Our Moloch

[redwood66]

There are extremely well educated people who disagree with modern ideas of feminism and patriarchy. I found this a fascinating exchange. Beware it is almost 2 hours long and some might not like it.

 

[monarch64]

Red I’m going to listen to it in entirety sometime this week. I skipped through snippets and am fascinated because I’m in agreement with parts at least as of now. As a feminist I believe in standing up for both women’s AND men’s rights (and other identities in between or outside of those gender confines.) One thing particularly stood out to me during my quick skim: the interviewee said she believes (“she” identifies as transgender and I am not up on the latest or best pronoun to use so I’m using “she”) in the power of hormones, that men and women are biologically different, and that men should be respected again as men and for being men. I do not disagree with that. I respect and appreciate men’s qualities and I do not desire those qualities as a woman. All I require of men is that they reciprocate that respect and leave me my femininity as I leave them their masculinity.

To give a very personal example: the father of my child believes strongly in “father’s rights.” He does not believe in abortion nor that it’s a woman’s right. And I did not know before having a child with him that he didn’t believe in MY right to mother my child basically at all. He took over immediately as she was delivered into my doctors hands, changing every diaper, doing everything while I recovered which greatly hindered my bonding process with my daughter, not to mention my body’s ability to supply milk. Most would say he was just being a responsible good dad. That’s not what this was or evolved into over the years. It was a persistent unrelentless overstepping of one parent’s role to take over the other rendering me, the mother, nearly obsolete. When I got fed up and left he petitioned the court for primary caretaker status and won because I did not have a lawyer. The divorce nor custody is still unsettled. This man took over a role without being asked and in fact being asked repeatedly to stop. So my point in bringing this up is that I understand the ramifications of veering off the biologically beaten path of gender roles and norms. It sucks. I’m not asking for men to step aside while women take over damn near everything. Feminism is about fighting for equal rights for everyone, not about smashing the opposite sex and making them bow down. What’s happening is exactly that attitude and we will all suffer for it. We have to respect each other without denigrating each other, it just needs to go both ways.

 

[redwood66]

I am in total agreement with you @monarch64. I am sorry your ex did this to you and he did not make the child rearing a combined effort at all. That is complete disrespect to you as a woman and a mother.

What’s happening is exactly that attitude and we will all suffer for it.

This concerns me more than anything. It is to the point where you cannot have a conversation about it and the tribes circle the wagons. I am all for equal opportunity for everyone but do not expect equal outcomes as well.

I hope you enjoy the video when you get a chance to watch it. She is quite a spitfire.

 

[arkieb1]

I'm glad you clarified.

I'll just reply to the highlighted for now.

Yes, yes, what's wrong with WOMEN. Didn't I hear that ad nauseum from my more liberal white male friends after the election.

Yes a heap of women voted for him. But you need to take a closer look at which women, because it does actually matter and you're applying the "women" brush a bit too broadly, or dare I say, assuming that what white women do is applicable to all women because we're still assumed to define "women".

Women married to conservative white men voted more for him, it's true, but black women voted around 94% for Clinton. So saying a heap of women says very little about women as a breed. The real numbers say quite a bit more about how much white women have internalized a fear of all they feel that that they too have to lose in the way of the status they have by standing closest to the beleaguered male group that is still at the top of the heap and still running the patriarchy. If somewhere deep in your bank of internal tapes, you believe your status in the world comes through your husband, then it's not exactly a stretch to see why most white married women voted like they did.

Of course most women think they're making their own choices, and they are. But refusing to grapple with the amount of influence the culture has on you personally, or even refusing to acknowledge that you're influenced at all, means that the culture really can't even be adequately examined. Which is always a boon to the status quo.

Here's a good not too long piece about ALL women who voted, not just the white ones. I'm sure that even now the dust has settled, the numbers are pretty spot on.

https://qz.com/833003/election-2016...whelmingly-for-clinton-except-the-white-ones/

Sorry by saying "a heap of women voted for him too" I should have been more specific, a heap of white middle class women (not just men) voted for him too. I can't think that every single one of them was simply a white married woman upholding the status quo. No doubt a lot of them were but this fear of pretty well "the other" by that I mean non white immigrants is also a global backlash against things like terrorism, in the US a backlash against the GFC and a whole range of complicated things impacting the psyche of middle America (both men and women).

