To Censor or Not to Censor the Internet, for Some This is the Question… and this morning, for better or worse, I reveal my own conflicts about the much discussed issue of censorship, freedom of speech and expression on the Internet, which of course extends to real life, but this post is about the internet.
It is not a clear cut issue, but one that is deeply complex, with ethical, moral, sociological, legal, cultural, political and personal ramifications for everyone and so I have always been a champion of freedom. But articles like the attached in yesterday’s Times, which discusses a police officer’s plans, championed in internet chat rooms, to torture (cook, among other things) select women, one of whom was his wife, who discovered his plans and reported him to the FBI – he is now on trial – has pushed every button I have about the inherent wisdom of a definition of freedom that allows for the incubation and possible manifestation of such plans.
Years ago I had the good fortune of studying acting in a classroom at the back of Carnegie Hall with a respected coach named Robert Modica. Prior to his career as an actor and coach, Modica had been a decorated Marine, and I was intrigued by the combination of his fierce patriotism, his love of country, his devotion to and love for the theatre and teaching, his respect for his students and, quite obviously, his insistence on, and respect for, manners and civility between individuals. A Marine who had become an actor was fascinating to me.
Our classes were in the evenings at his small studio on an upper floor at the back of Carnegie Hall. I was working at CBS at the time and would walk to class after work. One day, as I strolled up 7th Avenue toward the back entrance of Carnegie Hall at 56th Street, I came upon a police barricade and a growing crowd pressing to see what was happening. Someone had committed suicide by jumping out of a window and their body was laying on the sidewalk. The crowd, which included mothers with their young children, was trying to see what had happened and there were policemen holding people back from the taped off scene.
When I finally arrived in class, my fellow students were talking about it and Modica suddenly quieted everyone with a statement that I remember went something like, “There are some things people don’t need to see, that they shouldn’t be allowed to see. That’s why there are police barricades. That’s why they don’t allow you to get close. There are some things that, when you see them, you can ever un-see them. You can never un-know them. They stay with you. And they have a lifelong effect.”
These were the words of a Marine, who had seen things I will never see and can’t imagine. Movie images and news clips do that for me. I imagined there were lots of things that Modica wished he could un-see. What ensued before everyone arrived and class began was a conversation about the fragility and strength of the human spirit, about how sensitive we are, but about some of the harsh realities we are asked to process. It was an appropriate conversation in an acting class, because, in order to be a good actor, one is called upon not only to know oneself well, but to make this kind of observation about the human spirit so that it can be called into play where needed in the theatre.
The truth is that I am a complete coward when it comes to any kind of violence. I am anti-War and anti-gun (even though I have one) and I am conflicted about all of it. While I respect the movies of Quentin Tarantino, for instance, I will put my hands over my eyes at the gory parts (okay, okay, so that would be most of each of his movies, because that is what he does, I get it…) and I don’t watch television shows that feast on what seems to me to be an endless issuance of programs that are kick-started with an episode featuring a raped, murdered, tortured, dismembered or otherwise brutalized woman.
I don’t watch these programs because I don’t understand why anyone who has a mother, a grandmother, a wife, an aunt, a sister, a daughter or a best girlfriend would want to watch programming like that, because, remembering that conversation with Modica years ago, I think that stuff sticks with us in ways we can’t even begin to understand. I know it does with me. And it shows up in disturbed sleep and a general restlessness about the violence going on in the world. (You can legitimately ask me why then I go to Tarantino’s movies – a valid question given what I’ve just written – and I do have an answer but that is another post.)
Someone has to defend this man. Some lawyer must come up with an argument that gets him off the hook. That argument, of course, is that he didn’t actually kill his wife (lucky for her she discovered his plans before that could happen), but was just thinking about it, fantasizing about it, mulling over what it might be like to see her die in chat rooms with other like-minded individuals and that, while this is scary to us women, it’s essentially harmless. It’s just the shadow side of the human consciousness being expressed in the shady corners of the Internet. It’s just the underbelly looking for a place to relieve itself of its agida, which in this case is the Internet. But here’s the deal: there is such a thing as a snuff film and they are real. There are people in the world who are serial killers and do things that are inconceivable to most of us.
There are people in the world who somehow, someway decide to walk on the dark side for real rather than in their fantasies and my question is should we or shouldn’t we shut down avenues of expression that could turn one, or two, or three or more people’s fantasies into reality?
Or do we say, No, freedom is freedom and people have a right to think and write dark, very dark thoughts, without the fear of being arrested and put on trial?
Looking back on that day oh so many years ago when I came upon that police barricade, I am glad that my aversion to gore kept me from pushing through to the edge of the barricade so I could see that body laying there.
And I am glad that this police officer’s wife discovered her husband’s plans before they could be manifested in reality.
Unfortunately, there is no police barricade in her mind and she will never be able to erase what she discovered and what she now knows. This man fathered her child. That leaves me cold.
#censorship #violenceagainstwomen
February 26, 2013 at 3:25 pm
However what if he did do these things? We are getting closer to thought police and If someone has such deep feelings to do such an act better to get them removed from the general population so they can no longer be tempted to act out these horrific desires. We need to decide that all thoughts are not equal and freedom of speech has its responsibilities.
February 26, 2013 at 3:36 pm
Well, Nora Qudus I suppose that is my underlying question. We have, as a culture, always been against any notion of the Thought Police. We are fearful of 1984 (even though it’s in the past). But just as our forefathers never conceived that military style weapons would be so available that someone could take one into a school and end the lives of 20 schoolchildren in one fell swoop, so too do those of us who use the Internet in this way ever think about the other way in which many, many people are using it. So…it is Thought Police to shut down these sites or is it merely culture-protective, like making sure a child doesn’t stick it’s finger in a light socket? What is the boundary between wise and considered censorship that protects people from things they don’t need to see, and encroaching up personal freedoms? For those who think there is a black and white easy answer to this, I seriously beg to differ.
February 26, 2013 at 3:39 pm
Hi, Sheri ONeill I think that’s true and that was certainly true of me that day. Weirdly, when I read your words I suddenly thought about all of the people (literally there are dozens of them) I have saved from being run over in New York because standing on a street corner they were aimlessly looking about, not paying attention and were perilously near the path of an oncoming bus or taxi cab. Instinctively I just reach out and yank them back up on the sidewalk. No one has (yet) ever yelled at me for infringing their right to get run over if they so wish. So if sites such as alluded to in this article are shut down, should I be happy for the families of the intended victims or concerned about the rights of the clearly disturbed fantasizers?
February 26, 2013 at 3:44 pm
As I take on more responsibilities in life, so do I desire others act more responsibly, both on the internet and in other areas. I am increasingly desiring to put controls in place to enforce this, even knowing how I would have rebelled against them in my youth. The answer may be to allow it, but monitor it more closely. Censor nothing, but record everything. Intervene regularly.
It seems to me to be a far better course of action than letting it happen then needing to use violence to restore the balance.
February 26, 2013 at 3:46 pm
Giselle Minoli if the action is illegal that they talk about online then I believe there should be some consequence to those words; but then again nearly everything I say is some how against the tenenets of the Patriots act even though I do not advocate harm to another so I can end up accosted by the FBI for my freedom of speech even though I advocate peace and not the killing and eating of women…There is a big difference and one is informed ideas and the other is mental illness….then who is to say that my ideas since they are against the law is not mental illness? A paradox indeed and in need of debate.
February 26, 2013 at 3:55 pm
Your paradox is my paradoz Nora Qudus, thus my saying that I am in conflict about it? Where, how and why did we become so hesitant to pronounce certain “thoughts” as harmful and dangerous without being accused of wanting to censor everyone? I personally don’t think any society can survive without some things being what some people would consider censorship. But is it? Not everything can be lumped into the same category, try as we might.
February 26, 2013 at 3:56 pm
But when your own freedom is violated & you don’t agree with it how does that make you feel?
I used to be a person who hid my eyes at violence too until I saw what I know I can’t ever unsee.
I won’t talk about it here, but it changed my way of thinking about guns & gun violence forever. (I have never been in the service.)
When someone even “thinks” about murdering another person it certainly can’t help when that person finds a chat room full of their sick peers to discuss it with. Something like that can even give a person more of a will & even a way to really do the deed.
Still, I am for freedom on the Internet because this same group of people could very well be having this discussion in a bar or someone’s home.
Being a woman this scares the hell out of me.
I’m glad he got caught beforehand but look at all the others that don’t.
A good post Giselle about a complicated & complex problem.
February 26, 2013 at 3:58 pm
Tren C you describe the place that I, too, have arrived at in my life.I look back on my decades on Planet Earth and while some would say that it has always been a violent world, my counter argument to that would be: And you are saying that therefore we have to live with that reality? There has always been cancer but we are trying to eradicate that. And we found a cure for polio. And smallpox. Why is it that we cannot see that some belief systems and behaviors are also cancerous? And why, if this man’s wife had died, would we as a culture be so willing to say that her life is the price of freedom of speech and expression for everyone? Why? We have done the same exact thing with gun ownership.
February 26, 2013 at 4:05 pm
Cancerous thoughts do indeed exist, cultural or otherwise, and as Bekkie Sanchez points out the discussions will probably be had anyway. It would be harder to have them as finding a niche group like that would be harder to uncover in real life interactions (I hope) but at least online they are recorded for anyone with the right level of access (legitimate or otherwise) to see and deal with should the case deserve it.
February 26, 2013 at 4:19 pm
Giselle Minoli as usual a beautifully written and insightful post from you — i wish i could express my thoughts as well as you do — as someone who has a theatre background then went into the military and then returned to the world of theatre post military and as someone who both in the military and who had a very brief civilian stint as a paramedic at the age of 18 working with the NYPD experienced suicides and death by violence and who now is being treated for PTSD issues because i can not un-see what i experienced i can relate to your former Marines experiences and relate to his comments to your class — I too am anti violence towards anyone and because i was required to be armed in the military am now anti gun — as for internet censorship, like your Marine i believe there are some things we are not meant to see and there should be some form of censorship in chat rooms to prevent violence being promulgated — how that would or should be done i leave to those wiser then i as i do not have the answer — just my 3 cents worth and thank you as always for posting a important topic.
February 26, 2013 at 4:31 pm
It’s so complex that I can’t do it any justice. If a student writes a story of killing classmates but really doesn’t want to kill them, it’s just a writing exercise, should that student be arrested? I wrote a serial killer story last year for my website, should I be investigated?
Where does the line stop or is the line really just sand, meant to be stepped on and recreated for each situation?
I don’t have answers, merely questions and thoughts.
I agree that what is seen cannot be unseen. My parents took me to the Godfather & Exorcist back in 72/73. I was 10. Those visions didn’t need to be in my head, but they stayed there.
