Online and Offline Violence Towards Women, Women and the Internet: Part One
https://medium.com/ladybits-on-medium/4c854eb591a5
and a response (below): you won't understand the response if you don't read the above linked article
The Harry Potter final movie had a moment in it that may serve my purpose and point here, as the ugly words of reality unfold before you, the ones my experience and perspective bring. It may not be yours, but it is mine. Rons mother is in the great room at Hogwarts, the grand finale battle is upon us, she is faced with the ugly cruelty of the Dark Lords most loyal witch, who is responsible for the loss of many of her loved ones. She says at some point after she kills her (I think) that you have to mean the curse that will kill. It has to be your intention for the curse to work. I could have the place in the movie all wrong, but it is said, and I heard it.
So here we are, another woman is giving her best feminist voice to the issue of violence against women, and she doesnt bring a wide umbrella of understanding to it some shocking language, yes, by her use of the words we all tend to avoid if at all possible. We dont have to put on our shock language to talk about this, and we dont have to categorize the way the male dominated public square does either. We can take our time, the problem isnt going to be solved because we talk about it seriously. Its been around forever, and it will go on. So, lets break some of this out, lets keep breaking it out until we get to the place women tend to avoid at all costs. Lets say what we mean, and mean what we say, and shut down the voices that are currently escalating our victimization and objectification, after all, the other thing said about women is we control the purse strings! So, controlem!
It is all rather complicated, and that is compounded by our forced imprisonment in that old hotel, The Nurturers Inn. We arent suppose to be what we hate about our captures. Lets. Lets exercise every true aspect of womanhood. If we are to do that, then we better get a handle on what those true characteristics are, and separate them from the propaganda of womanhood.
Mrs. Wesley is a sweet woman, that is her character in the movie, she is the ultimate mother as the story unfolds over a decade, but she is also strict and strong. She has courage, and bravery. Im not sure what happened in the latter movies as her character becomes tired and you can sense bouts with futility. She revives in the end to kill the Dark Lords most loyal witch. And, you can see the necessary look on her face, mingled with some satisfaction. She kills in the name of not my daughter, you bitch. She has to be pressed to it after the death of her son. She has to be brought to the point of taking life. Do we surmise that giving life as we do, that we must then be pressed to take a life only if it has an honorable purpose? Of course. It has been the age old tale of who we are as women, as life givers. Yes, Im leading you, but if you are patient and you hang with me, it may well be the beginning of a valuable lesson for women. I myself am tired, much like Mrs. Wesley seemed to be in the last few million dollar movies of Harry Potter. This may well be my kill moment.
As a child, a young girl, I was privy to the discussion among women in the late 60s, and early 70s. In fact, I remember them far too well. The hushed tones of the women having them caught my attention. They spoke low, and hurried. They talked about rape. They talked about how to survive being raped. They said without argument, almost in complete agreement (something I rarely see women do on any other topic) that one must submit if they were to survive. I recoiled from it. I had three brothers. They never submitted to one damn thing! Everything was forge on!, never give in!, and to the death!. Why was I being told to submit to survive? Thankful for the standard condition of confused, I wondered around in that until it was my turn. I remember the news of a woman who screamed in the streets for hours until she died, and that no one came to her aid. When I was raped, I was assailed by this-isnt-what-they-said it would be, in fact, I dont even think I thought that until long after the event that was rape but took me a decade to figure out. So lets put the categorizing to bed shall we?!
Being raped, whether its through the dulcet tones of a known male person in our lives, the semi-violent in voice, the physical battering, the rape w/ weapons, a stranger, a boss, a cop, whatever being raped is violence, its soul crashing killing fucking bullshit. Rape changes you, ends you, in reality or in spirit, it does a great damage to a female, it is utterly crippling to children, and it isnt going to end any time soon. There. Some die. In body. Some die. In spirit. Development as a person is arrested. Some face triggered reliving of it for their entire lives, all the way to some dont remember a thing. The violation is there, seeable daily, all the way to invisible. It happens to little boys, and to men. Sure, it happens mostly to women at the hands of men, yet, when it happens, the person raped isnt all that taken up with which group they end up in. Most just want relief from the agony of having survived, so figuring out how to press on begins.