The thing I find interesting is in Australia at least there is almost a backlash going on arguing what we are now seeing is male disempowerment, the female psychologist I know who is a leader in her field at counselling men even argues the same thing that like it or not, women, society we are in part to blame for what men have become and if that is mainly feeling somehow displaced and angry it's because of the way we raise our boys a certain way and then place a heap of expectations on them that leave them somehow unsure of how to be functioning "men" in society today.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-28/toxic-masculinity-war-could-backfire/8207704

And this article mentions Kimmel;

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...n-angry-men-display-disempowered-behavior-too

 

[Matata]

There are extremely well educated people who disagree with modern ideas of feminism and patriarchy. I found this a fascinating exchange. Beware it is almost 2 hours long and some might not like it.

I made it through the first hour. I'm always amused by the discussions of like-minded highbrow academics who exercise their capacious vocabularies while admiring themselves from the tops of their self-built pedestals regardless of whether I agree with some or all of their discourse.

 

[redwood66]

I made it through the first hour. I'm always amused by the discussions of like-minded highbrow academics who exercise their capacious vocabularies while admiring themselves from the tops of their self-built pedestals regardless of whether I agree with some or all of their discourse.

I could say that about pretty much all academics no matter their views.

 

[ksinger]

I made it through the first hour. I'm always amused by the discussions of like-minded highbrow academics who exercise their capacious vocabularies while admiring themselves from the tops of their self-built pedestals regardless of whether I agree with some or all of their discourse.

Yeah, I watched about 20 minutes and got tired of her breathless tumble of words. And her unceasing bile. I understand academics are steeped in things about which I know little, but I'm not subjecting myself to watching overly-emoting angry people. It's why I quit watching news.

It wasn't dialogue, but that's approximately how I felt (with more annoyance though) when I finally decided that no matter what wonderful insights Hannah Arendt revealed in "The Origins of Totalitarianism" - and there were a few nuggets, I had to put her down for her conspicuously overblown verbiage and use of French without translation. I doggedly ploughed through about 120 pages, and then said, no more.

 

[redwood66]

Like I said, some might not like it, but some might want to discuss what was being said. It's not for everyone and that is fine.

 

[ksinger]

I made it through the first hour. I'm always amused by the discussions of like-minded highbrow academics who exercise their capacious vocabularies while admiring themselves from the tops of their self-built pedestals regardless of whether I agree with some or all of their discourse.

OK, since we both seem to have the same sense of Paglia - and the other guy didn't get too much in the way of a word in edgewise in the parts I listened to - this is for you for a giggle.

https://wonkette.com/600938/can-you-hack-up-words-as-stupid-as-camille-paglia-a-contest

I did try this morning to find a transcript so I can see what she and the other guy actually have to say, in less than 2 hours because I can read faster than I can listen and I always prefer to read so I can skip all the emoting. So far no luck, at least on that particular interview.

 

[cmd2014]

I find it hard to give any credibility to an academic with a degree in English literature (rather than in any discipline that would give her any credibility to support the views she loves to express) who by her own admission has chased fame through expressing extremist views and starting controversy for controversy’s sake (which given her placement in history meant that the most expedient way to do this was to trash feminism in increasingly outrageous and bizarre ways). And I choked when she described herself as transgender. She is and has always been biologically female and has always lived and identified as a lesbian woman, so it’s hateful and insulting for her to co-opt a transgender identity (that she describes as consisting of “wearing flamboyantly male costumes” as if that constitutes transgenderism, because she clearly doesn’t even understand what it is) just to further her particular brand of controversy. ETA: She freely admits that she loves to take the dominant thought of the moment and attack it (to throw a bomb in it so to speak) just to be contrary and to further her fame and her career. She is and always has been a joke, and serious people with any real expertise in the domains in which she loves to provide opinions about don’t pay attention to her. The only real voice she has is with conservative groups, because the stuff she often spouts seems to support stuff they spout too.