February 26, 2013 at 4:32 pm
I don’t share your view stuart richman that your contribution to this post is only worth 3 cents. And I am not sure that wise people such as you should not be allowed a major voice in deciding the future of our “freedoms” on the Internet. We can’t leave everything to lawyers. It doesn’t make sense.
February 26, 2013 at 4:33 pm
It certainly isn’t a black & white issue — this balancing of freedom of expression with the desire to protect the innocent. And it is always tested by a worst case scenario such as this one.
I don’t know. The Holmesian marketplace of ideas theory gets a real sparring partner workout on the Internet. Online, the truth is often indistinguishable from a lie and license from licentiousness. Anonymity breeds contempt for the normal rules of interpersonal engagement for some. Or so it seems.
The heart of this case is conspiracy which is essentially a thought crime. The Internet, in this case, is merely the chosen vector of communication. There of course being no such thing as a one person conspiracy, the prosecution will attempt to show a meeting of the minds via online communication. They’ll also try to figure out a way to prove an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. It could have been through the mail or over the phone or some other way but it was not.
But for the rest of us the legal questions are just the beginning. As a society we’ve never been faced with a situation like we have here on the Internet where isolated nutjobs can find, communicate and exchange tips and tricks with each other. Craig’s list for crazies. The problem for (relatively) sane people is that we cannot understand what motivates people who want to act out these dark fantasies. And we know that all too often they act upon them as well.
February 26, 2013 at 4:35 pm
Giselle Minoli thank you for your kind words — as for lawyers except for writing my will i am not a fan of them though i do recognize they do at times have their usefulness.
February 26, 2013 at 4:36 pm
I hear you James Barraford as both a proponent of freedom and as a writer myself. Were I the wife of this police officer there is no way, for the rest of my life, that I would want to be anywhere near him, nor would I want my child to ever see him again. There is absolutely no way I could ever trust such a person. This was not a one-off scenario. This man was apparently deeply involved in these chat rooms. Can you imagine a woman sleeping next to a man every day of their married life and suddenly discovering how he was discussing watching the blood gush from your neck with other people? I mean it really defies almost anything I have ever heard of. He is not a writer, Jamie. And you might say “What is the difference?” But if I discovered my husband harbored thoughts like this I would never see him again. It would be over in the snap of my fingers. Do you know what I mean?
February 26, 2013 at 4:38 pm
No one likes lawyers…. Until they need them. Lawyers and Proctologists. .
February 26, 2013 at 4:41 pm
In order to think about something, one needs neuroanatomy that is capable of instantiating those thoughts. A primary mechanism is pattern recognition. If you don’t have the neuroanatomy to recognize a pattern, you are unable to think about that pattern.
Human brains self-modify so as to instantiate pattern recognition of patterns they are exposed to. That is what learning is. You can’t unlearn something because your neuroanatomy has been modified to recognize it.
This is the mechanism behind Nietzsche’s quote about the abyss. To see into the abyss, you need to have abyss-like pattern recognition, you need a bit of the abyss in yourself. If you stare into the abyss, your neuroanatomy will self-modify so as to be able to perceive the abyss.
If you are unable to think about something, it is very easy to imagine that it does not exist. This is the danger in censorship, the same as the danger of living in an echo chamber. If you filter out everything you don’t want to see, then you will never develop the neuroanatomy to see it. But if you see it too much and don’t take precautions, it can “leak over” from your sensory neuroanatomy and become “native”. That is when you become the monster you have been looking at.
But ignorance is not bliss. Some people need to monitor the abyss to protect the rest of us from the monsters that lurk inside. Those people need to be protected to. When they are not, they get things like PTSD and/or become monsters as Nietzsche warned.
When such things start to invoke feelings is when they are starting to go “native”. That is when you need help to ensure that they don’t. Talking about them with other people can help them stay virtual, or can push them into reality. In this specific case, it seems as if the trajectory was one toward turning this into reality, not keeping it fictional. The cop used police resources to track down actual people being discussed as victims. That makes it not just idle chat. I would charge all of them.
February 26, 2013 at 4:42 pm
Giselle Minoli Wait a minute. I’m not condoning him for a moment. I completely agree with you.
I suppose I should have made it clear I was referring to the greater issue of writing on the Internet.
February 26, 2013 at 4:43 pm
Very difficult question Giselle Minoli but when have you ever lobbed softballs to us?
I really have to think about this one, but my initial feeling is that censorship has a flip side that must come along for the ride, and that is zero expectation of privacy. For there is no way to censor or shut down the avenues of expression you mention unless every avenue is open for inspection.
I’m not sure I can reconcile those two ideas just yet. But I will follow this thread and see what arises.
February 26, 2013 at 4:44 pm
Giselle Minoli I was shocked that some people I know were really disturbed by my story last year. It was illuminating. As I said to several, do you think Stephen King is an evil man?
Regarding this police officer, very different story.
February 26, 2013 at 4:51 pm
James Barraford my apology here…I was not assuming you were. I was happy to read that you are as conflicted as I am. And you raise the ultimate icky question: fiction. I read Brett Easton Ellis’s Imperial Bedroom with, I think, the exact frame of mind that David Whitlock describes above, wondering all the while whether I could have written such imagery myself and the answer is No, I could not have. I respect Ellis’s contribution to “modern” literature, but I can’t help wondering what is going on in his mind 100% of the time and there is no way, reading his fiction (I limit it) I would ever want to be in a relationship with that man. I do know David Whitlock that we all have a shadow side. But…what is that thing that tips anyone person over? I personally do not think it is a chat room, for instance. I would never join such a chat room to begin with. This man was already there.
February 26, 2013 at 4:53 pm
Giselle Minoli My wife wasn’t thrilled, truth be told, with my story, even though it had nothing to do with her or a woman. She didn’t like that my imagination could extent to the stranger in a car realm. As she put it, I was exposed to unerasable imagery at too young an age. I was like, gee, thanks, it’s just a story for Halloween.
February 26, 2013 at 4:56 pm
James Barraford Years ago Terrence Real wrote an important book called I Don’t Want to Talk About It: Overcoming the Secret Legacy of Male Depression. I haven’t read it in a long, long time but somewhere within its page he discusses the inability of the soul to process horrible things that have been done to it – like sexual molestation – and that the person tries to “normalize” the experience by seeking out others who are the same (the No wants wants to be alone theory). And if there is no one else, they create them by doing the same thing to them so now there are two people who are like this, and on and on it goes. Gawd I hope I’m not misquoting Real I don’t have the book handy but that is my memory of his message. And there is of course depression there. So, somewhere, this particular police officer, well, something caused these thought processes, because I am telling you David Whitlock, no matter how many Quentin Tarantino movies I see I have never wanted to participate in violence. Never. Not once. As I said, I’m an abject coward!
February 26, 2013 at 5:00 pm
James Barraford I write this with no judgment whatsoever, but I understand your wife’s reaction. I remember asking myself the same thing: What’s up with my friend Jamie? But I also know/knew that you are/were a writer and that there is a certain amount of exploration in that. But we women live in a very different world than you men do. I am always telling Brian Altman that my world is different than his. And I think it’s absolutely fair for a wife to say, “Yo, babe, what is UP with that subject matter you are writing about?” I just do. Is that censorship? Or love….
February 26, 2013 at 5:00 pm
This is a dark and interesting thread. I may have to print out later and read it several times
February 26, 2013 at 5:01 pm
Oh, great. Thanks James Barraford. Am I going to have to hit the delete button on this one eventually Jamie? 😉
February 26, 2013 at 5:05 pm
No. It’s a fascinating discussion….
February 26, 2013 at 5:09 pm
http://blog.melonicoaching.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/thoughts-actions-208×300.jpg
February 26, 2013 at 5:17 pm
Paula Schell I completely agree with these principals, which are quite Buddhist in nature:
Watch your thoughts: They become words.
Watch your words: They become actions.
Watch your actions: They become habits.
Watch your habits: They become character.
Watch your character: It becomes your destiny.
And for those of you who have never studied acting, these are also artistic principals – i.e., that you are only as good an artist as you are an observer of life and if you don’t know yourself it will get in the way of your art sooner or later.
In this sense, Yes, I do believe in some kind of censorship. I don’t believe someone, for instance, has a right to carry out a hate crime that would cause harm to another person. Words can and do become actions. There was a Fatwa placed on the writer Salman Rushdie. The Freedom of Speech movement has long swept under the rug the frequently unfortunate consequences that go along with unilaterally granting that freedom.
February 26, 2013 at 5:27 pm
Where did my comment go? Tried to edit, and now it’s gone…sigh.
What I said was, there’s something to be said for keeping your thoughts to yourself. Once they are out on a page or online, they take on a life of their own and in some sense, are no longer yours. I hear my mother’s voice immediately saying, “If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all.”
It’s one thing to conjure a story from one’s mind. It’s quite another to delve into practice, isn’t it?? When it crosses over into action as role playing or discussion with the intent to take action?? That’s a whole ‘nother ballgame in my mind.
February 26, 2013 at 5:43 pm
I don’t know where your comment went Paula Schell. I remember reading it…but when I clicked on Notifications there were two comments that had been deleted. Not by me!
February 26, 2013 at 6:05 pm
Giselle Minoli Thank you for the honesty regarding my horror story. I have to say I didn’t enjoy the process of creating it. I loved The Cemetery ( which I’m turning into a book) and I loved writing stories like the strangers on a train story you commented on at the time. Those make me happy and content.
February 26, 2013 at 6:47 pm
I would ask…. does this extend into the realm of fantasy writing, in particular, fantasy of a sexual nature. I don’t mean writing with a pedophilia bent, but adult fantasy. Should a partner have concerns if they notice their partner writing about having sex with other people, and especially if it involved the partners friends or siblings. I dont mean chat room sex, as I consider that a form of cheating, but an essay, a book, where the partner could take it as a veiled desire…. or is it purely a story and nothing more?
If I write a story about a man with a few similarities to myself and he has a wife that may have a few similarities to my wife, should my wife be concerned or think differently of me, if I have the male character sleeping with his wifes sister?
As a writer of fiction, I’m curious on what people may or may not assume of the writer.
February 26, 2013 at 6:49 pm
Giselle Minoli I give up. I just wrote a thousand or more words with regard to this post and lost it all, again. I’m fed up with the screwy, bullshit antics of G+ and it’s capability to hold on to what I write.
February 26, 2013 at 6:51 pm
R. Harlan Smith I am SO bummed. I’m paranoid about this thread because other people have had problems with it this morning too, Paula Schell among them. What is going on? I think that is so weird and I am really sorry. I am most interested in what you have to say.
February 26, 2013 at 6:54 pm
I have taken to always composing elsewhere (usually OneNote for me) and pasting in. G+ is too unreliable for writing up thoughts of any length.
February 26, 2013 at 6:57 pm
Brian Titus I do as well. I typically use Drive if I think I’m going to be long winded. That still doesnt address that almost 2 years in and Google still has this issue.
