Adulthood, Fandom, Shipping, and Keeping Minors Safe

As someone who grew up with the Internet during my formative years, I feel like this is particularly important to discuss. 

Now, I was online at 13 (2003) and I’ve seen the way fandoms have been able to blossom and grow. I dabbled in Yu-Gi-Oh, Harry Potter, Inuyasha, DBZ, Yu Yu Hakusho, and a whole slew of other things. 

It’s cool! A lot of people and opportunities have been brought together in such a powerful, community building way.

But it brings up an interesting issue that wasn’t quite an issue with earlier generations: 

The access of explicit and obscene content in fandoms aimed at minors. 

AND

How we – who used to be minors and who are now adults – allow this content to spread now.

Honestly, I feel like whole generations were groomed to accept sexualization of minors as something normal for a long time. The adult men drooling over high school girls; raunchy movies that are set in high school; sexualization of teenagers in advertisements; middle age crises involving younger partners; etc. 

And a lot of the fault of that lies with older generations.

But Millennials (and tech-savvy Gen X’ers, I imagine) need to do better than the older generations. They need to take accountability, even though we remember growing up online and being spoon-fed underage sexualization as teens.

If you’re an adult producing fanart and fanfic of canonically underage characters, depicting any sexualized situation, you need to stop. You’re normalizing adults sexualizing minors.

If you’re an adult producing fanart or fanfic of a canonically underage character paired up with an adult, you need to stop. Whether it’s sexualized or not. You’re normalizing abuse between a child and an adult and grooming.

If you’re an adult, producing fanart or fanfic of canonically adult characters, in a fandom primarily meant for minors, you need to take precautions so minors cannot easily access it. Minors should not be easily exposed to sexualized content.

The onus is on us, as adults, to be better.

As of Feb 2020, I’m 30. Animation, comics, and cartoons are still hugely important to me. And I know the same is true for others my age group. I love seeing the fan-created content and – let’s face it – there’s a lot of romance involved in fan-created content. 

But, being an adult, I’m conflicted when I see other adults shipping canonically underage characters.

Personally, I know love is more than sex. But I can’t say that of other adults. It makes me feel bad to enjoy the adorable and fluffy side of shipping – the awkwardness, the blushing, the cute nature of it all – when I know there’s adults out there legit sexualizing underage characters.

The problem becomes more concerning when I see adults shipping someone underage with an adult character. This is straight-up grooming fodder, even if it’s not intentional.

I don’t have all the solutions for all situations, but I do know it’s on adults in fandom spaces to: 

• not sexualize minors, whether actualized or fictional
• not pair up minors and adult characters, period 
• make sure minors cannot easily access explicit images of adults from fandoms targeted at minors
• not draw sexually explicit images of canonically minor children

This is our responsibility as adults. 

Just because earlier generations harmed us, that doesn’t mean we need to set up the younger generations for the same.

Are Pigtails Rated G or NC-17?

For the first time in years, I put my hair in pigtails. I’ve always felt uncomfortable putting my hair into pigtails. (My abuser/ex always called them “blowjob handlebars,” so, you know, some baggage there.)

Either people were going to wrinkle their nose and tell me, “Ugh, you’re not six. You can’t pull off pigtails.” Or some gross fuckboy is going to guffaw about “handlebars” and eye me suggestively.

On the one hand, I’m made to feel I’m too old. For a hairstyle. (For reference, I’ve probably felt this way since I was 12.) On the other, I’m made uncomfortable, because some guy has to spew some sexualized bullshit. About a hairstyle that’s supposedly for kids.

So, are pigtails rated G or NC-17?

A Google search tells me I’m not the only person who struggles with the “to pigtail or not to pigtail” conundrum, either. Though most articles focus on the “pigtails are for children” issue.

And this is laughable. Is there a male version of this? Are there haircuts that men agonize over getting, because someone in public will titter or snark that it’s a little boy’s cut? That someone will eye them with disdain or some perverse look, because we all know what that hairstyle will get them in the bedroom. (Which sounds a bit rape culture-y, too.)

The closest I can think of is the “man bun,” which generally gets slammed with misogynistic and/or homophobic sentiments. (Can we just call it a “bun,” guys?) What does is mean when people harass men who express themselves with fashion, for no other reason than “it’s weird?” Toxic masculinity! Which is a result of the patriarchy and misogyny!