And honestly, the fellow interviewing her doesn’t represent the field of psychology. At least not clinical psychology. Maybe they couldn’t find anyone more grounded to interview her (most wouldn’t want their reputations associated with someone like her). Post-modernist theory is predominantly the domain of philosophy, not psychology (there are a few academic psychologists who have an interest in it, but it’s esoteric and not a mainstream part of graduate school training). It’s interesting that there have been a few articles posted lately here about it, but it’s certainly not representative of the field (neither is positive psychology).

 

[House Cat]

Red I’m going to listen to it in entirety sometime this week. I skipped through snippets and am fascinated because I’m in agreement with parts at least as of now. As a feminist I believe in standing up for both women’s AND men’s rights (and other identities in between or outside of those gender confines.) One thing particularly stood out to me during my quick skim: the interviewee said she believes (“she” identifies as transgender and I am not up on the latest or best pronoun to use so I’m using “she”) in the power of hormones, that men and women are biologically different, and that men should be respected again as men and for being men. I do not disagree with that. I respect and appreciate men’s qualities and I do not desire those qualities as a woman. All I require of men is that they reciprocate that respect and leave me my femininity as I leave them their masculinity.

To give a very personal example: the father of my child believes strongly in “father’s rights.” He does not believe in abortion nor that it’s a woman’s right. And I did not know before having a child with him that he didn’t believe in MY right to mother my child basically at all. He took over immediately as she was delivered into my doctors hands, changing every diaper, doing everything while I recovered which greatly hindered my bonding process with my daughter, not to mention my body’s ability to supply milk. Most would say he was just being a responsible good dad. That’s not what this was or evolved into over the years. It was a persistent unrelentless overstepping of one parent’s role to take over the other rendering me, the mother, nearly obsolete. When I got fed up and left he petitioned the court for primary caretaker status and won because I did not have a lawyer. The divorce nor custody is still unsettled. This man took over a role without being asked and in fact being asked repeatedly to stop. So my point in bringing this up is that I understand the ramifications of veering off the biologically beaten path of gender roles and norms. It sucks. I’m not asking for men to step aside while women take over damn near everything. Feminism is about fighting for equal rights for everyone, not about smashing the opposite sex and making them bow down. What’s happening is exactly that attitude and we will all suffer for it. We have to respect each other without denigrating each other, it just needs to go both ways.

I just need to give you a heart hug. I’m so sorry you’ve experienced this nightmare, Monarch.

 

[redwood66]

I find it hard to give any credibility to an academic with a degree in English literature (rather than in any discipline that would give her any credibility to support the views she loves to express) who by her own admission has chased fame through expressing extremist views and starting controversy for controversy’s sake (which given her placement in history meant that the most expedient way to do this was to trash feminism in increasingly outrageous and bizarre ways). And I choked when she described herself as transgender. She is and has always been biologically female and has always lived and identified as a lesbian woman, so it’s hateful and insulting for her to co-opt a transgender identity (that she describes as consisting of “wearing flamboyantly male costumes” as if that constitutes transgenderism, because she clearly doesn’t even understand what it is) just to further her particular brand of controversy. ETA: She freely admits that she loves to take the dominant thought of the moment and attack it (to throw a bomb in it so to speak) just to be contrary and to further her fame and her career. She is and always has been a joke, and serious people with any real expertise in the domains in which she loves to provide opinions about don’t pay attention to her. The only real voice she has is with conservative groups, because the stuff she often spouts seems to support stuff they spout too.

And honestly, the fellow interviewing her doesn’t represent the field of psychology. At least not clinical psychology. Maybe they couldn’t find anyone more grounded to interview her (most wouldn’t want their reputations associated with someone like her). Post-modernist theory is predominantly the domain of philosophy, not psychology (there are a few academic psychologists who have an interest in it, but it’s esoteric and not a mainstream part of graduate school training). It’s interesting that there have been a few articles posted lately here about it, but it’s certainly not representative of the field (neither is positive psychology).

She is quite a fireball and people who disagree with her don't like her at all. Which is the same for Jordan Peterson, and he doesn't care about what anyone thinks about him either. But he has been a clinical psychologist and professor in Toronto Canada for years. They both have quite a following which is true for anyone with a loud voice on any side of an argument. She is however correct, IMO, on the treatment of men today which will only get worse if it continues down this path. Men are hesitant to work with women and mentor them for fear of reprisal or downright false accusations, even if that might never happen. The women are the ones who suffer in the end even if they don't agree with modern feminism. I don't want Pajama Boy for a son, and I think a preponderance of women wouldn't want him for a husband. As to her transgender claim, I don't care what she thinks she is. I thought that was the point, that people can identify as what they feel they are. At least that is what I keep reading.