February 26, 2013 at 7:10 pm
Giselle Minoli Sorry, Giselle. There is nothing that pisses me off more than to race through the ‘writer’s frenzy’ and then lose everything I’ve written. I’m going to WalMart and buy a shovel so I can gnaw the handle into sawdust. I am reminded of what my guru, Satchidananda, advised for circumstances like this – “Poor, Robert. When this happens to you, you must go buy a shovel and gnaw the handle into sawdust, hehehe” He was merciless.
February 26, 2013 at 7:16 pm
Giselle Minoli What I’ve written above is as much as I can remember of what I wrote on the Gmail page which wouldn’t accept my comments, again. This is insane. What good is the Gmail page if you can’t respond to comments?
February 26, 2013 at 7:17 pm
I’m shaking my head. I’m shaking my head.
February 26, 2013 at 7:21 pm
James Barraford Where, oh where do I start with that query, for it is a delicious one. Superficially I would say that if the spouse of a writer were to read text of a nature that was so far out there as to be a complete and utter surprise, of the completely alternate personality type, then I think it’s completely fair for the spouse to query why none of the “contested” subject matter, descriptions, fantasies, etc. had ever come up in conversation or practice. Hopefully, at least speaking personally, any kind of artistic endeavor is supposed to lead us closer to ourselves and to those who wish to know us. If the spouse doesn’t then they shouldn’t, probably, be a spouse.
That said, I think there are definitely feelings to be taken into consideration. Does that mean that a writer shouldn’t write something without the permission of their spouse? Of course not. But I would still ask why “discussing” it in writing is okay but actual verbal conversation hasn’t happened. And I, as a woman, seem to witness every day how men blame women for their own repression. You know, “The I didn’t tell you because you, blah, blah, blah.” Does it work the other way around? No doubt.
That said, I have to say, Jamie, that in all my years on Planet Earth I think that men lie to women about these issues all the time. It comes up fairly regularly in conversation among women – basically the claim is that because of our friend Hugh Hefner men are oh so liberated and oh so much more sexual than women. I, however, beg to differ. I think women have never been more repressed (by men and culture at large) and that putting it all in writing, as a replacement for conversation, is one way of doing that. Women are, what? Fighting back by writing, what? 50 Shades of Gray? Another book that is about, essentially, men and not women? There never was a sexual revolution for men, Jamie, and there never will be until men have the courage to talk with women instead of about them. That would I think make the writing all the more interesting.
All that said, I’m not sure why you think that chat room sex is a form of cheat but an essay or a book isn’t. Why? Because it’s a monologue not a dialogue? I’m just asking because in the case of the cop his lawyers are saying the “chat room” isn’t real. Is it? Or isn’t it?
Okay now…bring on the wolves, throw me into the Gladiator Ring. I oiled up my chain mail, sharpened my sword (pen) and polished my shield before I wrote this comment. I’m ready…
February 26, 2013 at 7:23 pm
R. Harlan Smith I’m confused…what do you mean “the Gmail page?” I don’t use Gmail. I post public, so I don’t know what you mean. Forgive my ignorance.
February 26, 2013 at 7:31 pm
Giselle Minoli When I lose my notifications, which is often, I go to Gmail and find them there, but I’ve learned now that I can’t respond to comments there because they simply won’t post. That’s maddening, as well, especially after I’ve written a long response.
Then I have to go back here to the stream and find the original post and respond here with as much as I can remember of what I commented on the Gmail.
Does that make sense?
February 26, 2013 at 7:32 pm
Giselle Minoli can you clarify this: “men lie to women about these issues all the time.” — what “these issues” refers to? I just didn’t quite follow that through the thread. Thanks!
February 26, 2013 at 7:42 pm
I was responding to James Barraford’s question about a writer (I assume man in this case) writing something fictional of the sexual nature about “recognizable” people in the couple’s communal life and if that’s a problem…”these issues” refer to the way in which men and women explore the topic both in conversation and in writing Brian Titus.
R. Harlan Smith no, you cannot respond to email notifications from G+. They go back into the Googlesphere not to the post. It’s just a Notification mechanism, not a comment mechanism. You do have to go to the post for that.
February 26, 2013 at 7:44 pm
Thanks Giselle. I just wanted to be sure the topic had indeed pivoted somewhat! 🙂
February 26, 2013 at 7:45 pm
Giselle Minoli Oh, well. I used to do it all the time. Apparently I can’t do it anymore.
February 26, 2013 at 7:45 pm
Giselle Minoli I have to disagree to an extent. There are so many forms of writing that I don’t think I should feel I owe my wife an explanation if I write fiction in a manner that I’ve never discussed with her. I’m not saying I should expect Tammy Wynette with an overt reference to someone she knows, but a partner should understand that as a teller of stories a blend of experiences, thoughts, fantasy, and listening to others all play a part in the story creation.
I would consider it emotional cheating if I discovered my wife having an online relationship or even cyber sex. I don’t consider that in the same ballpark as writing a story.
February 26, 2013 at 7:47 pm
Giselle Minoli I’m responding here from the Gmail page. Two short sentences.
Now, see how it appears in the stream? Apparently there’s a limit to how many words Gmail will accept.
Anyway, I’m outta here. I’m going to watch a movie.
February 26, 2013 at 7:51 pm
I don’t think a writer would need to clear a topic with spouse beforehand — no matter what the topic. However, once said piece is out there for anyone else to read (i.e. it’s not a personal diary), if writer and spouse can’t talk about it, there is a problem.
February 26, 2013 at 8:11 pm
James Barraford If I gave you the impression I think a writer owes their spouse and explanation I apologize because that is not what I meant. I do, however, feel that all is fair in relationships and writing! Meaning that if you have a right to write something and the reader, in this case your wife, has a right to have an opinion about it. If a writer doesn’t think she (or he) does, then I would say they don’t think any other reader does either. And I will say, without qualification, that I have never met a woman who believes that any man can take the full brunt of whatever is going on in her imagination. Which is the reason that women writers aren’t published nearly as much, which is why their art isn’t promoted as much (remember how much Frida Kahlo freaked people out? Women, as writers and other kinds of artists have always been discouraged from being honest. Okay, bring out the wolves again. I’m ready…
February 26, 2013 at 8:12 pm
Totally agree with that Brian Titus. Completely.
February 26, 2013 at 8:14 pm
“And I will say, without qualification, that I have never met a woman who believes that any man can take the full brunt of whatever is going on in her imagination.”
If I qualify as a woman, you now have met one.
February 26, 2013 at 8:18 pm
I am thrilled about that Lena Levin. I think it is much easier with fine art than it is with writing…
February 26, 2013 at 8:29 pm
Giselle Minoli Gotcha. And I agree. Other than The Cemetery and the horror story, my wife is my editor. She is brutally honest with me. I do find though a mild self-censorship as a result, but thats on my end, not because she is uncomfortable with anything that I write. But then again, if I’m self-censoring a little, that means I’m playing to my perception of her comfort level, so how can I really know fully where she stands.
Holy crap, I just made myself dizzy.
February 26, 2013 at 8:40 pm
This would have made a brilliant HuffPost Live segment.
February 26, 2013 at 8:42 pm
Only if you were my co-Host James Barraford! More thoughts a little later…I have an appointment. There is something I want to ask you men…
February 26, 2013 at 8:45 pm
The problem with censorship is
1) This does not guarantee that what is being censored, is not happening or will not happen.
2) Who controls the censors? :/
I prefer to have an emotional shock to see a picture or read an article about something crude is going on and be aware that it happens and to take some action to prevent this not happen to me or my loved ones, that not be impacted by an image or article because I did not see or read it due to censorship and these happening to me for not being aware.
February 26, 2013 at 8:49 pm
Lance Hagood at least some of us have that Mayberry context to measure the messages against. I worry about those born into this time that will know nothing else.
February 26, 2013 at 9:42 pm
Brian Titus I posted the other day to my FB friends that I’m in the middle of an internal storm. I love technology. I love all that is new. But there are times where I’m feeling that I’m overwhelming myself with this need to know all, to see all, to interact with all. I’m old enough (51) to remember that I was 10 before we got a color tv, 20 before getting cable (channels 2-13 on a little box with push buttons with no remote). I remember TV stations going off the air after Johnny Carson (the anthem playing with the flag). I remember some of my local stations not going on the air until late morning. I read books, I listened to the radio, I played outside with friends.
Now the levels of communication are so different not just for kids, but for people my age as well. The expansion of that communication is liberating in one sense, bewildering and a little frightening in another sense. We’ve become bolder within our anonymity, we’ve grown accustomed to talking and writing as we never would have dreamed a generation ago. There seems to be this feeling that we have nothing to answer for when we post, when we interact, when we communicate on most levels…. and I wonder what that is doing to us….. all of us.
People had sick hearts and minds long before the Internet, but there is no doubt that the availability of anonymity online is facilitating some really demented behavior out there that is damaging us. I’m certain there are plenty of people within my circles that are using assumed names, likely some within this thread. Whether that’s to protect privacy or as a means to live a “double” life is up for debate. I’m sure it’s some of both.
I tend to go along with Matthew Graybosch in regards to censorship. I don’t believe there are many valid reasons to censor. My line where I think “censoring” comes into play involve direct threats and very few other areas. Most of the time I think it’s for people to have to put up with a different point of view and if needed to just walk away.
I miss Mayberry more each day though.
February 26, 2013 at 9:51 pm
We are age-mates James; totally agree.
An unexpected trigger for thinking about some of these issues happened when we started watching Mad Men right after Christmas a year ago. It was so striking to me to be reminded of the world the internet has left behind. The world of my childhood. Reading Stephen King’s 11/22/63 had a similar effect.
February 26, 2013 at 9:56 pm
This just popped into my stream, courtesy of the always-relevant Jeff Jockisch:
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/02/why-does-privacy-matter-one-scholars-answer/273521/
February 26, 2013 at 9:58 pm
You know me Lance Hagood…just a little light afternoon conversation. James Barraford I try to create as beautiful and peaceful a life as possible for us. I do not feel the need to see everything, to experience everything nor, certainly, to be online all the time. I am tremendously bothered by what I see and I will not apologize for wanting some kind of censorship. I do think a woman’s world is different. My husband questioned taking me to the army base because the road was strewn with peep show joints. Why?
Why is something disgusting always happening to some poor woman on some TV show? Why is it normal to us? Why do we accept it?
Why should I have to look down when I walk down the street? I ask these questions and wonder about the emotional PTSD this policeman’s wife is going to go through.
It ain’t a pretty picture if you ask me.
February 26, 2013 at 11:40 pm
Giselle Minoli It always falls back to this…. who gets to censor?
You?
Me?
Matthew?
Brian?
When you say you will not apologize for wanting some kind of censorship are you actually meaning controlling your own life and experiences or having others experiences contained in some manner? I’m looking for some clarity on that.