“If men express themselves with fashion, they’re no better than women, so they’re weak, like women! lololol” – The Patriarchy

Regardless, white men can wear hairstyles that they wore as young boys without much problem. Without being told they shouldn’t due to age. (Results may vary for men of color.)

For the most part, I think the greater part of my discomfort comes from the fact in the fact men have sexualized this hairstyle. Grossly enough, this goes hand-in-hand with infantilization. (for example: sexy schoolgirl costumes.)

Until today, I still felt adverse to pigtails – for myself – because of these internalized feelings about the hairstyle. Don’t let misogyny get in the way of enjoying a haircut or hairstyle – or anything, really – because patriarchy or its by-products (misogyny or toxic masculinity) shouldn’t be in charge of us.

(This post doesn’t apply to cultural appropriation issues, such as white people with dreads, bindis, Native American headdresses, sugar skulls/Dia de los Muertos, etc.)

President Trump Signs the Mandatory Organ Donor Act

On January 25^th, 2017, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that made it mandatory for American citizens to donate their blood and organs to those who need them. Especially in times of crises.

“It is a beautiful piece of legislation. Just beautiful,” said the president, during a press conference. “No more waiting around. Just, once a match is found, we slate for surgery and go. Efficient and quick. It’s going to save a lot of lives.”

Children as young as three are expected to be “mandatory donors.” Other restrictions – such as chronic illness, past sexual history, and other factors – may be decided at the state level.

Does this anger you? “I don’t want to donate my organs! You can just take my organs and blood against my will!”

Good, it should anger you. This sort of legislation would be a serious violation of bodily autonomy!

It’s in the same vein of violation as forcing pregnant people to remain pregnant, against their will.

“But the fetus would die if we allow abortions.” Cry the anti-choicers.

People will die if we don’t forcibly take blood and organs from people! That’s the argument for the MDA.

Birth Control and Comprehensive Sexual Education Lower Abortion Rates

We’re nearing an official week of Trump holding our highest office and, already, the legislation against abortion has been ridiculously high.

Ironically, this legislation is also targeting Planned Parenthood, which provides comprehensive sexual education and birth control. Those are two of the biggest contributing factors to lowering abortion/unintended pregnancy rates. (Which, by the way, abortion rates at at a record low.)

Denying People Abortions – When They Want Them – Is Bad

Decades of legal abortion make people forget the awfulness of illegal, back-alley abortion. People were desperate to terminate pregnancies. They used metal coat hangers and knitting needles to terminate the pregnancy themselves. They pumped chemicals into their body. They bled out in alleyways and hotel rooms, sometimes at the hand of a unqualified “surgeon.” (Those who bled out, left to die, aren’t going to be labeled as “victims of unsafe abortion” either. They’re going to be called victims of homicide.)

Needless to say, people who want abortions will be desperate to get them. And it makes sense. It’s their body. It’s their sovereignty over their body being denied. Mentally, emotionally, and physically, denying people their right to an abortion – when they want it – is detrimental.

Let’s not forget how debilitating pregnancy, by itself, can be. Even when it is a wanted occurrence. Pregnancy changes every facet of your being. Emotionally, mentally, and physically; it also affects you financially, since you need time off to give birth. If someone cannot deal with this, don’t force them.

Abortion Itself

Abortion is not evil. Abortion is not murder. It’s merely procedure meant to terminate a medical condition.

There is so much emotional discourse surrounding pregnancy, anti-choicers don’t want to allow the opportunity for choice. That’s wrong. Your emotions do not get to control someone else’s body. Yet you won’t acknowledge this, because you’ll ignore the death tolls of those who perform unsafe, back-alley abortions when safe abortions become unattainable.

The end of the discussion should be this: A person knows their limits. Let them make the choice they feel is the best for them. They may regret it in the future, but you can’t legislate against regret, otherwise you’d be legislating against freedom to date who you want and buyer’s remorse. They may not ever regret their abortion, either.

But if you do not allow them the choice, you will be doing more harm than good.

Final note: The Mandatory Donor Act is an “alternative fact.” In other words, it’s a farce. In this instance, it’s used for analogical purposes. Trump has not signed a Mandatory Donor Act.

Give Him a Chance; He Might Be a Good President!

