Skip to content

8

A reader responded to my earlier article on women with a two part article. Below are my comments to the articles. If I have more, I will update. If a man thinks a woman invites rape through disregard of norms around keeping a low profile, he sure as heck can delete a less than complimentary comment on the article.

 

Thank you for sharing this article. Frankly, I think this has pretty much nothing to do with mine, but I'm glad it triggered the subject, because it is a comprehensive monument of the utter moral depravity of the average Indian male.

The overall impression I get from your article is that men find it fine to disrespect the personhood of a woman and that you find that normal and fine and a circumstance that women must deal with alone - as in conform or live with consequences. While I have no doubt that this is a widespread view, I seriously refuse to take responsibility for the lack of an editor between a man's dick and brain.

I'd say its your problem, because bullying, raping, abusing, demeaning anyone - man or woman is something that's luckily illegal - whether we enforce it adequately or not. Slut shaming is prevalent - true, but it is also not an ideal to aspire to. You seem content to live there. Frankly, I have only contempt for such views, but am fine seeing as how you have no authority over my life and are free to become whatever you aspire to.

It does creep me out that we remain a society where such thoughts may be freely chest thumped as some kind of insight.

Consider this dude, by your standards, a young boy had better learn modesty fast, because pedophiles exist, and since they are more powerful, the consequences are entirely the boy's to bear. Why have child protection laws? Why make them a special case? While you are at it, pliss to also ignore old people being killed by robbers. After all, robbers exist. If they can't manage their own security, they deserve to die, right? Or at least throw away all their tempting valuables.

They should be on par with an adult male of prime age. Defend or die. Luckily India is not a wildlife sanctuary... yet. Compute that.

The only other misfit in your monument is that you forgot to tell rapists to target the bold women who disregard these laws. Statistics say that women who appear quieter, less inclined to create trouble or publicly confront them are more likely targets of rape. Compute that too.

I find this utterly pukeworthy.

 

You may find this article interesting: Women’s clothing and social judgments

Please read:

http://www.thisisnotaninvitationtorapeme.co.uk/dress/

http://www.usu.edu/saavi/pdf/myths_facts.pdf

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=16393921&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=asking-for-it-name_page.html

http://pathwayscourses.samhsa.gov/vawp/vawp_supps_pg11.htm

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16885786

http://webs.wichita.edu/?u=police&p=/sexual_assault/

http://www.siue.edu/~jfarley/melanie.htm

26

Patterns of assumptions and stereotypes manipulate collective responses. Patterns based on things we refuse to acknowledge or even are aware of. "Strong man", "Caring mother", "damsel in distress", "hen pecked", "old coot", "shrew" and more aren't just common terms, they are common ways in which we see people and there are patterns. There are scales of gender, power and fear for everyone.

To see the astonishing impact for yourselves, observe a group discussion in any group - no matter how "equal". Observe when decisions are made. Sure, everyone is speaking freely, listening attentively, regardless of gender. But here is what you will see. It will be the voice of the powerful male in the group expressing an opinion, post which the matter will seem concluded. Consciously observing, as you are, you might even find really astounding moments, when most people in the group may disagree with him, yet they will be left accepting this conclusion. And no, it makes no difference if you point this out. They can't "stop" - you will STILL observe the same pattern.

There are many, many such ways where we can quickly get an understanding of what our unconscious beliefs are, from how they manifest. Specially visible when "logic" was actually going in another direction.

I'm not blaming men or anything. They are doing it as unconsciously as those following them.

Five predictions:

  • A woman will have to fight very, very hard to get her stand accepted as a decision, something a man will be able to shake with a careless word.
  • Observe who was the last person to speak in favor of a certain action before it got adopted, and you will know who holds the string of the group.
  • A single woman disagreeing in a group is likely to be ignored. A single man disagreeing in a group is likely to be convinced.
  • Women are cannon-fodder. In a high risk situation, a woman are likely to be the leaders, till more is known, and men takes over with "expertise".
  • When members of the group are speaking to a group, check their eyes to know who they are speaking to. Likely male.

You can tell the group you are observing them for these five things, and you will STILL be able to see them. Unconscious processes are, d'uh, not conscious. Can't be changed, only accepted, and they evolve if thinking changes. They can't be "acted out" - they are too spontaneous and all pervading. Once you see it, you'll see it everywhere, including yourself.

See who interrupts whom, who overrules whom, who may judge others without causing offense, and the map of power in any group of people is clear.