I am a woman. Ill be talking about how this effected me as a woman. I am a crisis counselor. Ill be talking about how this is survived, or cripples, the nature of the healing, and Ill talk about something few will broach with any value. Ill talk about fighting back. Ill talk about being humanly willing to out the real woman in all of us. Ill talk about what it is to give life, and what it is to defend life. Ill also talk about being the mother of a son, the daughter of a father who never violated the boundaries of my vagina. Ill talk about being the sister of a brother who wanted to see my titties. Ill talk about the hundreds of women Ive known throughout my life who confessed to being raped as if they were talking about cleaning the bathroom. I wont stop talking because women have an intimate relationship with the violence, we do after all, give birth to those who practice it.
Violence is a direct product of human ness. Rape, is a product of man. So I agree with Ms. Norton, when she says, For all the theories and fantasies about how wed take down our attackers, its not so simple to decide if you should fight back. That is the truest statement she makes. We as people, all over the globe can take credit for causing this confusion century after century. We do nothing to undo it. Weve raised our sons in the ways and means of our worst days, with the hope that our best days will be the tool of our daughters. I firmly believe that if we raised people, we might have a chance at approaching the violent ways that people solve problems. De-constructing the use of violence is where it gets hairy.
So lets solve one problem at a time. The problem here is rape, and women. You wanna take up the problem of violence, then it may well involve the overthrow of men in power. For purposes of a beginning, I offer that women can be trusted to know when they must defend their lives, now they just need to be trained to defend their lives. Herein lies the crux of the matter. We have been taught to defend our children, but we have not been trained to value ourselves as much as we value our children. Its everywhere. We are to sacrifice self for our children. We are to fight the school board, the state, the abusive man, the threat of poverty, we are to fight to feed them, keep them from harm. Men are taught this as well. Men are however also taught to arm themselves to take care of their women. We are taught that it is something we have as instilled by nature because we gave birth, and so have a natural instinct to protect our children, and then, we are assailed by the message of how weak we are and that we need a man to protect us.
We need each other. This is true. People need another in their lives. We are not born to be alone, not always anyway, of course there are some who do better alone, are happy alone, its rare, but it happens, aint life a mystic wonder?! Most of us need the companionship of another. Dont forget, were talking about the violation of another in the most intimate of ways. This means the weakness of one form of personhood is exploited. Women are not necessarily the weakest of the sexes, Ive met some pretty tough women. I went to a festival of the Irish and Scottish flavor, and watched a woman over seven feet tall throw a tree. I dont think shes ever been raped. She couldnt be overpowered physically. That is not to say she couldnt be overpowered psychologically. So, she may have been violated. Shes a she. She has characteristics that preclude her from being victimized on the grounds she is a woman and therefore weaker. I also sat and listened to a woman speak of her rape as if it was something that was part of life. She was tiny, very petite, and she communicated the ravaged soul stuff of rape as if it was something from another life, one she survived. Her eyes had a sparkle, she sat openly, shoulders up, and had a hopeful tone in her voice. There was a scare above her eye, but not one that was discernible in her character. Women never fail to astound me. And that is not to say she doesnt have her moments, does it, because we cant know everything about each other, and why should we?
Ive also met the women who were completely unprepared to face such a probability. Ive listened to the remains of a person who no longer crawls out of the pain to face their life. I, and you, know the numbers of suicides because the event in their mind plays over and over, like solitary confinement, it saps the soul of any view beside the event. Life has ended, the body remains. They feel this violation. What has it done? Have you ever asked yourself? Has this woman who takes her own life done this thing because life as a violated woman is no longer valuable? Break that out, do it for the many women in your life who may face the now of our imprisonment in a womans place. Do it. Forget history. Forget our historical condition. Look now at the way women are viewed, heard, rise or fall. Just look.