Of course there are men who are a-holes out there. There are plenty of women who are as well. I don't fault all men for the jerks and I think it is, or will be, a problem for society if all women see is an awful white male first without applying all his other traits to the mix. It's pretty hard not to see them as they are the majority. That does not mean that I do not appreciate the women who came before me. They are the true pioneers for women's rights because they suffered and endured, and died for it. But I don't identify with hating just for hate's sake. Women in western civilization have it better than ever before, and better than millions on the rest of the planet do today.

I thought your comment on conservatives and spouting was funny, because I sure feel the same way about many liberals. So here we go with the tribes. All people, liberals included, identify with those who have similar beliefs and I am a true conservative. So why does that have to be delivered as a derogatory comment? Where is all the love?

Thanks for the input and I have been doing some reading on her and she sure does have some haters.

 

[redwood66]

I like Peggy Noonan too. We need more gentlemen. I will do my part to raise two of them and also promote and love my DH til my dying day.

http://www.peggynoonan.com/america-needs-more-gentlemen/

 

[cmd2014]

I don’t like anyone without credentials (or credibility) who finds a pulpit and spews nastiness just to further self interest. Which is what she is open about doing - finding the opposing and controversial position and yelling it as loudly as she can to get as much attention as possible. I find it sad that people use her sound bites to further their own nastiness (and use her non-credentials to suggest that she has some credibility to what she says), and yes, my feelings about that leaked. FWIW, I feel the same way about nastiness from any direction (given that I am not American and don’t identify with either of your so called tribes).

As for Jordon Peterson, yes, he is an academic psychologist with esoteric philosophical interests (honestly, the field of clinical psychology as a whole could care very little about the psychology of religious and ideological belief) that are not generally supported, agreed with, or even thought much about by the majority of his peers. For how prolific he has supposedly been, he’s not taught in current curricula outside of U of T (where he teaches). I think you’d be hard pressed to find a clinical psychologist in Canada trained in the last 20 years outside the U of T who even knows who he is. Or anyone in Canada, really. I didn’t. I had to look him up when he came up in previous discussions here. He seems much more well known by conservatives in the US apart from the odd mention of him in the Toronto Star for being a jerk.

 

[cmd2014]

But I think this is a thread jack from the real issue which isn’t feminism or family values, or post modern or religious philosophical ideology, or even jerks who say nasty things loudly and in public (like me). The real issue here is guns.

 

[redwood66]

But I think this is a thread jack from the real issue which isn’t feminism or family values, or post modern or religious philosophical ideology, or even jerks who say nasty things loudly and in public (like me). The real issue here is guns.

Actually the conversation should also be about the people who use them and the failures of society in general. I did not bring up the "patriarchy" and family values, others did. It isn't a one sided issue.

 

[Matata]

OK, since we both seem to have the same sense of Paglia - and the other guy didn't get too much in the way of a word in edgewise in the parts I listened to - this is for you for a giggle.

I enjoyed that @ksinger. The first word that came to mind when I listened to the vid was bloviate. And then Tocqueville came to mind for his assessment of Americans "venting their pomposity from one end of a harangue to the other." And next H.L. Mencken's assessment of Warren Harding's "loud burble of words..."It reminds me of stale bean soup, of college yells, of dogs barking idiotically through endless nights. It is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it."

 

[Matata]

This is from FB. The photo referred to at the end, which I have not included here, is of a young woman wearing a dress in a bar with a military weapon slung over her shoulder. There is much that I like about Israel's gun laws.

 

[Snowdrop13]

I feel quite sick on your behalf having just listened to the NRA blaming everything BUT guns for the shootings. Actually had to turn the radio off.