Frankly, no one has the right (nor should they) to decide for me what I want to experience (provided it’s legal). If we’re talking about self-censorship then I’m all for that. I don’t watch porn, I don’t watch slasher movies, I don’t go to strip bars (or any bars) I don’t do those things because they go against my beliefs and I don’t want that stuff in my head. (Although I’m getting ready to watch this weeks Walking Dead – I’m the worlds worst Buddhist). But those are my beliefs and my self-censoring means to try and cope in my day to day.
I get that i can’t walk in your shoes anymore than you can walk in mine. Being a man is no picnic, contrary to what many woman like to think. There is a reason men die much younger. We as humans have a long, long way to evolve as societies around the world. (There is no “as a society” because that negates the cultural differences we have the world over) Women should be able to share their views on level terms. Women should not be dismissed as “being a woman.” As far as tv, movies, pop culture… it astounds me that women put up with what they put up with. Flabergasts me. You guys should be having 20 Million Women marches on Madison Avenue every weekend. I would join my lady comrades. But women are molded from a young age to be submissive and demure, and if you aren’t then you must be a lesbian or something.
I grieve in my heart for this woman and her child and her family. What is done cannot be undone. But I won’t accept that we are to allow censorship because of sick people like this man. I will accept people making choices for themselves, and if those choices as societies push the needle in a new direction, then that’s great.
February 27, 2013 at 2:27 am
Jamie, a/k/a James Barraford may I ask you something about which I really don’t have a preconstrued/preconceived answer? Which is that, based on your words above, whether it’s possible that your suggestion that “you guys should be having 20 Million Women marches on Madison Avenue every weekend” is a kind of demand for censorship? Speaking personally I have never witnessed a time in my life when a woman/women asking for something, protesting something has amounted to anything. The protests, the marches…it all falls on deaf ears. And the abuse and violence just gets worse. Nor have I ever met anyone who was a racist willingly transform themself into a non-racist. My point is that I don’t think people who are dangerous to society, to people, to women or whomever, self regulate. I don’t think they do that. And I think we are at a kind of critical mass where we have to question our beliefs about what censorship is and isn’t and what the rules are or aren’t. I don’t buy that we should wait until someone like this police officer actually harms someone. I don’t buy that. Just like I don’t buy that we not intervene, for instance, in the life of the Virginia Tech shooter, who was clearly a disenfranchised person, until he kills, what?…how many people exactly?
I guess I’m saying that I’m not sure what censorship means anymore. And just like you long for Mayberry, Jamie, I long for a world where men were not threats to the lives of women, where it wasn’t such a dangerous place for us to live. Is that censorship? Maybe we need new words here. What do you think?
February 27, 2013 at 2:43 am
Giselle Minoli I think new words are needed as censorship really doesn’t apply to a lot of this discussion. Awareness and education are probably much closer. I hate to say this, but in my opinion men are always going to be a threat to women.
It’s not censorship to say if you don’t stop advertising on a particular show we will stop buying your product. That’s a choice being made on both sides.
Boy, pre-determining what people are going to do and then taking action on that is a tough call. I’m not one that wants to decide to punish preemptively.
February 27, 2013 at 2:49 am
Here’s my question, James Barraford: if you and your wife had a teenaged daughter, and she came home from school and told you that she overheard a boy in her school talking with other boys about doing heinous things to her and her friends, what would you and your wife do?
February 27, 2013 at 3:49 am
I don’t believe in arresting based on what people say they will do when there is no prior actual act.
In the hypothetical I would involve the school. I don’t mean to sound hard, but it’s easy to come up with worst case scenarios. We don’t, and shouldn’t, base our laws on the worst case scenrio. There has to be room for intent and interpretation.
February 27, 2013 at 3:55 am
Giselle Minoli We are not going to come to a meeting of the minds on this issue. 🙂
February 27, 2013 at 4:14 am
Is there room for my telling you that I don’t believe if you had a teenaged daughter who came home from school terrified about what she believed to be real intent to hurt her that you would feel that way? If she cried and said, “Dad I’m not going back to that school,” I don’t think you would force her. And I don’t believe the school would do anything, just like I don’t believe the police did anything to protect Nicole Brown Simpson. I don’t believe it not because I don’t think you are at this moment in time telling me the truth, but because there is something else that kicks in when the threat is with us. My own feeling is that part of the reason we have such a difficult time culturally dealing with any of this is because of the imagined/perceived distance that is created when the threat is outside of that which affects us individually. I was stalked in New York and I had to move out of my apartment for a year. The police told me that they couldn’t do anything, essentially, unless the guy physically hurt me. You know what? That’s BS. Plain and simple.
February 27, 2013 at 10:45 am
Giselle Minoli I work in the criminal legal system. I see the worst people do to each other on a daily basis. Believe me, just when I think I’ve seen it all a new situation presents itself. I’ve also been a victim of crime several times, once at gunpoint.
Regarding your hypotehtical, I did say I would go to the school and deal with the school on the issue. That means dealing with the overall issue. Of course I wouldn’t leave her to fend for herself. But I’m saying that unless there is prior activity, it’s very hard to cross the line into the thought police territory. I’m extremely leery on the issue of allowing authorities to assume criminal behavior based on mere words or thoughts that are not openly directed at an individual. Now, if its expressed directly, that’s already illegal and I’m fine with that. But are words in a chat room enough? Interesting legal question. I know, I know, this leaves the door open for the deranged. I subscribe to the philosophy of better ten guilty go free rather than one innocent be convicted.
All legaliity aside, on a personal level, if I saw my wife write what this cop is alleged to have written…. i’d move out that day.
February 27, 2013 at 11:39 am
Morning James Barraford I think that the events of life are often separated by moments, by minutes, by good fortune or the lack thereof, and by whatever split second decisions are made for reasons we might not understand. I had been performing in a play in New York and a couple of weeks after it was over I got a letter, scrawled in pen on one sheet of yellow legal paper, from a man who had seen one performance going on about me and asking if we could have lunch or dinner (he’d left a phone number). Sounds harmless, right? Except that stapled to the top of the letter was a 2″ square B&W photo of the man – one staple horizontal through the slit in his lips, the other vertical in the space between his eyes. I got the chills when I looked at his photo and those weirdly placed staples. Of course I didn’t respond. A couple of days after that my apartment buzzer outside our building started going off regularly. I was single and I never ordered delivery. Ever. I never answered the intercom unless I knew invited company was downstairs. Ever. I was extremely self-protective and always have been. A couple of days after that, it started happening during the middle of the night and escalated until it was 1:00am, then 2:30, then 3:30, then 4:00am. Whomever it was would lean on the buzzer. There was no way to tell who it was because there was no camera. I was scared. I knew it was the guy who’d sent me the letter. I enlisted the help of two men on my floor, one of whom lived on the street side. I could call them if anything really scary happened. Several times each of them ran downstairs during a buzz but when whomever it was saw the stairwell open, they ran away. But one of my friends saw the guy and confirmed it was the person who sent me the letter. I called the police. They listened. They believed me and said they could do nothing until the guy hurt me. I said, “Hurt me as in dead hurt me?” They shrugged. Then somehow the guy got in the building in the middle of the night, probably on someone else’s buzz. There was a knock at my door. I woke up, panicked, and called the police. By the time they got there, the guy was gone. The next night it happened again. Same thing. My life had been taken over by a lunatic. I couldn’t sleep. I was afraid. My freedom was over. I took to wearing a baseball hat and sunglasses, my long blond hair tucked up so I wasn’t easily recognizable. Coming home from D’Agostino I looked up and saw the guy round the corner from my apartment and come my direction. He was half way down the block but there was no question it was him.I ducked into a nail salon and watched him pass by. I went home, packed my bags and moved in with a friend.
You are right. We will never come to a meeting of the minds on this. But that man’s rights had been placed higher up on the “protected rights” scale than mine and, I’m sorry, I still think that’s BS. And I’m glad this policeman is on trial. Because I do think the chances of him killing his wife and others is pretty certain. And I don’t think one innocent woman has to die first. I saved that letter. I reminds me of how unsafe the world is. Thanks for reading Jamie.
February 27, 2013 at 3:27 pm
hugs Giselle Minoli. I went through having a stalker for a couple years too. It wasn’t until I wasn’t able to close the door to my house fast enough and he got in that anything got done. I knew my neighbor had already called the cops since I was screaming for her to do so and that I needed to keep him there until they got there. He knew he didn’t have much time and he made the mistake of staying just a little too long. I pressed charges. He was arrested and prosecuted. Unfortunately, he is my oldest sons father. He retaliated by refusing to have much of anything to do with his own son…and the pain of that is overwhelming at times, rest assured, for my son and I both.
February 27, 2013 at 6:32 pm
Paula Schell Some people say that their opinions about things never change. Mine have on certain issues and this is one of them. I have known many, many women like you who have been threatened by their exes and I am now voting for the protection of those who have been threatened. It just isn’t my experience that people who “talk tough” are innocent. We can go back to so many cases where there were distinct warnings when someone who actually lost it was suspected of the possibility of losing it. But it’s always too late. I got lucky. You got lucky. But Pam Dawber’s co-star did not. Nor did Teresa Saldana. Nor did Nicole Brown Simpson and so many other. No one can convince me that this police officer is “normal.” He is not. His wife should not be alive because she got lucky. She should be alive because of a system that is looking out for her best interests.
February 27, 2013 at 7:16 pm
The sad thing, Sheri ONeill is that although husbands can’t commit their wives anymore (to my knowledge), I’m not sure we have moved away from that era. Romney/Ryan sought to return us to the kitchen barefoot and pregnant. The continual reports of violence against women such that there is a need for the Anti-Violence Against Women Act says it all. There are homes for battered women everywhere – safe houses. Men don’t need such havens. That, too, says it all.
February 27, 2013 at 7:17 pm
I love these wimmins! =D
February 27, 2013 at 8:22 pm
Giselle Minoli I agree with you. I took a 72 week paralegal course here in Tucson, and one of the things I learned about the “rule of law” is that it is organic, which is to say it alters in accord to the needs of the people. I can’t say that the incidence of brutality toward women has increased, or that it gets more coverage today because of the advancement of media technology, but that is, to me, a moot point. It’s no mystery to anyone in America today that abuse is taking place against women and children. It’s taking place at a rate that is more than enough to consider writing legislation against threats of violence. Bullying is well out of hand in our schools. Police violence is becoming pandemic in our cities.
Gang violence is a nightmare in major cities all over the country.
People, you live in a country where parents are afraid of their own children. You’re afraid they won’t like you, when the unspoken truth is, you don’t like them very much at all. They are victimized by a vulgar pop culture in which they are kept blind to what’s happening to them. They are not being raised, they are being housed and fed. While you are glued to reality TV, your kids are being taught about sex and violence and survival values in their unique subculture by the media and not by you.