A grave and heavy consequence awaits the women who defend themselves, and/or others. Why? It must not be reduced to the use of gender in the marketplace, that is an economic reality, it must be as diverse as the men who practice such violence against another. A person visits a violence like no other, on the person of someone other than self. They use the means available, religion, commerce, communications, education, entertainment, all of it. There is no facet of life left untouched by those who would have us believe we must simply submit. It is our genders place in life.
I offer another perspective.
How would it pan out if we found ourselves in the opening moments of rape. What would be the end result we would most want for ourselves and other women? Our daughters? Our granddaughters? We would want it to stop before the very violation that ends who we are and who we want to be, happened. So, end it, right there. Kill the rapist. Using every means available through preparation and training, kill the rapist. After all men want to live too. When women stand up for their own well being, face the enemy and come out the victor, it will eventually lead to male reconsideration of well being, wont it. History in that respect serves us. Anyone who witnesses the negative outcome to a behavior as final, reconsiders acting in such a way as to cause their own end. We have a proliferation of rapist because the rapist sees no consequence. Yeah, some violent men seem to act as if they have no control over their problem. I see it another way. Men are raised witness to the inferior preparation of women to defend themselves. Killing your would be rapist changes that up. It also serves women to remember that the son they give birth to requires the care and love of a new way of thinking, or their son may well face the defense of a woman who will not be a victim to violence. Quite a few outcomes for one change up in perspective, probably to many to mention, but very worth the discussion, in my estimation, as a survivor.
No confusion there Ms. Norton. No question. I am a person, and I will defend myself before I will ever submit to violence at the hands of a rapist. The powers that be cant put us all in prison, who would do the dishes? The cleaning, the sewing, the detailed work of their lives? Once you find the reality of our victimization, the impact of objectifying our person, you finally are able to see that the only person who can validate us, is us. Men cant solve this problem as the well intentioned Ms. Norton believes. There is far to much to lose for them. We can be what we were meant to be by being as prepared as our violators. Maybe in the end the rest of this centuries old system will take note and finally have our backs. Until then I suggest we have our backs after all, the problem is hundreds of years old, and still we fall like flies, and few notice.
Even now, I struggle with the thought. I have been propagandized to believe that killing someone to save my own life, is questionable. I who have been training my mind to understand my own value as a person for some 20 years now, still have the remnants of that submit shit in my head and heart. Guess one thing is true. Women dont come by this naturally. We are taught how to devalue ourselves as a human being who has the right to want to live.
I am not a feminist as most prescribe to that label. I am a person. I am a human being. You may not honor my rights, but that wont stop me from exercising them.
The term cyborg in feminist theory was first used by Donna Haraway back in 1986. Women were not exhorted to become cyborgs. Instead, the term is used to denigrate the way society defines women in an inferior and limited role, which is not natural. The purpose of redefining roles under "cyborg" is to remove those limitations, bringing equality to all. If the author of the seeded article meant that, then yes, men should also "become" cyborgs, although that is not the way it should be worded.
Haraway's Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature, contains an essay titled A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in ... You can read it in itsentiretyat the link.
It's also summarized at Wikipedia under Cyborg Theory .
Neither do feminists. No feminist author has ever made that claim, despite the anti-feminists attempts to pin it on them.
As to domestic violence, yes, some men do it while drunk or high, but that isn't the basis behind it and many men commit DV while dead sober. The basis for DV is the abuser's need for power and control over another. It is sanctioned and encouraged by patriarchy, which needs to relegate women to sub-human status and deserving of male domination and female subjugation.
DV escalates when the victim attempts to escape the abuse. That is because the abuser is fearful of losing his power and control. He needs escalated violence to force his victim back under his power and control. Failing that, he might kill her. 70% of murdered DV victims are murdered while trying to escape from their abuser.
Howeverphysicalviolenceisn't his only weapon. Even when no physical violenceis present, there is an entire pattern of psychological violence he inflicts daily. We make a mistake when we ignore that reality and make the excuse, "well, he was drunk. He's not really like that." Yes, he is really like that, every day, all day, whether or not he physically batterers her every day.