 

[Matata]

I feel quite sick on your behalf having just listened to the NRA blaming everything BUT guns for the shootings. Actually had to turn the radio off.[/QUOTE
Neurotic Radical Assassins. Words are inadequate to convey the dismay I felt looking at their new ad and listening to Dana Loesch's diatribe. The current leadership of the NRA needs to be replaced by sane gun owners.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nra-dana-loesch-media-shooting_us_5a8ed8d2e4b077f5bfec1a85

 

[Matata]

 

[ksinger]

Wow! Why didn't you tell me you were in OKC??!!?

What'd really be fun is for me to find the painful state rules about just which level of crime you can commit and still be hired as a teacher. You know, we can hire you as a teacher as long as you've served your time and the felony conviction is older than 7 years old. And a deferred sentence in a felony case doesn't count as a conviction - not a lawyer so not sure how that works. But just trying to show how you too can be a felon AND a teacher!!! Oklahoma has worked it out so you don't have to!! Woot!

With the exodus of the actually trained teachers continuing at a clip, and considering the number of emergency certs this year - last check over 1200, yeah, let's arm them teachers! Yee haw!

Stupidest damn thing I've ever heard.

 

[cmd2014]

Actually the conversation should also be about the people who use them and the failures of society in general. I did not bring up the "patriarchy" and family values, others did. It isn't a one sided issue.

You know, this argument makes me sad, because it just means that people don't want to talk about the real issues.

Even though I know I'm wasting my breath, for what it's worth, unstable people exist everywhere else too. Mental health research does not suggest different epidemiological rates in the US compared to other Western countries. Not for any major mental illnesses. And yet, no other western country has the same number of mass shootings as the US does.

The "failures in society" that you're talking about exist everywhere else too. I'll let you into a little secret. Yes. It's true. We have millennials here too. And they're every bit as annoying and entitled and if I'm being honest, whiny and tragically emotionally fragile, as they are where you are (I'm a Gen X like you Red, and sometimes they drive me wild).

But more seriously, if we want to argue that the loss of patriarchy and family values are a part of this issue, then keep in mind that every other Western country in the world has *also* experienced the social influences of feminism, the globalization of our economies, the pressures of immigration and multiculturalism, the increased recognition of LGTBQ rights, increased numbers of single parents, increased numbers of families where both parents work, and a decline in the financial success of white men with a high school education or less. Probably even more for us than in the US, because these factors have been at play for much longer for us than in the US (Canada, Europe, and Australia have always been more liberal and more influenced by the global economy than the US). But again, no other country in the Western world has the same number of mass shootings that the US does.

We *also* have men with the triad of narcissism, social isolation, and deep seated feelings of injustice that are the best predictor of who will become perpetrators of mass violence. In fact, where I live, we have more than our share of troubled boys who everyone knows are likely to blow one day because they're beat up at home and unsuccessful at school and passed from foster home to foster home while mom drinks and has a revolving door of abusive boyfriends (this is mixed in with issues of racism and poverty, multigenerational issues of physical and sexual abuse, drug abuse, trauma, and the after-effects of colonization and residential school abuses where I currently live - it's a huge mess). Again, we also do not have anywhere close to the same number of mass shootings that the US does.

You know what is different? Why no other Western country in the world has the same number of mass shootings as the US (or gun deaths in general through suicide, domestic violence, or accidental deaths caused by kids shooting themselves or their parents by guns, or parents shooting their own children because they've mistaken them for burglars...or heck, per capita murder rates in general?). IT'S BECAUSE WE DON'T ARM PEOPLE! We don't give impulsive, stupid, angry, resentful, and/or inebriated people easy access to weapons that can kill someone in seconds.

Honestly, what the rest of the world sees on American news on a daily basis is that people are stupid. Republicans like to talk about 'responsible gun ownership.' I'm sorry, over and over and over again, people have shown that as a group, they just aren't responsible. They don't keep their weapons safely stored. They don't keep them from their kids. They don't stop to think about whether or not they should pull them out and point them at each other when having a minor dispute over school supplies in Walmart (yes, I saw it on youtube - it was insane!). They don't wonder if it's a good idea whether or not to keep a loaded gun in their purse where their 2 year old can grab it and shoot someone. That no-one seems to care whether or not it's a good idea whether any angry idiot with a grudge can get their hands on an assault rifle and kill dozens of children in a school or dozens of people at a concert, or their boss and all or their coworkers, or their wife in addition to all of her family members, or honestly, whomever they happen to be angry at, without any problem whatsoever. Clearly this isn't everybody. But the bad seeds are a sizeable minority, and like for everything, they ruin it for everyone else. It's why we have to have laws.