The concept of refining our natural aggression is not a value that comes from our religions, or our schools, or our homes. That same force of natural aggression that builds our cities and flies us to Mars is gone feral and wild in your streets, and in your homes, and in your entertainment. You allow it to happen. “You” do.
I watched a posting the other day that was a demonstration against brutality on women. The music was great for dancing and the entire video showed women dancing with joy all over their faces. I challenged them to say something about abuse against women. There was not one response. Every comment was positive for the music. What are we to make of that? The women who have not been abused yet are great dancers? The posting, the demonstration, the entire affair was innocuous. Its only statement was, “Women are being abused, let’s dance.”
The rule law of our land is organic. It can be changed in accord with the needs of the people. If you can get off your asses to dance, you can get off your asses to get legislation written to protect yourselves. And I will get off mine to vote for it.
February 27, 2013 at 8:57 pm
Sheri ONeill You have no idea how very much I want to agree with you. I want to believe, and to say, from my heart, that men and women are equally battered but I do not believe that is so. Yesterday in the New York times there was (another) heinous article about the military and how many young women cadets have been abused at Lackland Air Force by the superior officers entrusted with protecting them. If there is a case of young male cadets going through what these young women have gone through, at the hands of women officers superior to them, I would like to know about it. (http://www.nytimes.com/video/2013/02/26/us/100000002081479/lackland-rape-victim-talks-of-ordeal.html)
As I write these words, and as I made this post, I was painfully, disturbingly and sadly aware that it might be troll-bait. Anytime, it seems to me, that a woman comes out and makes a post such as this she is sentenced to traveling a long and lonely road of watering down the message so as not to offend anyone, so as not to raise anyone’s anti-feminist hackles. It has always been this way. I write this last bit in response to you R. Harlan Smith because I have sat in too many meetings, around too many tables and listened to women agonize and stew and argue too many times over how to make their message without angering anyone.
And that R. Harlan is why a message about brutality against woman can get posted in such a way that in the end it’s all about dancing. Anything not to upset folks. Anything not to be called feminists. Anything not to be accused of being angry. Anything but that!
Let’s dance instead. And follow Sheryl Sandberg’s inane and innocuous advice and sit up straight and change our voices so as not to curdle the milk. And that is where we are. And that is why there is an anti-Violence Women Act on the boards.
February 27, 2013 at 9:09 pm
P.S. For instance I find myself bracing for the counter argument that so many young boys and men have been horrifically, unforgivably and inexcusably sexually abused within religious contexts. And that is absolutely true. But it does not negate what is going on with women. It’s just another scenario. If anything it should raise the flag What Is Going On with people in power abusing people who are vulnerable…it should raise that flag even higher than it already is. And now I’m done.
February 27, 2013 at 9:33 pm
I am starting to wonder if maybe our long held assumption that the majority of people are good is off. Like maybe there are many more sociopaths among us than we ever realized.
I know I’m like a broken record lately with the sociopath angle, so my apologies. However, I can’t help thinking that when you look at these cases of abuse and suffering it’s clear that what is missing is empathy.
February 27, 2013 at 9:38 pm
I agree, ultimately this is about those with the power, using it to take advantage of and abuse those with less power. This is true, regardless of the context whether it is the office, the military, religion etc. Therefore, there is no reason to condemn any particular group because this occurs at every level of society.
February 27, 2013 at 10:15 pm
I neglected to mention that my last comment was referring to my agreeing with the last comment of Giselle Minoli – will be specific in the future.
February 27, 2013 at 11:23 pm
Giselle Minoli I don’t see where anyone is claiming there is equal abuse going on. That argument would be absurd. I see Sheri ONeill’s mention that there are men abused as well, but that doesn’t constitute equal.
I look at it this way…. 95 percent or more abusers are men on women and men on men. It’s men that need to take a deeper look into their souls about why they do it. It’s women that need to stop accepting the abuse… much easier said then done with girls watching their mothers used as punching bags, watching grandma told to STFU and get my dinner, watch their older sisters used and tossed aside when they’ve given all the sexual plessure the guy wants until he moves on. What they see on TV, Movies, Music, Video games and Magazines that glorify the objectivety, the sexualization, the degradation of women.
Yes, i SAID VIDEO GAMES. I am sick and tired of walking that ginger line and playing the game with people that video games aren’t feeding a very unhealthy appetite for desensification. Not all games, of course, but plenty of games do. Same with the rest of entertainment. Same with most religion.
The message is clear, Giselle… you are a second class citizen compared to me. That fostered upon the masses truth is like a slab in my heart. That is the indoctrination that has occurred for thousands of years. We kid ourselves that with the progress (and there has been) that you’re my equal (in the eyes of far too many). If you and I walked into a car dealership, one after the other, who do you think the salesman (and saleswoman) is going to head to first?
We both know the answer.
You got the vote…. how nice. Just listen to your husband on important matters like who to vote for and dont concern yourself with learning the issues. We both know that sentiment is occurring in far too many households still . We all watched our parents do it. At least those of us that are honest did.
Second class citizens… you, my wife, and all the rest of womenkind. How do we get out of that mindset? I wish I knew. I dispair over the fact that I havent’ a clue. Until that mindset gets tossed into the trashbin, the abuse will continue.
One thing I cling to though. I refuse to believe that all men are undercover bastards one step from becoming an abuser. I refuse to believe that the bad outweigh the good. I refuse to believe that the majority of people, men and women, aren’t inherently good and kind.
Weak to stop the vicious minority? Probably.
But good of heart in general.
If I can’t believe in that concept, based on my overall interactions in 51 years, then I might as well give up now and end it. Because if that’s all the sum of the various societies we have then whats the point?
I have to believe in the good…. I see it too often even when seeing the horrific.
Jamie
February 28, 2013 at 1:22 am
I’m not so sure I buy that argument Lance Hagood. I don’t think the equation (men want sex) = (men control women) actually computes. I think what’s going on is — as Giselle Minoli said — people in power abusing people who are vulnerable.
The real question to me is why do people who know better (e.g. people like me) allow our society to operate that way? I don’t know. And the problem with framing it as a matter of genetics means we can go on excusing ourselves for our inability to change things. It’s not me, it’s my genes!
February 28, 2013 at 1:31 am
Brian Titus
February 28, 2013 at 1:35 am
Brian Titus Do you have any actionable ideas on how we can change this malady of society? Why don’t we start small with the towns or cities we live in and then work our way outwards?
February 28, 2013 at 2:40 am
I do Mark J Horowitz. It is the rare, open-minded, introspective and conscious individual, male or female, who cuts to the chase of their own blindnesses and acts to change them. I do think James Barraford that women are asking/demanding/insisting on being treated with respect everyday. That is why the women cadets spoke up, even though it might end their careers in the Air Force. That is why this police offer’s wife took her case to the FBI.
But the step that is being left out, that is being left out over and over and over again is what happens after the women speak up. This Air Force training case goes to trial and the offending men to prison, but an underlying systems, the environment of which continues to foster belief systems and behaviors that give rise to the abuse in the first place can’t be changed with a memo and a time/date stamp and a consciousness raising class on treating women with respect on Saturday morning from 9:00am until Noon once every 8 weeks.
And that is what has to happen in order for it to shift. There have to be not only consequences, but the women can’t be retaliated against for “telling on” someone and the system has to dig out its own cancers and fix them once and for all. I watch women stick up for themselves all day long at work. And I watch them do so totally alone and get marginalized and alienated.
Lance Hagood I know there is reverse stalking. Bad people, male or female, who are insecure, have unhealthy egos and need to use their power in a negative way to feel better about themselves are everywhere.
And like Sheri ONeill I do believe that there is goodness in people. But…. one bad police officer can destroy a woman’s life and the lives of her parents, friends and family forever. But we are watching why it continues in this trial. His lawyers, because they are paid to defend him are turning his wife into the “bad guy.” And it’s been going on for such a long, long time that, depending on how powerful they are, they just might win.
Then what? She has to live her life in fear. And possibly lose it somewhere down the road. To me, James Barraford the answer lies, partly, in each of us having the courage to say, “Excuse me, this isn’t normal or healthy.” But none of us wants to pass judgement, lest it be passed on us.
February 28, 2013 at 3:21 am
But none of us wants to pass judgement, lest it be passed on us.
Some years ago, when I was employed by a large company, I began working for a manager whom I later concluded was a sociopath. He had management responsibility for several employees, and also a couple of contractors on staff who worked for a big consulting firm. One of the contractors was a young woman who obviously looked up to this manager.
The manager loved to twist her around and manipulate her emotionally, getting her to do whatever he wanted. How do I know this? He would brag about it to me; he was especially proud of how easily he could make her cry. He would rationalize it by saying “she’s just a contractor,” even though he also knew she looked up to him.
And other people in the company thought of this guy as a superstar and a great manager — a real go-getter. You should see his Linked-In testimonials — tons of them.
It made me sick to observe, but I didn’t do anything about it. Why — was it because I think women are 2nd class citizens and deserve that treatment? No, of course not. It was because I feared for my job and what this manager could do to me. And truth be told, I probably rationalized it a little by thinking “well, she lets him get away with it, so it’s not really my problem.”
Not too long after beginning my tenure under him, I was bounced out of the company anyway. I vowed to never make contact with this person again, which I suppose was about the least I could do.
I am sure there are many, many people with stories like this one. I think men and women encounter powerful people and situations like this all the time, but we don’t know what to do or how to fight it.
February 28, 2013 at 4:49 am
Brian Titus You call a meeting. Anyone in a company should be able to call a meeting and bring it up in front of the entire management community. Sooner or later you begin to realize a job is just a job.
Never devote your life to a job. You’ll never be paid or thanked enough for your life.
February 28, 2013 at 12:46 pm
Brian Titus Amen. I have witnessed that my entire professional life. It is never a case of someone not speaking up for themselves. It is always a case of worrying about a lost job, which is a serious financial issue when there are spouses and children and mortgages and car payments involved. Those issues are bad enough. But…in the arena of physical violence against women, or sexual abuse against anyone, man, woman or child, then it goes into a wildly different territory, where you add onto the financial and career issues those of emotional and physical fear. The definition of a sociopath is someone supremely skilled at manipulating people. This is my definition of Romney, a man who looks good on the outside…successful, young, vibrant, ambitious, talks a good game, track record…all the things that people love on a resume. But when he’s not being careful, out slips his true self, the self that believes that 47% of Americans are lazy, worthless “takers” who believe in entitlement. No different than this police officer, right? I mean, he’s a police officer…he went to school because he believes in upholding the law, right? He’s one of the good guys, right? He’s here to protect us, right? Except that he, too, has a shadow side that comes out and one day, quite by accident his wife discovers who he really is.
Brian Titus I read your words about the situation you described at work and perhaps the only thing you could have done or might have done, and of course it is easy to say this in hindsight, would have been to tell that young woman how she was being played. It could have been an eye-opener for her.