He also uses threats against those she cares about -- children, extended family, friends, co-workers, even pets -- to keep her under his power and control.
Rape, including marital rape, is an integral part of his violence.
Unfortunately, the victims do not get the support they need from society or the courts. This makes it harder to decide to escape and harder to complete an escape.
There is a difference between being male and defining masculinity as dominate and violent. Men are not naturally dominating or violent anymore than women are, yet that is how the majority of our society views them. That is how boys are taught to be if they want to be considered "real men." That false definition of masculinity is what needs to change.
Agreed. We need to stop the objectification of women (and refuse to let the attempts at objectifying men succeed) if we're going to solve the problem of sexualized violence.
Rape is not about sex. It is about degradation, humiliation, power and control. This is based on the flawed concepts of masculinity taught to our young boys. It is not "manly" to be violent, yet they are taught that is so.
Unfortunately, part of the problem are the needs of warring nations. They need violent males to believe being a violent "hero" is important, so they aren't going to let that distorted view of being male die easy.
True. Gavin de Becker makes a point in his book, The Gift of Fear, that women are taught from the time they are tiny their most important trait is to be "nice," especially toward boys. This puts them at a distinct disadvantage in all male/female relationships since being nice is also defined as being passive and accepting an inferior role. We are the only species that teaches our women and girls to ignore their intuition and our instinctive fear reaction, much to our detriment.
This is played out when a male stranger accosts a woman and ignores her attempts to get him to leave. Her attempts are feeble and easily overrun because she's focused not on her safety but on being nice and not hurting his feelings. By ignoring what she says, he maneuvers her into a space where he can rape and/or murder her. She can prevent this by refusing to buy into the "nice" image and be aggressive on her own behalf, refusing to allow him to get close, to follow or lead her, and by protecting herself with whatever violence she needs to inflict.
Ted Bundy was an ace at maneuvering the "nice" woman. He got them to help him because he was supposedly disabled (wearing a cast, etc), luring them to his car where he got them inside. Once inside, they discovered they could not get out and were driven to a secluded place where he could torture, rape and kill them.
This is not just true of strangers though. Rape and violence is most often inflicted by men we know and perhaps even love. Stranger rape and violence is in the minority. Once again, the sadistic, violent male depends upon women being "nice" instead of women being aggressive in their own defense.
I've never applied for money when discussing male sexualized violence, so I haven't a clue why you brought that up.
I responded to John's characterization of the batterer as a man who got drunk and then fell apart. I pointed out why that characterization is not true.
This also pertains to women being raped.
As to the use of victims, all people who suffer from a crime inflicted upon them are victims. We should not deny women the right to that acknowledgement. Rape and DV are crimes, therefore they are victimized. To try to eliminate that concept from our vocabulary simply denies them the right to recognition as to what they've survived.
Yes, we are women -- and there's nothing wrong with defining what happens to us. We can't do that without discussing what actually happens and why. I did not talk about the woman as someone who doesn't understand. I talked about her as a person needing to escape the violence. I'm surprised you object to that.
No, I don't know what you mean. I am standing up for women and explaining what happens to women in very clear language. There is a pattern in our society (and most other societies) that needs to be brought to the surface if we want to eliminate sexualized violence.
It can be done by simply changing the underlying premise that men do not have the right to declare themselves dominate or to objectify women. One example of that is the Mosuo of China. Rape is unknown in their society because women are highly respected and because women are acknowledged to have the right to control their own bodies and sexual choices.
Never going to happen. They need women to be traumatized to keep themselves in power, so they have no interest in helping women heal. We need to do it ourselves if it's going to get done.
That includes informing and educating women as to how they can live safer, which does not mean "in hiding." It means knowing how to defend themselves and how to create safety wherever they go.
There's always the flip side of any coin. When girls are told their most important trait is being nice, they're going to learn how to use it to manipulate. We all seek power, and women who buy into the "act nice at all costs" meme learn to use it to gain power. They have no other way.
The path to eliminating that is to eliminate "being nice" as an assigned feminine role -- and being violent/aggressive as an assigned masculine role. We can't eliminate one without eliminating the other.