So maybe that's what people should be talking about. Because you know what happens with these idiots here? They grab a log or a random board and try to hit someone with it (I kid you not). Or a baseball bat. Or a knife. And maybe they hurt someone. Or sometimes, tragically, they kill someone before they are apprehended. But that's it.

And you know what else happens? Our police don't shoot first and ask questions later because they have no idea who might be about to shoot them. And people stop to help people by the side of the road here, because no-one is afraid someone will shoot them (or rape or rob them at gunpoint). And we can freely use nasty gestures in moments of road rage, because here that *is* road rage (unlike you guys where the rude gesture is just the start of the party). And our police don't have to put their hands on their weapons when they approach vehicles at traffic stops. In fact, last time I was unfortunately stopped for speeding (not my fault, really), I don't even think the police officer had a gun. The other thing that happens? When someone becomes potentially dangerous (like makes threats on Facebook, or says something scary to someone), the police go to their home and politely speak to them and their family, and TAKE AWAY THEIR GUNS. And guess what. They can't just go out and buy more. And it works too. Because now they're back to having to use a baseball bat. Or a steak knife. And the lethality of what they can do is pretty minimal. We do this with suicidal folks too. So our gun related deaths are way lower. Even though we hunt. And farm. And ranch. (probably just as much or more than in the US). But it's hard to kill yourself with a hunting rifle (not impossible, but it's harder to do than with a handgun). And it's hard to conceal a hunting rifle when you're out and about, so most of our property crimes are not committed with guns. And we don't lock our doors during the day when we're home, and no-one home invades us (and if they do, chances are they're not armed, and we don't shoot them, and they don't shoot us, and worst case, we replace some property with our home insurance policies), and no-one car jacks us, and our junkies are typically armed with pocket knives (which can hurt you, for sure, but I'll take my chances there too against a gun). And we're less afraid of each other. Because worst case scenario is usually that you'll get punched.

So you're right, the world won't ever be 100% safe. But it's a whole lot less safe when every idiot out there is armed and willing to pull it out and use it at the smallest provokation.

And we can circle back around to talk about mental health some more. But here's the thing. Those with diagnosable mental health conditions (the ones who meet DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for a major mental illness) are not the people who become mass shooters. And as someone who works in a correctional facility, I know that you know that predicting violence (specifically who, where, how, and when) is never going to be possible. And even if it was, you can't arrest people for things they haven't done yet. So the best we can do is two-fold. One is to reduce the damage they are capable of inflicting (yes, we are back to the assault weapon vs baseball bat argument again). The other is to try to identify those at risk and mitigate what's making them that way. But I can tell you as someone who works in mental health that this is way easier said than done.

So if you look at every other western country in the world and why they aren't suffering the way the US is suffering, you do have to acknowledge that the real issue here is how easy it is for people with less than ideal intentions (or judgement) to become armed. Because there is a sizeable minority that makes it unsafe for the rest of you. And people's hobbies shouldn't be more important than people's children's lives.

 

[Matata]

What'd really be fun is for me to find the painful state rules about just which level of crime you can commit and still be hired as a teacher.

Nah, too much work. Simpler to implement the draft and flood the nation's streets with trained combat soldiers. Barring that, take violent felons out of prison and pay them to protect schools -- they need an outlet for their anger and frustration, right? Might as well be angry white men vs angry white men. The bullet proof glass, steel doors, moats, and razor wire installations around schools (and grocery stores, movie theaters, etc.) is a one-time expenditure and cheaper in the long than arming teachers or other employees.

 

[Matata]

@cmd2014

 

[redwood66]

You know, this argument makes me sad, because it just means that people don't want to talk about the real issues.

Even though I know I'm wasting my breath, for what it's worth, unstable people exist everywhere else too. Mental health research does not suggest different epidemiological rates in the US compared to other Western countries. Not for any major mental illnesses. And yet, no other western country has the same number of mass shootings as the US does.