But I see it here, too, on G+. I read a woman’s post and I watch the trolls come out and no one says anything. I think people are tremendously afraid to defend other people James Barraford.
February 28, 2013 at 12:53 pm
A big plus-one for your comment above and this thread Giselle Minoli, thank you.
Never devote your life to a job. You’ll never be paid or thanked enough for your life.
R. Harlan Smith while I believe what you wrote is 100% true, I would say that most of our society today is sending us the exact opposite message.
February 28, 2013 at 12:58 pm
Giselle Minoli I’m never shy about defending women, in RL or on Google+. My tolerance level is set at zero. I had a brave mother who got out of an abusive situation and taught me to respect all women. I have an amazing wife who is fiercely devoted to making sure men don’t treat her as anything less than equal.
That said…. as I wrote in my last post, most people are too weak to stand up to the vicious minority. Be it conditioning, fear of repercussion, fear of retaliation, in public, in the workplace, most people are afraid of doing the right thing. That doesn’t make them bad people, but it shows a lack of moral and ethical outrage that is needed.
February 28, 2013 at 1:00 pm
Giselle Minoli I see men defend women against trolls here. I think it’s unfair to say no one says anything. I could name many men that do, but I would be forgetting some men so I won’t name them.
February 28, 2013 at 1:03 pm
Brian Titus Correct. And look what they’re paying for it. Look at their kids – a bunch of little pop culture brats who think they’re entitled to bad behavior. Look at their houses – upside down in the mortgage market. And their lives – driven to exhaustion over non-value values. They go to work in obedient bumper to bumper lines like sheep to the slaughter.
The American Dream has become a thing of the past with no more dreamers to sustain it.
February 28, 2013 at 1:13 pm
And so, James Barraford, now you know exactly why I continue to write, whenever the issue comes up, what a champion you were of mine on G+. What you wrote about your own commitment you absolutely exemplified with me and with many, many other people, men and women. If I could clone you and figure out a way to turn your value system into some sort of pill that I could pass out on the street corner I would do it. But I can’t. Wish I could, but I can’t.
When I tell you that “no one says anything,” I apologize because of course some people do. But, Jamie, I can’t tell you the number of women who have simply given up on public posting because they just don’t want the energy of that in their lives anymore. You know that I believe in this platform no matter what happens, but I’m a writer and that’s my commitment. My commitment is to raise the issues and deal with the blowback. But what about people – men or women – who are not? For them I think it is difficult indeed. Brian Titus says there is a lack of empathy and I think he’s right. On the front page of the Times today there is a(nother) heartbreaking story about a program that helps women veterans who have been sexually traumatized while in service. I put on my objective analysis hat (I do not like wearing it) while watching it and for a moment, of course until I couldn’t stand the thought anymore, I could hear voices beyond me saying…well, what do they expect, men don’t want them there, they signed up for this, if they can’t take the heat they should get out of the fire and on and on and on. The voices that are flung out there that are shaming and blaming are very loud.
And these days those voices are coming from women like Sheryl Sandberg and Marissa Mayer. It’s very disturbing.
February 28, 2013 at 1:27 pm
P.S. I thought I should just clarify that last comment because I’m sure not everyone has read my post on Sheryl Sandberg’s Lean In campaign in which, it is my view, that she is essentially blaming women for their failure to crack the glass ceiling, be paid equally for equal work and to be standing, at this point in time, side-by-side with the men in the work place and in the boardroom. I posted about it when I read that just one of her suggestions is for women to learn to sit up straight and to use their voices properly and I query if she has ever in her entire life suggested the same to a man in business. This is a form of teaching women to be good girls and that if they are good girls they will make it. Back in the old days it was called Finishing School. IMHO Finishing Schools practically did women in.
Now added to this lovely mix is the news that Marissa Mayer has built – at her own expense – a nursery for her new child next to her office at Yahoo so that she doesn’t miss, skip or ignore a beat of the business drum. Day care at work for talented, devoted, productive and valuable women who have careers died on the vine decades ago, but this new twist basically sends the message that if you are a woman and get pregnant don’t expect any different treatment for your biology. Get yourself to work, haul your baby along, and somehow figure out a way to be so wealthy and powerful that you can skip out to breast feed or do whatever it is that you have to do without disrupting Business as Usual. To be born a woman is to be punished for your biology from the onset of puberty for the rest of your life. The message needs to be that we champion, celebrate, honor and support working women and that we do not punish them for getting pregnant.
The article two days ago about mortgage being denied couples if the wife was pregnant or planning on being pregnant (this is illegal) is just one example of how women are punished for their biology. We are going backwards, not forwards.
February 28, 2013 at 1:49 pm
Two articles from today’s paper:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/27/opinion/native-americans-and-the-violence-against-women-act.html?src=ISMR_AP_LO_MST_FB
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/28/us/female-veterans-face-limbo-in-lives-on-the-street.html?hp
February 28, 2013 at 3:00 pm
Giselle Minoli It saddens me to no end that women are giving up posting in public here. I understand the reasons and it infuriates me. Often the trolls beat up on anyone that comes within their sights, but for women having to deal with it times ten has to be just awful.
I don’t understand why empathy and compassion are in such short measure.
As far as equality… we are 150 years on since slavery and the field has changed marginally regarding racial equality. The hatred for Obama Goes Far far past being a Democrat.
When it comes to gender equality it will take much longer and I blame organized religion for that.
March 3, 2013 at 4:09 pm
I include the link for a superbly written article in the Times by Ginia Bellafante, called Remember Misogyny? about the above case. This quote is particularly pithy when it comes to grappling with how far, exactly, we should go when it comes to our definition of what, exactly, free speech means: “There’s an odd confusion in the feminist movement,” she added. “We’ve all accepted the idea that speech is protected when it’s speech. But that seems to have extended to the notion that there shouldn’t even be social condemnation attached to incredibly horrifying misogynist speech.”
The link to the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/03/nyregion/remember-misogyny-its-on-the-web.html?hp
March 7, 2013 at 2:43 am
In the Times in Room for Debate, there is a discussion entitled _Walking the Line Between Offputting and Legal between six people who debate the wisdom, legality, sanity of “thought-policing” people’s darkest and unsavory thoughts and prosecuting them for those thoughts as is happening with this police officer who fantasized about killing and cooking his wife. I find it oddly cowardly that not one of them (unless I missed it) who thinks such thoughts are A O K, addresses the question of whether his wife should have stayed with him after discovering how entertaining it would be to slit her throat and watch the blood gush out.
The question is NOT what is the line between offputting and legal. The question is what is the line between intellectualizing this issue and dealing with reality as a human being.
March 7, 2013 at 2:58 am
People should not be punished for their thoughts. There used to be a time when people were punished for actions which were against the law. Today, we live in a very dangerous world when proving that someone is planning a crime such as committing an act of terror, is punishable as a crime. So as I see it, if planning an act such as this can be proven, the planner should be held accountable just like a person planning an act of terror or to shoot up a school.
March 7, 2013 at 3:02 am
Mark J Horowitz my question has to do with his wife. What if it cannot be proven that is man actually intended to kill her. They have an infant child. If she was your sister, would you tell her to stay with him, that his thoughts are harmless? What if she was your daughter? Your mother? A best girlfriend from childhood. That is what I am really trying to get at. Of course I could be wrong but is there a man out there who believes in “freedom of thought” who would counsel the wife of such a man to stay with him? I hardly think so.
March 7, 2013 at 3:09 am
Well of course she should leave him, no question about it, whether a lunatic like this is thinking about doing something sick or whether a man beat up his girlfriend or wife, such as the case with Rihanna.
March 7, 2013 at 3:33 am
My problem, since this case broke, Mark J Horowitz is the disconnect between the conversation about this man’s right to think dark (very, very, very dark) thoughts and not be hauled off to jail it automatically being assumed that they would turn into action, and the reality that he slept every night beside a woman with whom he fathered a child and whom he fantasized killing. Actions come from thoughts and while I grant that there are hordes of people who are completely and hopelessly unconscious of either their thoughts or their actions, that doesn’t nullify the fact that there is truth to the Thought, Word, Deed progression of things. So I don’t know what to do with this case. Were he not married would it be different? I don’t know how it is so easy to assume he was just fantasizing because she is in fact still alive. This young woman’s life has been altered forever and, what, pray tell, is she going to tell her child about its father? And will there be visitation rights? The mind boggles.
March 7, 2013 at 3:41 am
There is a good as well as an evil inclination within every human being and every person has free choice as to whether they allow their negative thoughts or positive thoughts to be turned into action, or will they use their inner strength, reinforcing their good inclination and subdue or erase those negative thoughts. I agree with you that his wife should leave him. I’m not a lawyer but it seems to me that it becomes a crime when planning can be proven.
March 12, 2013 at 5:36 pm
Officer Is Found Guilty in Cannibal Case
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/13/nyregion/gilberto-valle-is-found-guilty-in-cannibal-case.html
Just thought I’d update this thread with the news.
March 12, 2013 at 5:42 pm
So in this case, sanity rules.
March 12, 2013 at 11:09 pm
Brian Titus thank you for posting this. I have been on the road for 9 hours today.
I have copied this quote from the article…“Throughout the trial, the defense lawyers tried to demonstrate that their client had merely been involved in role playing and never intended to harm anyone.“
…and inquire of anyone willing to tackle my question, how it is possible to “role play” being cannibalized by a man?
March 12, 2013 at 11:11 pm
I’m wondering what “safe” word one uses for such role playing.
March 12, 2013 at 11:15 pm
James Barraford I have friends who are lawyers. I know someone has to defend this man and that is our system and I am glad for it. Aren’t we all? But, should Ms. Gatto’s daughter come home one night and tell her what of the sick, twisted, thoughts of her boyfriend, would she say, “It’s okay, honey, he’s just exercising his fantasies.” Would she tell the wife of Valle to return to him because, “Hey, you’re still alive and it’s just the stuff of fantasy and, well, each to his own and no harm done.”
Sometimes the mind boggles.
March 12, 2013 at 11:25 pm
It seems to me there is a long way to go between (not) staying in a marriage and conviction to life in prison (as mentioned in the article liked).
Our protection against misuse of the law is the “beyond reasonable doubt” thing; in personal relationships, we can just follow our own instincts, without legal proceedings and “evidence”.
Ugly thoughts and fantasies may be quite a sufficient reason to leave a spouse, but hardly to convict them to prison.
March 12, 2013 at 11:30 pm
I think the difference here is that he began to take action; using his police access to gather data on potential victims. In this respect, it seems to me he should absolutely be locked up.
March 12, 2013 at 11:31 pm
Lena Levin as was reported in the case, this man was researching people. His wife discovered his fantasies about her quite by accident. I don’t think this is an easy topic. I don’t think it’s black and white. I think it is one of the most difficult topics I’ve every posted about – which is the reason that I brought it up.