The short answer: No. Absolutely not. Precedence and evidence has shown us Trump is not, and will not, be a good president. People who say that he has the potential to be have their head so far in the sand, their intestinal tract is filled with dirt.

But let’s go into details. (Though Trump doesn’t have to jump through hoops to prove his qualifications, his dissenters have to pull out receipts just to be taken seriously.)

Let’s Look At The Man Himself

No, not physically look at him. Let’s look at his actions. (A lot of these will be touched upon later on.)

He is racist. As if wanting to build a wall on the US-Mexico border and put all Muslims in concentration camps wasn’t an obvious indicator of this point, there’s tons of other examples. He’s racist against black people, against Native Americans, against Latinx, against Jewish people, against Asians. Not only that, but racists feel empowered with Trump in office.

He is homophobic. He wants to repeal the Marriage Equality act and he has one of the worst anti-LGBTQ+ advocates as his vice president. He removed LGBT rights from the White House website.

He is ableist. Don’t we remember how he made fun of a disabled man? The fact he wants the Affordable Care Act dismantled – though his back-up plan is still not released – will result is so much suffering in death of the disabled.

He is misogynistic and violent toward women. He’s grabbed women without their consent, criticized women on their looks, and even said he’d date his own daughter. Ugh… (More on this point later, though.)

And he is a opportunistic liar. He says what people want to hear in the here and now. It doesn’t matter what he said two days ago, all that matters is he has your attention and your admiration in that moment. He. Is. A. Liar.

The Company He Keeps

Let’s look at some of the people he has appointed to positions of power.

Mike Pence – Vice-President. This guy is an utter shitstain. Anti-LGBT and pro-conversion therapy (aka torture.) Climate change skeptic. Used political donations in 1990 for his own personal finances. Once described himself as “Christian, conservative, republican – in that order.”

Steve Bannon – this guy is an advisor to Trump. On top of all that, he’s also a Nazi (though hides behind the term ‘alt-right’) with an anti-Semitic website.

Betsy DeVos – appointed to head the Department of Education. Sister to Erik Prince, a literal ex-mercenary and Trump campaign adviser. Donated billions to his campaign. Anti-LGBTQ+. Has no clue how she’d handle the position.

Jeff Sessions – appointed to Attorney General, who heads the DOJ. Known for racist remarks against black people. Deemed too racist to be a federal judge in 1986.

Mike Pompeo – selected as director of the CIA. This guy is Islamophobic, pro-government surveillance (hello 1984,) pro-torture and doesn’t like women having the right to choose.

Rex Tillerson – selected for secretary of state. A CEO of ExxonMobil who has ties to Russia. While being CEO of ExxonMobil, it shouldn’t be a surprise Exxon is at fault for multiple oil spills, yet a big advocate against climate change.

Scott Pruitt – Environmental Protection Agency nomination. Climate change skeptic and ally to fossil fuels.

Suffice it to say, Trump has picked ignorant, awful, or just plain bad people for these positions. Plus there’s a dash of nepotism in there. But, hey, what do you expect from a guy who was trying to get security clearance for his kids?

Cut Off From the World

Let’s not forget the fact he just axed all ambassadors the day he got inaugurated. Which could leave 80 foreign policy ties hanging in a state of limbo for months.

These Issues Don’t Make Him Or His Colleagues Money

Not even a full 24 hours after his nomination, certain issues were removed from the White House website. LGBT Rights, Civil Rights, Heath Care, and Climate Change. Now, plenty of people argue that a prior president’s pages are moved to archives so a new president can place their issues in their own words. Bullshit on Trump, though. His team has had months to write up something for those issues. It also doesn’t bode well, since the Department of Labor removed the “advancement of LGBT rights in the workplace” from their website, as well. (EDIT: The LGBT resources have been reinstated on the Department of Labor’s website. Regardless, the fact they were taken off so quickly, right after Trump’s inauguration, are still troubling.

EDIT x2: And the PDF about advancing LGBT rights in the workplace is gone, now, but the rest of the resources seem to be intact.)

Yet, oh boy, we can sure check out Melania’s jewelry line. (Conflict of interest? Nepotism?)

Grab Them By The P*ssy

Remember the legal troubles Trump got into during his campaign? I’m not talking about Trump University, though the fraud does deserve note.