You can have an organization with the most women and with the most women speaking that is led by a man or a few men who have the last word. A notorious example to come to mind is the women's group Femen - that does nude or topless protests to draw attention to women's rights. Inspired and controlled by a man, femen does not accept protesters that don't fit their target body "look".

Countless political parties - even led by women at times fail to challenge problems faced by women when it comes to challenging male behavior. Sonia Gandhi had infamously responded with what seemed to be genuine anger when women workers of the Congress complained about sexual harassment within the party by leaders. From declaring that she would remove anyone found guilty to vanishing into the depths of everyone's memory has been a telling statement of how much power a woman can wield when it comes to wielding it against the male privilege.

Women are increasingly taking on more power in the world, and its a large scale observation you can make - becoming professional, influential, powerful, etc invariably accompanies many male influences - be it power suits, or coarser language. Increasingly, women are smoking - something that used to be a male thing. Short hair often coincides with increased "professionalism". Show me the liberated man who exercises his right to wear a skirt to work.

Quick Quiz: For a man to wear feminine clothing is an undermining of his mascilinity, so, for a woman to wear masculine clothing is.... what? Speak louder, I can't hear you!

I venture to say here, that somewhere in our minds, we associate the male with power and influence. Our so called liberation is also another subjugation by deeming the feminine not good enough in terms of betterment in life.

Think of all the women of power that you admire. Imagine them. What do you notice? Is it anything feminine? Or is it the successful integration of masculine traits?

Many women are deeply disturbed when I say this. They are the ones still fighting a failing struggle for their femininity. They still haven't pushed their instinctive responses far enough back in their mind to forget them altogether. Words like this make them feel a sense of helpless loss.

[From an email]

"All this struggle to become equals.... its false, isn't it? We are only struggling among ourselves to become better than other women at aping men."

Our gold standard is men. Ambitions of women empowerment begin and end with measuring them against men. Same rights, same privileges, same freedoms, etc etc. As though there is something to be envied about the largely insecure and increasingly incompetent male population these days.

I don't hate men. Love them in fact, but I don't believe they are paragons, and I am not blind to the emotional challenge to the whole masculine identity that "development" brings. They are as insecure as we are, because of these same facades. What we get overruled for, they get overburdened with. Everyone in over their heads. Low honesty. Lots of defensive judgments of others, particularly for being different. The problems happen when this inherent bias gets exploited to harm women because the odds then really get stacked against the women. Which is why, even when we are all humans, have emotions, feelings, etc the list of injustices against women for being women far outdistances injustices against men for being men.

A mistaken war of genders starts, where men oppose attempts to create space for justice by magnifying their own experienced suffering. this is as much an attempt to relate as feeling ignored, but it serves to sabotage the well being of women, because these objections too come with the bias heavily supporting the man's word. Hurt men feel victimized, and abusers enjoy the screen.

Other times, people mistakenly attempt to create justice by setting "equal" standards. This is of course trying to create for women, the "gold" standard of men.

In the times of my life when I was able to set my own standards of what would be good and right in my life, I achieved exceptional things. I led a nomadic life, I had affairs, I lived in the high Himalaya, bred horses, trekked in exotic lands, healed animals, I did all kinds of things men wouldn't have dreamed of. If my ambition was to arrive at that gold standard, I'd have missed out on a lot.

When our goals are our own, there is no insecurity, because they are real, meaningful, and look doable from where we stand, because they are measured in effort, not result. Our relationships prosper. No longer is another woman quietly measured in a race for power. No longer is a man someone to win the approval of.

Someone today called me a feminist. It is as appropriate as calling me an atheist. As a compliment, both are equally irrelevant, because they talk of things I'm not interested in. If it comes to being on the side of an issue, that is where I am. Normally? No.

A kind of enemy's enemy is my friend? No! I'm not against either God or Man. Let them do what they will. My purpose emerges from within me. I'm free.

By free, I don't mean that I never fall into this unconscious subjugation. Of course I do, like every other person, unless they grew on some island alone. By free, I mean that by acknowledging it, by accepting it, I free myself to unhesitatingly accept when I do it, and if it is dysfunctional, I am able to move on without feeling "wrong".