Given that, I’d like to pick up on the quote you yourself used, which is that “we can just follow our own instincts,” and mine is that this is a dangerous man. Can I prove it? No. Am I being influenced by what the police said to me when I was stalked, which is that there was nothing they could do until I was actually, physically hurt? I freely admit that I am.
March 12, 2013 at 11:38 pm
But if we start to lock up everyone anyone considers dangerous, even with good reason, we will soon be all locked up.
Researching people in police database is, of course, a violation, but hardly identical to conspiracy to kill; and hardly worth a life in prison.
March 12, 2013 at 11:41 pm
Hardly everyone will be locked up Lena Levin. That just isn’t going to happen. Ever. That this man happened to have been a police officer with so much access to information is more than a little disconcerting. You would have made a good lawyer!
March 12, 2013 at 11:45 pm
Well, possibly here my (historical) experience of living in a country where it used to be very close to “everyone locked up”, and (even suspected) thoughts used to be punishable with the full force of the state, comes into play. The danger of criminalizing thoughts looks very real to me.
March 12, 2013 at 11:46 pm
Giselle Minoli I have no answers. I believe he was likely a danger. But I’m terrified over crossing the line where written words are enough to put someone in jail for years. Again, I understand where you are coming from and agree on most of it. This is a case I wouldn’t have wanted to try or be a member of the jury on.
March 12, 2013 at 11:49 pm
That slippery slope always starts with “it’s just this one time” or “well this was the extreme case as it was obvious.” Before we know it it gets easier and easier to justify. It just does. It’s how it works.
It’s the same argument I hear from people justifying DP cases when it’s “certain” the person did it….. but they claim to be pretty much against the DP otherwise.
March 12, 2013 at 11:50 pm
Absolutely James Barraford that is why I posted this. To be on that jury…very, very challenging. So, Lena Levin we are each of us influenced by our personal pasts and circumstances. I am glad that we can say that to one another. I would often like to be completely free of whatever “notions” my past has given me about everything. Alas, I don’t think I am capable of that, try as I might. In this particular case I am also influenced by particularly brutal crimes against women. I am really bothered by it. And on television. And in books. And in film.
March 12, 2013 at 11:51 pm
Forgive my ignorance James Barraford but…DP???
March 12, 2013 at 11:52 pm
Death Penalty.
March 12, 2013 at 11:55 pm
I want the guilty in jail. But I also want ten to go free before one innocent goes to jail. I don’t see how our system can survive any other way. This case was interesting, but I worry about the Pandora’s box effect in many jurisdictions where due process is a quint notion.
March 12, 2013 at 11:56 pm
What a fool I am James Barraford. DP. Yuck. I am totally against it and always have been. One of my favorite movies is The Thin Blue Line. Thank God for DNA testing and getting people off of Death Row who are innocent. There was a case just last week…a man who had been imprisoned for 25 years and was getting married and…wasn’t bitter. A rather remarkable story…
March 13, 2013 at 12:00 am
It’s not my personal past in this case — it’s history, which just happend to be a bit closer to me than to you, Giselle. A couple of centuries further back, and the humanity’s ability to kill and punish each other for thoughts, out of instinctive fear, becomes even more evident. We have been there, so there is no reason to believe that we cannot find ourselves there again.
I happen to think that it’s better to learn from history… rather than just leave it behind and free ourselves from it.
March 13, 2013 at 12:00 am
There is the opposite to consider James Barraford. What if people like Valle avoid the Internet and go elsewhere and are undetectable completely. This man’s wife would never have found out. I don’t know what the solution is. I don’t know that there is one. This is one case. It’s important to remember that.
March 13, 2013 at 12:02 am
But it has always been there Lena Levin. My father was blacklisted. Scores of people have been arrested in this country since 9/11. The list goes on. I would not trust anyone who is convinced that they have the absolute answer to this conundrum because I think it’s impossible to solve. Which doesn’t mean we should back away from trying to address it. But it is not black and white.
March 13, 2013 at 12:12 am
There is no such thing as one case when it comes to the legal system. Decisions get based on prior cases. Prosecutions go forward based on what has been allowed in other courts, including other states. Police move forward based on prior cases. Legislatures create (or change) laws based on one case. I see cases cited everyday in my job.
I’m not trying to be argumentative for giggles sakes, but it’s just not about one case.
March 13, 2013 at 12:26 am
One that note I’m going to watch hockey and swear at my TV.
March 13, 2013 at 12:38 am
At the trial James Barraford I think it is. Perhaps the outcome affects others cases, but each case is tried on its own merits. That is the sense in which I meant this one case. I don’t think you can say, “Let’s not look critically at this particular man’s behavior, plans, words, thoughts…” because it could negatively impact all other people like him. I don’t know the facts. None of us do. But it’s interesting to me that the decision was unanimous.
March 13, 2013 at 12:40 am
Yonatan and Lauren had some interesting things to say about it this morning.
https://plus.google.com/u/0/103389452828130864950/posts/BqTWz9hhFtk
March 13, 2013 at 12:49 am
Thank you Tren C for pointing that out. I suspect a lot of people are posting about it. I did leave a comment there.
I suppose I cannot get away from my “Thought, Word, Deed” training…
March 13, 2013 at 2:13 am
http://www.salon.com/2013/03/13/the_cannibal_cop_debate/
March 13, 2013 at 3:06 pm
James Barraford not quite sure about which type of person I should be more concerned: Those like Valle, or those who seem not to even blink at there being a difference between a chat room wherein everyone “plays” ensemble (including the soon-to-be-eaten wife) and chatrooms where the intended “lunch or dinner” is left out of the discussion entirely because, well, doncha know, their knowing of the potential cannibalism would spoil everything. Just sayin’.
March 14, 2013 at 10:42 am
Yonatan Zunger posted about this this morning, and it’s a good one. Linked here: https://plus.google.com/103389452828130864950/posts/887bwwP5SRB
Excerpt:
I now believe that I was wrong: from what I can see of the evidence, the prosecutors had a genuine case against Valle. Lacking the full court transcript I can’t make a detailed judgement on the merits, but it seems clear to me that the newspaper articles didn’t give a full picture of the extent to which Valle had committed overt acts in his conspiracy to kidnap, murder, and eat women.
March 14, 2013 at 12:48 pm
Brian Titus it took courage for Yonatan Zunger to revisit this case and to dive into the records more fully. I do want to say that I think this case is about much much more than the facts. I never felt that this was about prosecutorial overreach, and you know me to enjoy predicting the outcome of things from time-to-time and I predict that in this case the verdict will stand. It was a unanimous verdict, which is meaningful. Second, if it is upheld I do not think it will be the sensationally disgusting nature of Valle’s “thoughts and fantasies” spread across the internet that will see him locked up behind bars because now the populace is grossed out.
Rather, I think there is something else going on here that few people are touching on, and that is that we are culturally in the midst of investigating – psychologically and spiritually – what is acceptable behavior to us. In terms of protecting our society and, in this case, the women within it, it behooves us to look deep inside and ask ourselves what we really believe when it comes to whether or not fantasies investigated in internet chat rooms are really okay.
Quite aside from the sexual nature of Valle’s proposed crimes, we are also, as a culture, in the midst of investigating our longheld beliefs about gun ownership, our beliefs about whether or not speaking out against one’s government is anti-patriotic or not. We are, in fact, steeped in various similar discussions and it’s going to be a long, hard twisting road to go down. But go down it we must. There is no way out.
And resorting to such theoretical statements as “Well, it’s true that in his house he harbored a cache of weapons that could take out a football stadium of people, but he didn’t actually do it yet, so he should go free,” or for instance, “Well, he was just yakking away on the internet about every dark fantasy he had, but he hasn’t actually done anything yet,” in order to wiggle out of confronting what is acceptable in terms of protecting innocent people who could get hurt is, well, unacceptable.
Finally, as someone who was once stalked I absolutely believe this man was dangerous and, frankly, I don’t believe there is a man or woman with a daughter or girlfriend or wife, who, if they discovered such potentially threatening language against someone they loved would be of the opinion that no harm could come to their loved one.
We don’t like to ask these questions of ourselves because we don’t like giving up any freedoms. But I suggest we take a long, hard look at the definition of freedom we hold so dear and also ask ourselves in the process, how it applies to the women about whom Valle was fantasizing. What are their freedoms?
I do want to add to this that I think there is a vast difference between running down the road screaming Pervert! Sicko! Weirdo! Crazy! and allowing ourselves to be appropriately horrified when we come across such “thoughts.” It is just as dangerous to bleed out of ourselves an emotional response as it is to overreact and want to lock everyone up who thinks dark thoughts.
Thank you for pointing me to Yonatan Zunger’s post Brian Titus.
March 14, 2013 at 1:25 pm
Interesting — the idea that we’re in the “midst of investigating” these things, as you phrase it. I think you may be right, but it doesn’t feel like a voluntary or directed investigation. It feels more like we’re in a house of horrors, and doors are suddenly being opened and we’re getting shoved through them. (A clumsy metaphor, sorry). Maybe we’d rather keep those doors closed, but it doesn’t mean what’s going on behind them will stop.
March 14, 2013 at 1:31 pm
Brian Titus I know what you mean about the sense of it being a forced investigation. But in terms of human behavior, people tend not to do very little voluntarily. We often need to be dragged to the well. Examples would be lifelong smokers not smoking until a diagnosis of cancer, or someone being forced to confront the fact that they have a drinking problem when they are pulled over for a DWI offense. Since the beginning I’ve been watching with interest Bloomberg’s ban on super-sized sugary drinks. I had posted about that, much to the ire of many people who commented on the post. I thought then, and I think now, that it is fascinating that anyone would think their freedoms are being taken from them if they can’t have a super-sized sugary drink. I had said that not being able to buy one wouldn’t threaten by sense of freedom at all. That is just one example of taking a look at what really matters to us. The Valle case has clearly pushed a lot of buttons…
March 14, 2013 at 1:35 pm
Right Sheri ONeill. Can you imagine having to wade through all of this and not be affected emotionally, psychologically? We expect a lot of jurors. It’s easy for us sitting on the outside of the case to say what we think they should have done, to assume what we would have done. But I keep going back to the fact that it was a unanimous decision. Unanimous.
March 14, 2013 at 1:38 pm
Agreed; unfortunately, the “forcings” are more and more upsetting and/or unbearable (e.g. Sandy Hook Elementary).
Aside: I wandered into the “soda ban” the other day Giselle Minoli — most disagreed with me. https://plus.google.com/106313443642953370943/posts/PLSLYYGpoFh
March 14, 2013 at 1:43 pm
It’s not a matter of freedoms being taken away regarding Bloomberg. It’s a matter of the first step in elected officials deciding for us what we can eat and drink and/or the amounts. While I agree that supersized soda, supersized fries, supersized portions of ice cream aren’t good…. it’s never, ever okay for elected officials to make those decisions for us. Never. Have we not learned yet as a society that whenever we give over to others the decision making that is personal to us, that we don’t get them back? The soda size ban ( and the size was the ban, not the soda, contrary to many opinions) isn’t a matter of what really matters to us because it’s so personal that we can’t possible look at it in a full societal picture. Some people consider any soda bad, just as I consider one cigarette bad.