Go to any playground and listen to the messages given to tiny boys and girls, both of which are liable to hit others. Girls are routinely taught not to fight back when hit, while boys are taught to fight back. This is the beginning of inequality.
I'm not much into the cyborg theory either. It seems to me to be a roundabout attempt to bring us back to a humanity where everyone is treated equally.
However, feminist theory is intellectualized today. That happened when they began to teach it in college. Too many academics feel the need to over-complicate things so they can attain tenure, grant money, etc. Unfortunately, academic society forces them into this.
To me, this is a dangerous path because it opens the door to misunderstandings and diversions. One example of this was the male "gender studies" professor at Pasadena College. He was hired to prove they weren't biased against men teaching women's studies. Unfortunately, he had a history of violence against his female students. He routinely conned them into having sex and openly discussed how he planned on killing one of them. Feminists like myself who objected were ignored.
He was hired anyway because he published a blog post that he'd changed his ways. He lied.He's recently been publicly disgraced as doing the exact same thing in his new position. So his knowledge of how to play the academic game harmed more students.
On a common sense basis, it doesn't make sense to hire a man with a history of victimizing women to explain to women how to avoid being victimized by men and male traditions. On a common sense basis, that's putting the fox in the hen house. Only by using the fog of academia can it be rationalized as okay.
She wrote it in academic language because she is part of the academic community that demands it. Her position, tenure and ability to obtain grants depends upon it. So that's who she was writing to.
It does reach other audiences via other authors who translate the academic speak into plain English. I don't think the cyborg theory has though. It's a bit far out for most people to embrace. I may be wrong about that issue, but most feminist thought does reach the public in simpler terms.
In fact, a lot of people who claim "I'm not a feminist" go on to discuss things from a feminist perspective. They appear not to know the source of the ideas are feminist theory.
Unfortunately, some of it gets twisted out of shape in the process, so a faulty understanding develops, like the false claim that feminists think all men are rapists. Of course, that can happen with any subject.
For instance. the porn industry has used what feminists promoted to stop the sexual ownership/use/abuse of women by men -- that women have the right to sexual freedom and to make their own sexual choices -- to mean women can be freely used in most any sexual fashion by multiple men. Some have even translated that into women don't have the right to refuse, which is totally stupid. I had a man try to pull that on me. Didn't work, but he tried.
It certainly does. Women who refuse to play by male rules had better be prepared to be financially and emotionally independent. I am, so I don't worry about it. However, many women are afraid to be alone because of the trauma inflicted upon them, so they aren't prepared to be independent.
The good news is that, as I've aged, I've found more and more men who appreciate independent women. This signifies a real change is happening. It's going to take a long time, but it has started.
Me too.
I didn't say men aren't violent. I said they aren't naturally violent. They are taught to be violent.
However, I've known several men who are not violent, including my father. I was blessed to be raised by a non-violent man. His memory has been my anchor throughout all the travails that followed. I've also been blessed to have been loved by non-violent men.
Only one man I was with was violent. He made up for all the rest of them combined as he tried to kill me several times and did manage to permanently injure me. He didn't stop stalking me until a male friend inflicted damage on him and the DA threatened to send him to jail for not paying child support (No, they didn't even discuss jail for the harm he did to me, even when there were witnesses. That was in the early 1970s when they weren't sure I'd ever walk again.) That's when he left the state, and I could resume living a life of freedom.
No, I'm not an abstract theorist. I've been in the trenches, helping women get through the court process, helping pass laws that help women in courts, etc. When a woman nose-dived out of a moving car right in front of my house, I ran out to help her. Her abuser backed up and tried to threaten me into leaving her to him "She's mine. This is none of your business." I backed him down and took her inside, called the cops and took her to the hospital, staying with her until she was picked up by someone who took her to safety.
I lost a childhood friend who was stabbed multiple times by her boyfriend before he beat her with a phone and cut her ears off. I've helped other women move out, paying for storage, gas, etc. I've also had women fleeing abuse move into my home and stay until they had a better place to go. I donate to shelters, and my daughter ensures they have trees and presents for xmas, donated by local businesses. My grandson helps deliver them.