I find that men are often much more tuned to femininity than women are. Possibly because they are interested in women, and not men. In many ways men suffer this progress more, because they are the gold standard, but their world is increasingly cracked in many places. The overt, spectacular privilige of being a man, of receiving unquestioning service and nurture is eroding, but they are privileged still - only in ways that don't feel enough. They don't FEEL privileged. I have lost count of the number of men who speak less than happily about modern trends in thought for women, which is a caveman thought on a superficial level, but on an experiential level, there is little of the feminine self to gravitate to. In their words, I hear deprivation and abandonment under those sarcastic, defensive layers of protection of their vulnerability. What does it mean to be a man, if no woman with awareness of her womanhood is around?

And men are going through challenging times. Not only do the women do whatever they want, they wear whatever they want, get maternal leave without scolding, earn and contribute to household incomes as much if not more, are fine managing their kitchens, and can speak their needs easily. Their traditional role is changed, but the measures of self-worth remain and are increasingly taken to higher standards.

So here's the deal.

I am hoping for more freedom for women.. After being overtly suppressed for centuries, it is natural, but not necessary to spend another while quietly imitating in order to feel empowered.

Its like the Elephant, who as a calf was tied with a string and as an adult was perfectly capable of breaking the string, but believed that it was his limit.

Please note before you argue that village women suffer a lot, etc. This article is specifically speaking of women in a certain "development hit" environment, where their potential to celebrate the opportunities available to them is vastly undermined by the assumptions still caging them in. But the circumstances are certainly there.

2

We are hearing storied of police brutalities all the time. Human rights abuses by armed forces. Hideous crimes against women by their own families or random society. Abuses, murders and what nots. Journalists and activists being killed.

We analyze fault lines, debate solutions, apply some, and invariably all fails to create change.

One reason that comes to my mind is that we are always thinking in fragments. As though each problem area is an island independent of other factors. Then our action itself is polarized. Often along lines of politics, but it can be religion, location, class.... We have movements that surge, even win, but we are not able to "hold the terrain" that we win. They are sabotaged by those who wish, because like our thinking of the problem being an island, the solution is an island too - isolated, with few anchors to real life - easily toppled once the big noise dies. We remain futilely doing the one thing we know - making laws and becoming a police state in blind hope of a fix.

Today, an article in the Guardian calls India the fourth worst place to be a woman in. That is part of the picture. Another fragment. The full story includes that we are the largest democracy and second most populous country in the world. That isn't just about worst place for women, but that's a heck of a lot of women.

Our attitudes are primitive. While in theory we have accepted that women are "equals", practically, that only means we have stopped opposing routine actions by women, "allowing them to enter the world of men, as long as they know their responsibilities". Women on their part are becoming more like men to create minimal waves. Extraordinary achievement still meets prejudice. A woman in trouble still cannot hope for justice or support. And these primitive attitudes are everywhere. Its all linked. Might is right is so entrenched in our very lifeblood, that we cower in front of aggressive people, try not to make waves, exert our power to overrule others.... and see this as normal life.

So, the cops that are abusing people are born of us, they die within us. Also the Armed forces, corrupt politicians, vampire corporate monoliths, the woman burners, child molesters, murderers, and all kinds of abuse that "gets away" with what they do, because we "civilized people" are too civilized to get into a brawl over it. On the other hand, the Malad murders also show that it can be very dangerous for us to challenge wrongs without systematic support.

These things cannot be fixed by laws, or any other isolated action. They are already illegal. There are too many words spoken. Much clutter, no clarity. What we need is to find our own capacity to think, our pride in ethics, tolerance for diversity and unwavering insistence on the existing laws to be enforced uniformly.

I make an arguement in an earlier article, that we need to stop transferring problem officials. That article is about cops, but really anyone. Like anyone else in the country, a person unwittingly assisting murder should be prosecuted, not shuffled out of the limelight. Also corrupt officials and other troublemakers. Transferring is only a new blank slate to write garbage on and removal from any possibility to make amends. It lowers the risk of being caught with wrongdoing. It allows illegal actions to plague society.

Similarly, as society, we must examine happenings we come across and make conscious choices about our responses. For example, not interfering in a domestic conflict is also allowing abuse to continue - silence becoming support. We aren't "doing nothing" we need to see we are "allowing" at best and "enabling" more likely. It goes for everything. Whether it is ignoring someone bribing a cop, or paying a bribe yourself. Whether it is driving on beside the malnutritioned child on the street begging for a living, or putting her there on the street. Or you may be the cool executive planning an office outing and selecting a vendor who will give you a cut on the bill. Every time we act like nothing's wrong, we are reinforcing that "this is ok".

Think about that.