I’m talking about the sexual assault and rape allegations pitted against him. One of the cases alleges Trump raped a woman, when she was 13-years-old, in 1994. There’s various women taking him to court for sexual assault, right now.

His overall list of sexual assault and misogyny is much, much longer.

That’s not all for his foray into misogyny, though. Trump wants to cut funding for Violence Against Women programs.

According to the Department of Justice website, those grants funnel money to programs “designed to develop the nation’s capacity to reduce domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking by strengthening services to victims and holding offenders accountable.”

So, he’s going to make it harder for victims to get help and make it easier for offenders – who share so many qualities with him – to grab people by their privates (and worse) without consent.

The man is utterly disgusting.

One Person Does Not Equal One Vote

The CIA and FBI agree: Russia helped Trump get in the White House. Trump benefited from conservative gerrymandering of the lines, along with another troubling fact. This was the first election where the Equal Voting Rights Act wasn’t in full effect since it was enacted.

Regardless, we know Hillary won the popular vote by 2.8 million votes. That means 2.8 million more people wanted her, rather than Trump. The only other time when the electoral loser won the popular vote was in the Gore v. Bush election. Gore only won by 500,000 votes, though. 2.8 million is a huge anomaly and the fact Clinton “technically” lost is a travesty of democracy.

Censorship: A Fascist’s Best Friend

Trump is a huge proponent of curtailing criticism against him, also known as censorship! Which is common in fascism.

This is terrifying, just an FYI. Trump banned the National Parks Service from tweeting after it posted a picture comparing the size of Obama’s inauguration crowd compared to Trump’s crowd size. (Obama’s was bigger; it hurt Trump’s ego.)

The National Parks Service had to issue an apology when their “tweeting privilege” became reinstated.

Overall

He is in no way qualified to be President of the United States. He has multiple failed businesses. (I know you “but he’s a great businessman” apologists want to pull that out of your bungholes.) He’s a self-admitted sexual offender. He’s a puppet for Russia. He. Is. Not. Qualified.

Yeah, it’d be great if he turned out to be a great president, but we cannot ignore precedent and his sustained actions.

Past evidence has shown us he is misogynistic, hateful, bigoted, racist, xenophobic, a liar, an oppressor, ableist, a sexual assaulter, and lacks any decorum. And he aligns himself with people who are just as bad, if not worse.

Do not stick your head in the sand over any of this, because your wishful thinking and “ignorance is bliss” attitude will get marginalized groups killed.

If you’ve ever sat through a history class, listening to the horrors of genocides and slavery and lynchings; if you’ve ever thought “I’m not going to be on the wrong side of history,” now is the time to take a stand. Now is the time to be politically aware, to know what is going on in your government. Now, is the time to be critical.

Otherwise, you’re obstinately ignoring the terror that’s descending on marginalized groups and our nation, as a whole. You’re the people who enable oppressors to maim, hurt, and kill the oppressed with your determined ignorance. You’re quietly allowing the wrong side of history to remain in power.

If you remain silent and willfully oblivious, you are on the wrong side of history.

Deck The Halls With Misogyny

By now, I’m sure many of you have heard of, or seen, the latest craze: Misogynistic Family Photos for the Holidays!

As if misogyny wasn’t internalized enough, mail it to your granny this holiday season!

My snarky nature aside, I want to discuss in a light so many of you who may be confused to the rage over the photo will understand. These types of pictures aren’t simply about the misogyny, but about the messages you send the children who participate and see these images.

Let’s look at the photo that started this fire, shall we?

Why are the female family members the only ones bound and gagged? Clue: Starts with M and end with isogyny.

Here we have a family of five. A little boy, two younger girls, an older female (possibly an older daughter or a mother,) and a father.

At first glance, it’s supposed to be humorous. “Haha, the womenfolk are tied and gagged and the menfolk get some peace.” How cute! Right?

No. Absolutely not. Let me elucidate:

The image is inherently misogynistic. 

Why are only the females tied up? Why isn’t the little boy bound and gagged, as well?

Would it be too distasteful for the little boy to be restrained? Why, then, is it OK to give the same treatment to his sisters?

If you’re going to argue that boys are less chaotic, I have three words for you: HA HA HA.

Little kids, in general, are not the definition of peaceful. If this really was for the humor effect, there were plenty of other ways to evoke this. Why not have both adults hold the sign, while all of the children were restrained.