I've sat in hospitals and court rooms with rape victims too. I've taken them to police stations and counseling.
So I'm not a pollyanna. I live/have lived what I talk.
Here's a reality that is seldom discussed: all men benefit from male violence. They don't have to be violent to enjoy those benefits. It reinforces male privilege and entitlements that are denied to women. It keeps women afraid of being alone, so they'll play nice instead of challenging the men in their lives.
What do you hear most often about women who fear male violence? They should have a man in their lives to protect them. So you get to live with and cater to one man who presumably is protecting you from all the other men. Of course, this smacks of male ownership. Other men won't rape this woman because she belongs to another man.
If women truly were so feeble they could not survive without a man, men wouldn't have to deny women an education, the right to their own finances, driving cars, careers, etc. All of these and more have been denied women by men's laws and customs. Men who enforce all of this know if women had the same rights and privileges as men, women would excel and not need them.
That is what is happening in the US today. Traditional households are only 25% of all households now. The majority of college graduates are women. Women are becoming the primary bread winners. They are the majority of the workforce now. We've made our decision: we won't live in patriarchal slavery because we don't have to.
I keep reading how men are in a crisis because of this reality. Well, change the way manliness is defined. Offer women something other than what we've rejected. These societal changes actually are very good for men too. It gives them a chance to become something other than what has been their dictated role for centuries.
But to give up those roles means giving up the privileges and benefits too. Those in power never give it up willingly. Those without power always have to take it. This is why our society is in crisis when it comes to male/female power struggles.
Stopping the violence will happen, one way or another. It would be good if men begin to change their own definitions of manhood. Women can't do it for them. We can just refuse to play the game.
The burbs have sexualized violence too, as do rural communities. None are immune. It exists among the rich and the poor, the pious and the not so pious. It is pervasive at every level.
Yes, I got married. Big mistake I got talked into. But I got out. No, my name is not different. Kemsley is my maiden name.
I'm not part of the helping "industry." Everything I've ever done has been on a volunteer basis. But yes, I've talked to elected officials, attended meetings, etc because someone has to be the voice of those who cannot be there.
I've been the person you say you represent. I climbed out by sheerdetermination. Backthen, there were no programs, no money, no counselors and not even cops who would respond. It was considered too dangerous for them to get involved. In reality, it was that cops are just as likely to be rapists and abusers as any other man. And they benefited from the violence just like all other men.
I agree that government funding has brought too many restrictions. I belong to a group who are right in the middle of the fight to change that, but government funding always comes with restrictions. What do we do? Refuse the funding? If so, where do we get the funds to keep the shelters, etc open? There isn't any obvious answer.
Each of us does what we can. What we can do is different for every person. We should not look down on others for doing something different as long as their heart is sincere, and they are doing the best they can.
I've been fighting this battle since the 1970s. I thought that was clear.
I don't know where you live, but I live in the San Fernando Valley, which is just over the hill from Downtown Los Angeles. We have very few gated communities in our suburban community. Our poorer communities are side by side with our middle income communities. There are no barriers between them. They often share schools, etc. I guess that means our experiences are different.
You're assuming I've "lost touch" without basis. Because I don't feel the need to rage at this stage of my life doesn't mean my passion is non-existent or that I don't have deep empathy for women still caught in the trap.
It's easy to say "refuse funds" when you aren't the one in charge of the shelter that will have to tell the women and children, go live on the streets. I'm not in charge of a shelter, so neither accepting or refusing the funds is not my choice, but if it was, I could not tell them to go live on the streets. I am not that cruel. I know these shelters help the women who manage to get in. I see the results. There are not enough shelters or beds, but refusing funding so there will be fewer is not the answer. Women and children fleeing abuse already make up a large portion of our homeless population. Even one is too many.
No one has to be "independently wealthy" to volunteer. As I said, we each do what we can. Even the poorest person can volunteer. I'm not sure why you believe it takes money to do so.