We need more voices engaged in the country, leaderless voices whose knowledge of what they should do comes from within. Anchored strongly in a vision - not pseudo messages like that's the truth, but speaking up that that is not the truth, and that is what we want. Changing everything we touch in the direction of what we'd like to see.

The reality is that we are nothing like how we advertise. The sooner we own that without shame, the sooner we can begin changing it publicly. Each and everyone of us.

8

Gity Yousafi speaks about the right of women to work as they wish, like men.

Women and men both of them have a special role in the society. Both of them have right to have their jobs that they want. It is their right no body can’t take it. But unfortunately in our society men took all the right from women they don’t let their girls and women work out side. Today it is the big problem in our society; men let their self and give right for their self to identify the job of women and limited jobs for them. For example when a girl study engineering, law or economic after finishing or graduating they want to get a job that they love and they study in their filed, but they faces with prevention of their families. They said it is not good for a girl to work as engineer or work in the court beside the men. You must be a teacher not more. Some of the girls try a lot to satisfy their families for works that they want some of them success but some of them have to accept it. It the problems of our people with their thoughts. I love my people and my country but I don’t love some of their thoughts and fanaticisms about women, I don’t know how they let their self to jail a woman in the house and don’t give them any right, or say you must do this and don’t do that, why? They are also human beside they are a woman, girl, mother, wife or sister they are human kind like others human they have their own right. It’s more happen in illiterate families.

Now a days people want to accept the women rights but their society and their thoughts don’t let them they must accept us as a human and give us all our rights if they don’t want to change, it is our job to change them. We also have power like men why we accept every thing that they say us. Now we see most of women try to get their positions if we see in our parliament, women are more than men it shows our abilities. We must never lose our self, no one come and gives our rights, and it is our job to get it. Because it is very important in our society and our future women must have a role beside the men, when we can make our society that both of us men/women work.

I hope one day I can see my country in peace with no war and violence.

(Gity Yosufi) Herat, Afghanistan

 

52

This article takes off from the previous one exploring the natural rights of children that are abused casually. So here, I am looking at schools. Let me say upfront that I am not “designing an overhaul” and I don’t believe I should. Public services should always be designed by consensus, hopefully with some input or observation of children.

The following isn’t intended to be a working model of education, but a set of goals that should be incorporated into planning one, if at all we ever get around to making so much effort when kids are “perfectly fine” in their tidy boxes. I use this space to share ideas that occur to me. I hope many minds will join in in precious contribution.