The "failures in society" that you're talking about exist everywhere else too. I'll let you into a little secret. Yes. It's true. We have millennials here too. And they're every bit as annoying and entitled and if I'm being honest, whiny and tragically emotionally fragile, as they are where you are (I'm a Gen X like you Red, and sometimes they drive me wild).

But more seriously, if we want to argue that the loss of patriarchy and family values are a part of this issue, then keep in mind that every other Western country in the world has *also* experienced the social influences of feminism, the globalization of our economies, the pressures of immigration and multiculturalism, the increased recognition of LGTBQ rights, increased numbers of single parents, increased numbers of families where both parents work, and a decline in the financial success of white men with a high school education or less. Probably even more for us than in the US, because these factors have been at play for much longer for us than in the US (Canada, Europe, and Australia have always been more liberal and more influenced by the global economy than the US). But again, no other country in the Western world has the same number of mass shootings that the US does.

We *also* have men with the triad of narcissism, social isolation, and deep seated feelings of injustice that are the best predictor of who will become perpetrators of mass violence. In fact, where I live, we have more than our share of troubled boys who everyone knows are likely to blow one day because they're beat up at home and unsuccessful at school and passed from foster home to foster home while mom drinks and has a revolving door of abusive boyfriends (this is mixed in with issues of racism and poverty, multigenerational issues of physical and sexual abuse, drug abuse, trauma, and the after-effects of colonization and residential school abuses where I currently live - it's a huge mess). Again, we also do not have anywhere close to the same number of mass shootings that the US does.

You know what is different? Why no other Western country in the world has the same number of mass shootings as the US (or gun deaths in general through suicide, domestic violence, or accidental deaths caused by kids shooting themselves or their parents by guns, or parents shooting their own children because they've mistaken them for burglars...or heck, per capita murder rates in general?). IT'S BECAUSE WE DON'T ARM PEOPLE! We don't give impulsive, stupid, angry, resentful, and/or inebriated people easy access to weapons that can kill someone in seconds.

Honestly, what the rest of the world sees on American news on a daily basis is that people are stupid. Republicans like to talk about 'responsible gun ownership.' I'm sorry, over and over and over again, people have shown that as a group, they just aren't responsible. They don't keep their weapons safely stored. They don't keep them from their kids. They don't stop to think about whether or not they should pull them out and point them at each other when having a minor dispute over school supplies in Walmart (yes, I saw it on youtube - it was insane!). They don't wonder if it's a good idea whether or not to keep a loaded gun in their purse where their 2 year old can grab it and shoot someone. That no-one seems to care whether or not it's a good idea whether any angry idiot with a grudge can get their hands on an assault rifle and kill dozens of children in a school or dozens of people at a concert, or their boss and all or their coworkers, or their wife in addition to all of her family members, or honestly, whomever they happen to be angry at, without any problem whatsoever. Clearly this isn't everybody. But the bad seeds are a sizeable minority, and like for everything, they ruin it for everyone else. It's why we have to have laws.

So maybe that's what people should be talking about. Because you know what happens with these idiots here? They grab a log or a random board and try to hit someone with it (I kid you not). Or a baseball bat. Or a knife. And maybe they hurt someone. Or sometimes, tragically, they kill someone before they are apprehended. But that's it.

And you know what else happens? Our police don't shoot first and ask questions later because they have no idea who might be about to shoot them. And people stop to help people by the side of the road here, because no-one is afraid someone will shoot them (or rape or rob them at gunpoint). And we can freely use nasty gestures in moments of road rage, because here that *is* road rage (unlike you guys where the rude gesture is just the start of the party). And our police don't have to put their hands on their weapons when they approach vehicles at traffic stops. In fact, last time I was unfortunately stopped for speeding (not my fault, really), I don't even think the police officer had a gun. The other thing that happens? When someone becomes potentially dangerous (like makes threats on Facebook, or says something scary to someone), the police go to their home and politely speak to them and their family, and TAKE AWAY THEIR GUNS. And guess what. They can't just go out and buy more. And it works too. Because now they're back to having to use a baseball bat. Or a steak knife. And the lethality of what they can do is pretty minimal. We do this with suicidal folks too. So our gun related deaths are way lower. Even though we hunt. And farm. And ranch. (probably just as much or more than in the US). But it's hard to kill yourself with a hunting rifle (not impossible, but it's harder to do than with a handgun). And it's hard to conceal a hunting rifle when you're out and about, so most of our property crimes are not committed with guns. And we don't lock our doors during the day when we're home, and no-one home invades us (and if they do, chances are they're not armed, and we don't shoot them, and they don't shoot us, and worst case, we replace some property with our home insurance policies), and no-one car jacks us, and our junkies are typically armed with pocket knives (which can hurt you, for sure, but I'll take my chances there too against a gun). And we're less afraid of each other. Because worst case scenario is usually that you'll get punched.