The image inherently promotes abuse. 

Or, better yet, why not take a photo where we don’t encourage binding and gagging anyone. There are better ways to be funny for the holiday family photo than to encourage abuse.

“Now, you’re just grasping at straws. This doesn’t promote abuse or hurt abuse survivors!”

Yes, it does. Abusers justify and take solace in the fact their “antics” can be laughed off while making victims the butt of the joke. If you can laugh off this image, you can laugh off actual abuse and victims. That’s how “legit” abusers will see this and that is how you contribute to domestic abuse. (This is why rape jokes encourage and help rapists while putting down victims.)

The image tells little girls their voice doesn’t matter.

This should be obvious, but the image is telling little girls – whether they realize it or not – that their voice doesn’t matter. This goes for all sorts of stereotypes for girls/women anyway.

The photo even goes a step further by making the act of talking so atrocious, so chaotic, that having to tape the girls’ mouths shut brings “peace on earth.” Which can translate to “you talk so much, you make so many problems just from having free reign, the whole of the world is in turmoil because of you.”

Maybe you don’t see it that way, but that is a message that will be taken away from this photo. Maybe kids won’t voice it – especially if you’re loudly decrying people being too sensitive in this day and age – but they will silently harbor the thought and carry it with them.

This point isn’t talked about a lot, but I also wanted to include this: The binding and gagging of underage kids is gross pedophilia fodder.  

This image – and many other holiday images depicting similar scenarios – will be passed around by pedophiles for this plain fact. Please, please realize this fact when coming up with “funny” holiday photos.

Don’t put your underage children in a position like that. Even if they think the idea if funny, their picture may be passed around by adults. Do you really want that?

In short, the image is gross, highly misogynistic, tells girls they’re a problem, and is – to an extent – pedophile fodder. Try to make your holiday family photos funny and not just problematic.

 

Clarification of Terms

One of the important things about discussions and debates is to clarify your terminology. Our language is always evolving and always changing, plus there’s gradients of meaning behind words. (For example, annoyed is not on the same level as enraged; being sad isn’t on the same level as being sorrowful;so on.)

So, let us clarify a few terms!

The Pregnant Person

Obviously, this means people capable of being pregnant. However, people who are able to get pregnant are not always women.

Trans men, intersex people, and non-binary people who are capable of getting pregnant. Please, remember this when discussing abortion!

Fetus

Despite many claims that the term fetus is dehumanizing, it’s really not. The fetal period exists from the 8^th week of gestation to birth. However, most people generally use fetus throughout the whole pregnancy.

Embryo

The stage before ‘fetus.’ Week 1 to 8 of gestation. After week 8, it’s officially a fetus.

Baby

This term can be an emotionally manipulative term to refer to a human fetus and/or very young human. Some people who have had abortions don’t mind the term baby, others do mind. The suggested action is to either ask or to keep it neutral. Once the fetus goes through the birthing process, it becomes a baby.

A fetus is not sentient, conscious, or aware of the world around it; babies are sentient, conscious, and aware of the world around them, even if they don’t process exactly as adults do.

Life

The important thing to remember when you use the word ‘life’ is the fact there’s a lot of different connotations. I’m going to break this down further:

Biological Life

Basically anything alive. Plants, animals, and bacteria are alive. Biologically, fetuses are alive. So, it is wrong to say fetuses aren’t alive. But, it’s very important to clarify that they are biologically alive.

Sentient Life

Sentience is important, because that is what we are eager to find in space. Sentient life. There are bacterium and little organisms (like water bears!) that can exist and live in the vacuum of space. However, bacteria and water bears aren’t sentient (as we know sentience.)

Sentience

This is the state of being aware, conscious, and able to interact with the world around oneself. For humans, we are hyper-aware from the moment we are born. We look out at the world and in at ourselves. It’s very difficult for humans to realize not everything, including fetuses, are sentient on our level.

Person/Personhood

In order to be a person, and have personhood, you need sentience (awareness, consciousness, interaction with the world around oneself.) For humans, you get sentience at birth, so from that point on, you can never be separated from your sentience and your personhood.

• At this point, people will begin citing genocide and slavery. Genocide and slavery were committed against born, sentient people, which is why genocide and slavery are tragedies and travesties. Fetuses are not born and they are not sentient. Therefore, abortion is not akin to genocide and slavery.