  1. The duration. Cut it to a third. Currently, we have three to four years of pre-school, kindergarten, etc before school, plus the ten actual years of school. That’s too much. If you want kids ready for college at fifteen, put them in school by ten, get them out by fourteen and give them a year’s break before further organized study. This has the added bonus of tripling the national educational capacity instantly. More on this later.
  2. Get rid of compulsions. If the school thinks something is important, and the child doesn’t, its time to get real, and like real life, negotiate. And suck it up and accept that things don’t always go our way if the child still doesn’t agree. In other words, they are people.
  3. Memorizing must be so minimized, that if it can be noticed, its too much. Instead, teach kids how to find out. How to reference knowledge, how to rig up their own research, how to question the knowledge and test it before accepting or not. How to disagree, without inhibition.
  4. Banish syllabus and subjects. Have classrooms loosely defined by what is happening in them and let the children be free to use them or not.
  5. Get totally rid of this good and bad. If you have bad students, please remove them from school and let them join whatever they are good at – even if it is watching TV all day. They have one life and don’t deserve to suffer our hang ups.
  6. Knowledge must not be seggregated. A snowflake being beautiful, cold, inspiring poetry, geometrically interesting….. should not be unrelated. This cannot be designed. You will have to get rid of subjects and dive into whatever the kids seem interested in. Which brings me to….
  7. Teachers should be facilitators. Once we get rid of the idea of limited information, the idea of a teacher becomes impossible to provide. No one can know everything about everything. Thus, the teachers must have skills that get the knowledge flowing rather than delivering the final word on something.
  8. Drop the idea that kids did “nothing”. Nothing is what brainwashed adults do. A quiet kid has gears turning in his head, a mischiefmaker is figuring out out of the box ideas that no one thought of, so that he can do his mischief. There is absolutely no reason to plan every inch of the time and space a child spends in the learning center. On the other hand, there is every need to offer a variety of things around what is enjoyed or considered interesting.
  9. Which brings me to… don’t limit learning. If your classrooms are by subject, there is absolutely no reason why people can’t take life memberships and/or to multiple schools or walk into a government school at whim. If they don’t have to attend everyday, they can, you know? What more perfect thing on a boring afternoon than to discover something astonishing? To hop across and check out what’s “happening”? Or, to continue on to their specialized colleges, but feel free to supplement it with more holistic learning in the center? It would be great for the kids to have diversity in learning partners. More real, more practical. If something specific doesn’t support it, that can always be protected.
  10. You understand of course, that from tiny, regimented, stingy parcels of learning, I’m talking of throwing the world open to kids. Of helping them learn whatever they want, as far as possible. No compulsory subjects, no lectures, unless the teacher is gung ho about something and the kids find it interesting enough to not walk out.
  11. There is absolutely no reason why basic education can’t prepare one for a future in agriculture or hairdressing, if it truly offers freedom of learning. That is the whole idea of basic, you know? Education now is ridiculous. The foundation for never finding out their real passions, because they are supposed to do all kinds of things and anyway, its highly likely that what you want to do cannot be described as one out of eight subjects – and thus kids actually have no idea what to do after their board exams. If this nonsense were working, by the time they hit the age of college, children would have had a fair grip on what it was they wanted to do, instead of saying, “Oh, if I get good marks, I’ll take science, or commerce if i can’t do that, or arts if  I get no admission for either.” This horrible predicament of theirs is because they are taught fantasy subjects, which have no reality with what they can envison anyone actually doing. They haven’t actually done anything that gives them an idea of if they want to do it a lot in the future. And no, they never had an ambition for memorization, and if they did, it would be something more spectacular, not something everyone “had to” memorize.
  12. The so called “B.Ed” variety degrees should be replaced by more practical psychology experience and skills of resourcing things. Nothing currently teaches that, so it will have to be designed. The actual learning expertise can come from anything ranging from a bunch of kids taking things apart and finding out for themselves, or a nuclear physicist volunteering an afternoon. Or from the tomes of textbooks of a bygone era to the internet or whatever comes next.
  13. school like this ought to actually be LESS expensive. Resources are really vastly scalable – there is no need to standardize – whatever is available, its unique, and real, and likely influenced by what kids wanted. This money should be not saved, but used to add resources and pay teachers really well. Teachers who become teachers because they couldn’t get better jobs should not be trusted with shaping the future of very precious people.
  14. Exams should be banned at the “end” of schooling. There is no end to learning, and there is absolutely no realistic way of assessing learning. Attempts to do so should be considered an insult to learning itself.
  15. But…. but, how do we put people in college? ENTRANCE EXAMS. If a child WANTS to do something, it makes sense to train for it and pass an exam certifying it. Colleges already have entrance exams. What difference does it make to them if the kids didn’t do other exams before that? Skills considered essential can be tested, and that is that. Let’s stop these anal routines, as though assessments are the whole point of learning.
  16. For jobs, it makes more sense to have entrance exams based on the actual work expected. An accounts job shouldn’t need the same skill set and marksheet as a receptionist, for example, as is the current scenario. Someone interested in numbers can learn really cool things with them and become a far more exceptional accountant than a garden variety “some of everything”, so actually, it is a grounding for far more intense specialization.
  17. It has the added benefit of dignity of labour. If there isn’t an educational norm that you can study commerce and become an executive with 80% marks and a receptionist with 60% marks, there is no shame in choosing what your heart is comfortable with, or becoming a driver or a nuclear scientist. A child choosing to attend school a couple of days a week and focusing more on the garage on the corner because he’s interested in race cars is LEARNING. Will be good initial work for that mechanical engineering entrance exam. If this child is not condemned, he may want to use the learning center to be able to calculate the power of an engine better, or learn the correct spelling of some term the mechanic used. Such things should be seen as apprenticeships rather than wasting time.
  18. I am not saying organize nothing and let kids go wild and be complacent because you don’t have to show any results. There is a difference between nurture and neglect, just as there is between nurture and prison. . Something like this would be more difficult on the teachers, BECAUSE they are supposed to deliver more. The world, instead of ten chapters.
  19. Also not saying that no lectures should be organized. I am saying that they should have a purpose other than ramming an essay into a child’s brain. They should be free for anyone to learn from, not just one group of people doing it whether they want or not. A lecture designed for the sixth grade shouldn’t disallow anyone wanting to attend it, nor should it disallow a sixth grader from leaving, but there will have to be a target audience in designing it, of course.
  20. Obviously, this isn’t something that would work out of the box. For one, even if this idea were adopted, a transition would have to be worked out. This idea would have to be refined further. But that a basic education ought to be good enough to set many people up for basic jobs without having to do anything further exotic. A basic education ought to create a foundation for learning, which can be applied in any sphere of life, and a love for knowledge, which goes beyond proving worth in exams. It ought to give the children enough of a sampling of what happens in different kinds of work so that they have a fair idea of what they really want by the time they hit the age of eligibility for college. And no, you ambitious parents, this shouldn’t be an opportunity to lower the entrance age for college.