As to "going to the neighborhood," I live in the neighborhood, a fact you seem not to want to accept. I have taught women how to better their lives. Have you? I don't see you talking about what you've done. All I see is criticism of those who are doing.
As to "PR skills." I write about this subject all the time. I've written for shelters and for non-profits that needed to get info out to the public. For instance, when Wendy Murphy defended pro bono a women's counseling center in Massachusetts, the judge demanded their counseling records for a teen rape victim be turned over to the defense attorney for the rapist. He threatened the director of the clinic with jail time and fines for every day the records were not turned over. She contacted Irene Weiser in New York, director of Stop Family Violence. Irene asked if I could write for them to get the word out that they needed volunteers to go to jail for a night in the director's place. I wrote it. She sent it out to her contacts, who sent it on to theirs. Overnight, we had 1500 women who volunteered to go to jail for the night. My name was first on the list.
The judge backed down and put a stay on his order while Wendy took it to appellate court. She won, which was a great victory for all rape victims who sought counseling in Massachusetts. The decision was not appealed.
I've never lived or visited there. I didn't need to in order to help. I didn't ask for nor did I get paid for the writing.
I have no idea why you have a need to keep attacking me, but the attacks are bogus. When you've done more than I have, let me know. Until then, just whining and complaining that people are too polite or (as you said about the author of the article) using "some shocking language, yes, by her use of the words we all tend to avoid if at all possible," then I'd say you're the one who isn't being effective or in touch with what's going on.
You make a lot of false assumptions and claims about an area you obviously know nothing about.
Yes, the poor live close to the middle class. Right down the street in fact because of low-income housing that is developed within middle class neighborhoods all over the valley. Section 8 funds allow them to live in areas that are completely middle class.
My neighborhood is fully integrated with several races and ethnicities represented. That means the schools are too without any busing.
The gang problem is a thing of the past in our area. The older gang members got together years ago and settled their differences.
So take your false nonsense and stuff it. You haven't a clue what you're talking about. You're just pumping hatred to be pumping hatred.
It's been made absolutely clear that MFF has no goal other than to whine about how other people haven't done enough. She's all over the map with her false attacks. Every time one is shot down, she tosses out another like a grenade meant to destroy any decent discussion. There is no way to settle it down and discuss any one aspect with those tactics.
So I'm not going to waste anymore of my time with her nonsense. As soon as I post this, I'm detracking.
Hi Mountain, I am one of the moderators here. That last comment of yours was a bit over the top. It wasn't a CoC violaton, per se, but please try to remember that other people are reading these comments, and that one was a bit too discriptive. Thanks, Perrie.
Wow, reading through the comments left me slightly woozy; but, the article causes me to relfect.
Myself and my two children, male and female, used to play a lotta on-line gaming (X-box). My daughter being the youngest, really enjoyed creating the avatars and all that goes with that, so our profile was that of a girl surrounded by cute stuffed animals. That's all it took.
Others on Xbox Live saw that avatar as a an invitation for an attack, mercilessly I might add. From everything that the author describes and more,,,completely grotesque, violent and demeaning behavior, live, shared with the entire gaming party,in real-time voices. Calling the cops does no good. Fighting back with words does no good. The entire situation was so far beyond the pale, that I was awestruck at the very ferociousness and violence being directed at my little girl.
What's a dad to do?
Call and write letters to Microsoft and the Feds, that's what.Myself and a good number of other parents who share their kid's online gaming activity raised such a ruccus, that many, many gamers lost their ability to play on-line other than as re-regs, and Microsoft is pretty damned good at catching re-regs on X-box (it is extrememly difficult to mask a particular gaming system's ID). Things have gotten slightly better throught the years, but aren't great. One may still go on Xbox Live at any moment and see first-hand how females gamers are clobbered with terrible behavior, and chased outta games.
My advise to female gamers is to find friends, allies and clans that actively seek to provide safe gaming environments for all,,,there are more and more all the time. It's sad that that is the best advise I can give, but it is what it is.
:~(