Person is not synonymous to ‘human’ in the abortion debate. You can biologically be a human, but not be a person. (Like fetuses or a body that is under the control of just a brain stem.)

Adversely, you can biologically not be a human, but be a person. India gave dolphins non-human person status. People are trying to get the same personhood status for Great Apes. So, no, you don’t have to be human to be a person.

Human

Biologically having human DNA. That’s it.

I may edit this if I feel the need to clarify other terms. But, for now, this is it.

What Is Darren Wilson Afraid Of?

Steering away from the abortion debate, let us discuss what’s happening in Ferguson.  More explicitly, Michael Brown and Officer Darren Wilson.

So, what is Darren Wilson afraid of?

“Vigilantes!” His supporters will scream, while accepting the fact that Officer WIlson acted as judge, jury and executioner for Michael Brown.

Let us break down some terminology:

(terminology assistance from here) 

• Homicide – the killing of one person by another person.  There is such a thing as justified homicide, ie homicide done in self-defense.
• Murder – unlawful/unauthorized killing of a person done with malice aforethought or intent to seriously harm or kill; reckless disregard for life.
• Manslaughter – (sometimes called third-degree murder) Unlawful killing without malice aforethought.  This is further broken down:
• Voluntary Manslaughter – The aggressor is provoked, under circumstances a “reasonable” person would be provoked, and kill in the heat of the moment.
• Involuntary manslaughter – The aggressor displays a reckless disregard for life, which results in someone dying.  (ex: vehicular manslaughter while under the influence.)

Now, let us break down what happened the day Michael Brown was killed. 

We know Dorian Johnson and Michael Brown were walking down the street.  Literally.  That’s why Officer Wilson pulled over and yelled at them to get off the sidewalk (or, in Johnson’s words, get the f**k off the sidewalk; according to “Josie,” Officer Wilson asked more nicely.)  The men ignored Officer Wilson’s demand, since they were close to home and they’d be inside in a second.

(At this point, I’d like to posit the fact that Officer Wilson was unaware of the robbery that Brown “met the description for.”  The store owners never reported a theft.  Regardless, the robbery doesn’t matter in the shooting, since officers are meant to apprehend, not execute.)

So, Officer Wilson reverses (this is agreed by both accounts) his car to confront them.  He tries to get out of the car.  Michael Brown either slams his door shut or Wilson drove too close to Brown and opens his door, just to have it rebound.  Either way, the door slams shut on the officer.  A struggle ensues through the cruiser window.  

The versions obviously differ; one saying Wilson was overtly aggressive and shooting Brown in the shoulder/chest region (which is in agreeance with the Dr. Baden’s autopsy of Michael Brown.)  The other saying Brown was overtly aggressive and attempting to get the gun, which discharged inside the cruiser (which I have yet to hear evidence in favor of this.)  

At this point, Michael Brown was able to get away from Officer Wilson and Dorian Johnson took shelter behind a parked car.  Thanks to an audiotape, verified by Glide and recorded by someone – who wishes to remain anonymous – in a nearby apartment complex, it sounds as if Officer Wilson shot at Michael Brown 6 times, paused and shot 4 more times.  That’s a total of 10 shots fired.

[ Why was Wilson so determined to catch Michael Brown?  Michael allegedly punched him in the face.  (Again, I have seen no evidence of this.)  However, if Michael Brown was running, it’s presumed that Officer Wilson could have called for back-up and lodged an incident report.  Instead, he sought to take the whole ordeal into his own hands and recklessly shot – in a community street – 10 times at Michael Brown. ]

Now, either Michael Brown was running away, stopped and turned with his arms in the air, a clear indication of surrender.  Or he turned and charged at Officer Wilson.  Multiple witness accounts support that he had his hands up (any following links that go to Wikipedia, please follow the various citations for their account:) Dorian Johnson, James McKnight, Piaget Crenshaw, Tiffany Mitchell, an anonymous witness who live-tweeted the event.

There are, of course, people who vouch for Officer Wilson and regale his side of the story.  However, I have yet to hear a witness, who was on the scene, who vouches for his side of the story.  The only eyewitness who claims Michael Brown charged at the officer was a bystander on this video, who gathered around the crime scene.

Now, let me reiterate: What is Darren Wilson afraid of?