Ok, I’ll stop here, because again, the article must go on, but you get the idea. Measuring people, demeaning them, limiting their learning is not necessary at all.

~*~*~ Fun Break ~*~*~

A bubble of pure water without soap added – impossible on earth, because, in zero gravity, the film of water doesn’t collapse under its own weight. Syllabus? Everything from surface tension and gravity to forces shaping objects to the nature of a scientist’s mind or the beauty of bubble itself or how do they design the shuttle so that it doesn’t leak or collapse? A million learning conversation possibilities….. or…. we aren’t in space. Which brand of soap will make best bubbles? Or…. on earth, could zero gravity be “rigged” to make this possible? One interesting thing leads to a lot of thought. Thinking is going to get someone figuring out black holes or the latest laundry detergent patent.

~*~*~Ok, back to the topic~*~*~

This is a vision. An ideal. I share it, but there is little hope in me that the world we have has the guts to face raw learning. However, there are a few suggestions I have, that can be implemented, and MUST be implemented. If you have a child, or are a teacher ethically responsible for the harm of school, or are even more introspective and realize that we are responsible for the wrongs we allow to happen unchallenged, you MUST fight tooth and nail for these.

  1. Asking children to take complaint notes about them by their teachers to their parents should be declared a crime. High quality abuse. Enough humiliation already. Its the teacher being paid to make this teaching thing work, not the child. If s/he cannot handle the child, they have choices. Ideally, beginning with another job, but at the very least calling up the parent her/himself and not bullying a child into carrying demeaning words about themselves between people. Or even good words. A child is not a courier for gossip about itself.
  2. Design engaging and “cool” knowledge sharing. Encourage trying things out, based on the learning theme.
  3. Parent-Teacher meetings, staff meetings, etc must be totally open to whichever child wishes to observe them, possibly they can get permission to address the group if they have something important that they want to share. In any case, they must have the RIGHT to know what are the processes around them.
  4. Memorizing needs silence. Learning needs engagement. Engagement is frequently noisy. Noise must not be discouraged. In fact, I go ahead and say that if a teacher can get a class chattering excitedly, they are learning. Teachers MUST receive training on non-violent communication.
  5. Uniforms should be replaced by dress codes, which should be sufficiently tolerant of the intended age and context. There is no two ways around this. Just imagine this. The boss lining up all the women showing cleavage and telling them to “dress better”. Lawsuits would fly. What makes you think that a child is less bothered by being paraded for having untidy clothes? Trust me, just get rid of this shit. If they join the Army, they’ll figure it out fast enough. If they end up working in a place with such rules, they will be doing it out of choice and for a reason. Don’t just randomly fuck with their dignity like this.

I am, like the earlier article, leaving out the “obvious and accepted wrongs”. Use your brain. If I’m holding things up with such integrity, it goes without saying that children being punished and beaten and so on is out. Just out, unless the teacher is cool with being caned in front of the class for being such an insensitive ass. That’s it.

Note: Rather abrupt, but I don’t have it in me to polish anything. Too heartfelt. Maybe later, so you may want to return to this article in the future, which is  a good idea for any article of mine you like, because I have zero publishing ethics. I change them, update them, and in general keep making them better if something occurs to me. I will also do the italic/bold thing, so that quick scanners get all the importantest words at least. Later. Now, I must stay with this feeling of talked out. When I wrote A new look at child abuse, I had planned it as a two article thing. The second article to contain a vision and possibilities. After the article finally wrote itself, and I read it a few times, I realized that it was too long. And it still didn’t allow me the space I needed without risking people running away just at the length of the page. After all, an idea unspread is a tree that fell unseen, unheard. So this thing is snowballing. The three sections will have their own follow ups of alternatives. And if at all anything remains left in me to write, I’ll see. But I’m not leaving go of this subject.