Thank god some common sense came into play last week and Bloomberg’s ridiclous ban was overturned. Not because my freedoms were impnged, but because an elected official has no right telling me how much I can eat or drink of a legal product that is putting no one else in danger.
. Sometimes it really is that simple.
March 14, 2013 at 1:51 pm
And I well knew when I re-raised that issue it would provoke ire all over again. Soon enough we will be overturning no smoking in public places…and I will have to stay away, having been robbed of my own freedom to breathe (relatively) clean air. And so it goes…
March 14, 2013 at 1:55 pm
C’mon, that’s a very different scenario. You drink a soda next to me and I’m not affected. I smoke a cigarette next to you and you’re very affected. It’s not remotedly the same.
March 14, 2013 at 1:56 pm
LOL, you should be arguing about soda in my thread!
March 14, 2013 at 3:03 pm
Honestly James Barraford I do not ever write these things lightly. And I don’t agree that it’s a very different scenario. In the one case the “effect” is visible and sensory (the sight and smell of smoke). In the other case the “effect” is not so easy to “see,” but if you were in the healthcare profession you might think differently – the impact of sugary drinks on the healthcare costs for all individuals, the impact of sugary drinks on behavior. This is a huge issue for parents. So, too, with chat rooms in dark corners of the internet where we can’t see, hear or feel any direct impact and so we tell ourselves that it doesn’t have anything to do with us and that it’s all harmless.
But I’m going to keep asking the question: Is it harmless? And is it wise, in a society like the one in which we are currently living, to unilaterally declare off limits any infringement on perceived personal freedoms because, you know, one thing leads to another and we will all be imprisoned for something? It is in this vein that I raise this issue about freedoms over and over and over again, whether it is what we can purchase (guns or sugary drinks), or what we feel we have a right to say or think. I really am asking the question.
March 14, 2013 at 6:16 pm
In the case of large sugary drinks, education is the key. Otherwise, they would have to put limits on french fries, beef, genetically modified corn and soybeans.
March 14, 2013 at 6:27 pm
The only education that would work would be to expose to people how these foods are specifically engineered to make other people rich while killing the end-consumer. If we all heard that information and understood it, we would not allow the food industry to do what it’s doing.
March 14, 2013 at 6:48 pm
Brian Titus
Personally, I would separate the two with with educating the public about how harmful these things are being the top priority. There will always be people who will say they don’t care and keep eating this junk. When more people get hip to this and make better food choices, the food producers will have to come along because the market will dictate it. Then, the food producers who make healthful, natural food will get rich while improving the health of the end-consumer. How much money does each of you pledge now, for that education?
March 14, 2013 at 7:06 pm
When I went to school in the 60s and 70s, we had the “basic food groups” and healthy eating drilled into us. Where did that education go? We tell people that smoking causes cancer and they still do it. What could we possibly tell people about food that would make them stop consuming it? To me the only thing that will change peoples’ minds is to show them that this food is designed specifically to get them addicted and to allow them to eat large quantities of it without feeling sated.
March 14, 2013 at 7:52 pm
Somewhere, some how, some way I have crossed a line from one belief system to another during the course of my life. Apologies for not having a better phrase than “belief system” because that doesn’t quite cut it. Suffice it to say that I spent a considerable amount of time in my life concerned with, interested in and defending individual rights. Makes sense, doesn’t it? I’m an American and that’s what we do. And discovering that my father had been blacklisted for things he “thought,” things he “wrote,” things he explored “intellectually and philosophically,” only heightened my commitment to free speech, free thought, free ideas. Then I started to write about it, which necessarily made me investigate much more fully, beyond the scope of my own feelings, and I was forced to look at how our behaviors (and, Yes, at this point in my life I would call thoughts behaviors, in so far as they lead us to live our lives in a certain way) affect the people around us, our families, our friends, our co-workers and I began to realize that individual freedoms are not so neatly separated from the family, the community, the culture in which we live.
I write this to explain, partially, why I’m so interested in the subject of freedom and why I continually ask, for instance, “Okay, so I have the right to own a gun, but does that mean I should have that right? Does that mean I should be given that right? Does that mean I should actually buy a gun?” And, “Okay, I can eat as many Twinkies as I want. I can gulp down as many sugary carbonated ounces of liquid as I want. Does that mean I should be given that right? Does it mean I should actually fight for that right?”
We fight for our freedoms. But we don’t often investigate what it means to have them and how exercising them impacts others. And I don’t think we really ever investigate whether or not the things we think make us free really do, in fact, make us free.
It is possible that I wouldn’t go down this road if I believed that people are self-regulating and modulating and questioning, if I believed that people examine their own consciences. But I don’t think they do. I think they will very often do whatever they want, at the expense of everyone else, in the name of personal freedom. And this is what I question.
March 14, 2013 at 7:59 pm
Brian Titus The food in the 60s and 70s wasn’t much more healthful; it had many of the same chemicals as today. People ate too much beef, fat and sugar. Television is designed to get people addicted and it does a very good job. It is also made for people with a 5th grade education. As Frank Zappa said “Television rots the brain”. Television and Hollywood films do these things. Should we make Hollywood accountable just like the food manufacturers? Is the body more important than the mind?
March 14, 2013 at 9:12 pm
I think they will very often do whatever they want, at the expense of everyone else, in the name of personal freedom. And this is what I question.
Tangential to this thought… I’m currently reading Sex at Dawn, which is a book that reexamines the “standard” evolutionary psychology view of human relationships — and in particular, sexual relations. Giselle Minoli your comment reminded me of this because the first part of the book talks a lot about how pre-agriculture human society operated.
And what the books says is that as foragers, humans had to have a completely different way of relating to one another. There was no concept of winners and losers, or makers and takers, or haves and have-nots. Groups had to share everything, and every task — and each other! — to survive. It’s a hard idea to wrap your head around, because we think that humans are simply wired to be like we are. But so much of how we operate and behave today is based on the economic models that the move to agriculture brought us.
Sorry this is pretty far off the track of the original topic. But, it’s an interesting book because it makes you think about why we are the way we are. And that maybe we’re not immutable; if we wanted to we could change some of our human nature.
(h/t A.V. Flox and jill Hamilton for the book.)
March 14, 2013 at 9:35 pm
I’d like to qualify what I said about Hollywood films. What I was referring to are Hollywood “Formula” films: action, adventure, violent, adult or romantic (which must contain at least one sex scene) as opposed to good independent and foreign films which emphasize the human element, emotions and psychology. The formula films are designed to make a lot of money and are marketed to a specific audience. The effect on the public is not considered.
In this sense, Hollywood is no different than the food companies. Mayor Bloomberg is on the right track but he should not dictate what people should eat or drink, just as he doesn’t put TV shows and movies off limits. Movies are rated for discretion. Perhaps food products should be rated as well, in addition to listing the ingredients.
March 15, 2013 at 1:45 am
Brian Titus
I believe the only education that would work is to stop feeding children with this sugary-salty junk.
I once read a blog post written by a man who was trying to cure himself of the addiction to junk food. And just so, in passim, he said that he got addicted when he was feeding some junk to his two-year old son every day (and eating bits from his plate). But in the whole discussion of how he was teaching himself to eat healthier he never once questioned the wisdom of giving it to his two-year old child — because the underlying assumption that that’s the only thing that toddlers eat at all remained unquestioned. From where I stand, this is about as criminal a behavior as giving a toddler some alcohol so that they sleep better.
As long as this continues, no amount of “education” will help.
March 15, 2013 at 1:48 am
Lena Levin +1, but what do we do about the adults?
March 15, 2013 at 1:56 am
Lena Levin then you know all about Dr. Robert Lustig’s campaign to get people to realize that sugar is toxic, that it is actually a poison and is causing all sorts of collective health problems, obesity and diabetes two of the main problems. I don’t have the science, but instinctively it makes sense. We grew up on fresh foods in the most natural form possible and I remember my mother’s sense of it being a losing battle when schools started putting food trucks with fast foods on campuses because it was easier than making a proper lunch for kids. Easy does not equal healthy.
March 15, 2013 at 2:10 am
Mark J Horowitz — I am guessing adults should take responsibility for their own life; it’s too late to change them from the outside, unless they want to. But protecting children — from being poisoned in daycare and schools, and from their parents misguided behavior if need be — that’s something the society is already accustomed to.
March 15, 2013 at 2:13 am
Giselle Minoli — no, I don’t know much about this campaign, if anything at all. In a sense, I am just still within the tradition(s) I grew up in (where toddlers don’t even see sweets and don’t get their food salted).
March 15, 2013 at 2:18 am
I should probably add, that, judging from my own experience and some people I talked to about it, a person who is first exposed to the products of the modern American food industry as a grown-up tends to have a rather hard time understanding how it might be edible, let alone addictive.
March 15, 2013 at 2:30 am
Lena Levin Of all the schools of Psychology which I have studied, I favor Erickson the most because he was the most positive. He outlined Eight Stages of Life where it is possible for a person to win, so to speak, and change and rise above their prior limitations. Freud said that a person’s personality was basically fixed by age 5, pretty pessimistic. So I believe that people can make positive changes at any stage of life. If they don’t, the lucky ones will get a stark warning from their doctors.
March 15, 2013 at 2:32 am
I love to cook Lena Levin and I particularly like to cook for friends. A particular litmus test (for me) of how much someone is addicted to sugar is their reaction to a salad dressed with just olive oil, lemon juice, herbs and cracked pepper. And there’s a huge difference between the American interpretation of Italian food and eating in Italy, where the food is not swimming in sauces. Food issues get people really upset, understandably, because it’s really hard to see that something might be an addiction. If it weren’t, it would be easy to give it up, however. Not so easy as it turns out…
March 15, 2013 at 2:32 am
I didn’t say they cannot change — I said they cannot be changed by someone else. Big difference.
March 15, 2013 at 2:36 am
I was lucky I guess — no guest in my house has ever complained about a lack of sugar in salads (although there is none, as a rule; I also don’t use ready-made dressings).
They do often ask me to put salt on the table, though… 🙁 and add it rather liberally.
March 15, 2013 at 2:11 pm
Giselle Minoli , which herbs do you use in your salads?
March 16, 2013 at 11:54 pm
Fennel is one.
March 17, 2013 at 2:42 am
Thank you much Peggy Einsla
March 17, 2013 at 3:26 pm
I will try that Peggy Einsla with my next salad.
April 23, 2013 at 10:25 am
and this answered it all.. (on my story that is) thanks and more thanks