some of those programs in time of need. But, that's a different thread.
So the people that get to make the decisions are those that use "reason"? And who made them Pope?
Of course, that's why I'm a Libertarian and not an objectivist, though the two political (in the sense of politics=philosophy of ethics) views are similar.
Given that we nerds are about the only ones who understand the workings of an increasingly networked and information processed world, perhaps it is time for Atlas to shrug.
Heh, I AM one of the "million" foreigners, though immigration requires that I be paid at least a certain amount so as not to depress the local job market.
FWIW, I am already over the 35 hill, at 37.
Frankly, if the U.S. educational system REWARDED smart students, there would be less need to import people like me -- many of the recent college grads I've encountered working here wouldn't even make the ENTRY requirements to a good Canadian Computer Science university program (though at my alma mater we had (small) riots for this reason).
" ...five years later you'll probably be earning twice as much as the jocks while they're still living with their parents."
:-(
... and taxed to support them when they're on welfare.
Hmm, I wonder if you are responsible for where your vehicle is left even if it IS stolen.
Presumably, you'd have a civil case against the thief, but are still responsible for the car.
Now, if this were the case, I'd expect that the lot owner would still have to mitigate his damages, i.e. move quickly to have the car removed and not let it set there for a year and try to charge you "rent".
Shortly after I moved to Lake Zurich, Il, and had telephone service from Ameritech, I got a nasty letter that said, in effect, pay your overdue bill within two days or else.
Now, I had moved here from Canada (a temporary high-tech NAFTA import) and was very anxious to quickly establish the equivalent of my excellent Canadian credit rating (funny, I could get a mortgage right away, but no credit card for 8 months).
It appeared that Ameritech had lost last month's payment, and in fact, credited a strange (but far too small) amount to my account that didn't match any cheques I had written recently.
I immediately contacted their acocunts department, and verified my cheque number and the fact that I had written my Ameritech account number in the memo field of the cheque (I keep duplicate cheques). However they wanted payment today or a cancelled cheque as proof. This was a problem.
First, I couldn't pay them "TODAY" because their offices were closed, though I didn't know this until after going to what their rep said was their office -- turned out it was a collection agency. Second, while the cheque had cleared the bank, I hadn't yet received the cancelled cheque back from the bank, and couldn't request it for another two days, it being Saturday afternoon. It later took the bank a week to send it to me earlier than my statement, and they (rightly) charged for the priveledge.
With the threat of disconnection of telephone service within 24 hours (for some reason Ameritech's notice was dated quite a while before it was postmarked), and a damaging entry in my credit file, I had no choice but to cough up $200 "under protest" to the collection agency. I was not pleased that my receipt was from them and not Ameritech (despite their assurances that they would issue me a receipt from Ameritech, acting as Ameritech's agent).
It took another two months for Ameritech to "find" my payment (and, for a while, even my copy of a cancelled chqeue was considered insufficient proof of payment: they insisted on the original, which I refused to surrender), and credit my account for the extra $200 I sent them.
Now, in all fairness, I have dealt with some very nice people at Ameritech, who even showed me how I could save a couple bucks on my regular bill.
But, businesses take note, it's the bad apple that spoils the bunch, and buggy procedures combined with rude customer representatives do not give rise to customer satisfaction. To this day, I have not received an apology for Ameritech's error.