He completely erased his online social media presence in the time it took police to release his name.  He has allegedly fled from his home.  He has yet to make an in-person account of what happened, yet he has dozens of people vouching for him in his place. (Second-hand accounts of events is not eyewitness testimony, however.)

If Officer Wilson sincerely feels what happened was justified, why does he hide?  If he’s afraid of vigilante retribution, he could go into protective custody.  We know the police department, and the whole cop community, support him.  So, keeping him safe and in custody, seems to be best for both the officer-under-investigation and those demanding an arrest be made.

However, Officer Wilson hides.  He doesn’t give up his freedom, in favor of safety.  He doesn’t give up his freedom, as a good show of faith that he will be found innocent.  He doesn’t give up his freedom and he hides.

I, personally, feel Officer Wilson is at fault here.  He shot 10 times at an unarmed individual.  The audio tape makes my stomach clench, since the officer paused before unloading more bullets.  At that point, either Michael Brown changed directions and started charging at the officer (which means Darren Wilson shot 6 times while Brown was fleeing) or Michael Brown was surrendering when Darren Wilson shot the last four shots.  Regardless of which story you choose to believe, Officer Darren Wilson misconducted himself, used excessive force and showed a gross disregard for another person.

At the end of the day: Officer Wilson killed Michael Brown.

The smart thing would be to take him into custody, for his safety and for the closure of the community.  He needs to be tried for manslaughter, if not outright murder.  If he truly is innocent, then that should hold up in court; he shouldn’t be running.

Let’s Agree to Disagree or It’s Just My Opinion!

I despise these statements in the social-political field. No, I will not agree to disagree when your beliefs ruin lives, hurt people or get voted into laws, because we choose to remain silent. No, opinions are not harmless.

You tell us to be quiet with the whole “let’s agree to disagree,” so our side doesn’t grow. Maybe on your tumblr, maybe on Facebook, maybe in real life. By saying “let’s agree to disagree,” you are saying “Shut up, I’m never going to change my opinion, because I don’t want to think about being wrong and I don’t want any of my followers/friends/our audience to hear your side.”

Eventually, we have a society like the image.  People afraid to question why their side is wrong or how to improve circumstances or society.  They just accept life as it is, especially if they’re in the privileged tier (see: White, Christian and/or Male.)

When the phrase ‘Ignorance is bliss’ arises in conversation, it epitomizes the people who say ‘Let’s agree to disagree.’ You don’t want to hear opposing views or facts, you don’t want to hear your points being demolished, you don’t want your worldview to be cracked, you don’t want to be wrong.

“My opinion is harmless.” No, no it’s not. Your opinion is made of words and words have illustrated thoughts throughout the ages. Thoughts become laws, both written and unwritten. Thoughts – stated from hate and vitriol – drive people to suicide; they make people feel so miserable and despised and like they’re so far in the wrong, they have no hope. Thoughts and harmful opinions ruin people’s lives.

Your “harmless opinion” is the root of why people cannot love who they want; why people cannot be who they want; why people are beaten or ridiculed because they “go against the norm;” why people are shamed into utter, painful silence; why people hate others, with such vehemence, they justify their violence against them.

Your opinion, when it is a vile opinion that takes away someone’s rights and happiness, is not harmless.

I’m sure it’s great to believe it’s harmless. That it’s the radicals that kill people of “alternative” orientations, genders or religions; not you. It’s the radicals that bomb synagogues, mosques or clinics; not you. It’s the radicals that track down abortion doctors and murder them, not you.

Guess what?

Your “harmless” opinion encourages them. Your “harmless” opinion fuels their drive. Your “harmless” opinion supports them.

You are just as much the problem as your violent radicals.

So, before you think about using those phrases, think about why you’re using them. Are you accepting you could be wrong? Or are you silencing the other side, so you don’t have to think about being wrong? Are you taking responsibility for your views? Or are you holding onto a “harmless” opinion that fuels the vengeful radicals?

Deadbeat Versus ProChoice

• For later: DMAB = Designated Male At Birth

“A man who doesn’t want to take care of a kid: Deadbeat Dad.

A woman who doesn’t want to do the same: Pro Choice.”

This rhetoric has been making its rounds again, so let us break down why this is flawed:

First: Anyone can be a deadbeat parent.