So you're right, the world won't ever be 100% safe. But it's a whole lot less safe when every idiot out there is armed and willing to pull it out and use it at the smallest provokation.

And we can circle back around to talk about mental health some more. But here's the thing. Those with diagnosable mental health conditions (the ones who meet DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for a major mental illness) are not the people who become mass shooters. And as someone who works in a correctional facility, I know that you know that predicting violence (specifically who, where, how, and when) is never going to be possible. And even if it was, you can't arrest people for things they haven't done yet. So the best we can do is two-fold. One is to reduce the damage they are capable of inflicting (yes, we are back to the assault weapon vs baseball bat argument again). The other is to try to identify those at risk and mitigate what's making them that way. But I can tell you as someone who works in mental health that this is way easier said than done.

So if you look at every other western country in the world and why they aren't suffering the way the US is suffering, you do have to acknowledge that the real issue here is how easy it is for people with less than ideal intentions (or judgement) to become armed. Because there is a sizeable minority that makes it unsafe for the rest of you. And people's hobbies shouldn't be more important than people's children's lives.

I appreciate all your time to type this and I do not want you to think that I am callous to any of it or that I don't care. At least I hope you don't think that. Nothing makes me more sad than to read your lengthy writing on the state of people in society. It is utterly depressing. My whole career was depressing and I am glad to be gone from it. We are both aware of people's capabilities and they are horrendous beyond belief. Change will be very difficult and take a very long time. It is better to recognize it up front than beat a head against a wall because it doesn't happen immediately. It is also better to be realistic about what can happen legislatively due to the fact that the 2nd Amendment is built into our Constitution. You don't have that. But not to acknowledge that the change in society has some bearing on the inability for people to control their anger and problem solve without resorting to violence plays some part in tragedies is turning a blind eye in order to blame it entirely on the gun IMO.

If people decide a gun ban is what is needed then that is what will happen. There is a process for doing it. But name calling and posting memes does nothing, other than make people feel better for a minute. Blaming Republicans is also quite disingenuous when nothing has been done by Democrats either, even when in control of all branches. None of them really want to do anything but grandstand for political points. I am not an NRA member but they don't make laws. They spend money and lobby just like all other big business and special interests. Lets do away with all lobbying period for anything. It just makes elected officials prostitutes.

Thanks for discussing this with me. I appreciate your views.

 

[Calliecake]

GREAT POST @cmd2014

 

[AGBF]

You wrote a wonderful, articulate, and wise post, cmd2014. Thank you for taking so much time to do so.

Deb

 

[Maria D]

Trump said this today: "These people are cowards. They're not going to walk into a school if 20% of the teachers have guns -- it may be 10% or may be 40%. And what I'd recommend doing is the people that do carry, we give them a bonus. We give them a little bit of a bonus," Trump said. "They'll frankly feel more comfortable having the gun anyway. But you give them a little bit of a bonus."

Why are terrorists always called cowards? Dictionary definition: "A person who lacks courage to do or endure dangerous or unpleasant things." These killers are not cowards and it is useless trying to shame them. Call them evil, deranged, depraved, whatever, but cowards they are not.

A little bit of a bonus! 20% of 3.1 million public school teachers is 620,000 bonuses. How much is "a little bit" to billionaire Trump I wonder? One hundredth of one percent of one of his (supposed) billions would be reasonable. We are protecting our children from those cowards after all! That comes out to a $100000 bonus each for $62 billion annually. Sign me up!

How about we get rid of the Secret Service and arm our president? I frankly feel that this would make Trump much more comfortable.

 

[arkieb1]

@cmd2014

+1