Men can be deadbeat dads.  Women can be deadbeat mothers.  These are people who have children and cannot, or will not, support them.

For example, a mother without custody is supposed to pay child support – but she doesn’t – and she doesn’t go out of her way to visit her child(ren).   This is a deadbeat mother.

Secondly: Biology

DMAB people cannot get pregnant.  They are at no risk of becoming pregnant, unintended or otherwise.  They will never be forced  with the decision to get an abortion, because they are not biologically capable of  becoming pregnant.  They may assist in making that decision with their lover, if it  arises, but DMAB people are not at the risk of unwanted pregnancy or having to  abort.

A person who chooses to abort isn’t being selfish, either.  They do not have the  money, the mentality, the time, the patience, the capability, the health…they  have a reason, whatever the reason.  Rather than taking on a pregnancy they  cannot handle, they choose to abort the fetus.  No, it’s not murder and yes, it is a  responsible choice.

Trying to draw an illusion to “deadbeat parents” and “people who opt for  abortions” is like trying to compare someone who drops their dog’s puppies off in the middle of nowhere and someone who takes care of the issue by aborting the litter.

Thirdly: “What about people who don’t want to be parents, but accidentally impregnate others?”

There are options for you and, fortunately, demanding abortion be abolished on basis of “fairness” is not one of them. You are fighting the wrong end of the problem by targeting those who can get pregnant  (and can get an abortion.)

If you don’t want children, you should be screaming for better birth control options for  DMAB people or ways to opt out of parenthood before the baby is born (like rescinding  your paternal rights.)  The former option stops the problem at its source; the latter  option would mean you get no right to see the child, no rights to claim the child as your  own, ever.

Either way, don’t make the abortion debate about people who will never have to fear  unwanted pregnancy or have to physically get an abortion themselves.

When Does Responsibility Come Into Play?

Contrary to popular belief, the choice to get an abortion is one made out of responsibility, not irresponsibility. 

First, let us define responsibility:

• the state of being the person who caused something to happen

Other than in cases of rape, people are responsible for having sex. No one is denying this. However, consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. Considering you can revoke consent to sex at any point before or during the act, you can do the same with pregnancy.

• a duty or task that you are required or expected to do

What’s the duty or task of a person who finds themselves with an unwanted pregnancy? Above all else, a pregnant person must take care of themselves.  Whether they continue the pregnancy or not, that’s what everyone tells a pregnant person: “Take care of yourself.”

If the best choice for doing so is abortion, than that is a responsible choice.

• something that you should do because it is morally right, legally required, etc.

What’s morally wrong about abortion? “It kills a life!” We kill bacteria and animals. Oh, it has to be a human life? Well, good thing we don’t support wars or the death penalty. …wait.

Morals are not universal; they change from person to person and situation to situation. What we should be concerned about it our responsibility to take care of ourselves.

We, first, need to take care of our physical, mental, and emotional health to be happy and healthy.  If that means needing or wanting an abortion, then so be it.  It is not selfish to put oneself before a non-sentient fetus incapable of feeling pain (until the third trimester, if not until birth.)  Individuals know their limits and their situations the best, not a stranger on the sidewalk or online.

Why do pro-life proponents find abortion irresponsible?

Abortion is irresponsible to pro-lifers, because it doesn’t take care of the non-sentient fetus.  When someone equates abortion to irresponsible, they believe: “The fetus’s mere existence matters more than the pregnant person’s needs or wants.  Taking care of the fetus is paramount, whereas taking care of the pregnant person is simply necessary for the fetus to live.”

Maybe they don’t think that, in so many words, but that’s essentially what it comes down to.

If all the available options are taking responsibility, what’s an irresponsible action? 

When the pregnant person knows they’re pregnant and does nothing about it.  They may have their reasons, but to carry a pregnancy – and even give birth – in secret puts themselves at major risk.  Complications could arise any time during the pregnancy, during labor or after labor.  Further, if they abandon the newborn somewhere unfit, it will suffer, unlike a fetus. (Note: There are fit places to surrender an unwanted newborn and if anyone reading this finds themselves in a situation where they must abandon a newborn, it’s urged to do so somewhere fit, like at a hospital.)

Not taking care of oneself and reckless abandon of a newborn are irresponsible choices in the face of an unwanted pregnancy.

Abortion is responsible.