In this country and in many parts of the world, our cultures and societies have told us that women aren't to be trusted.
We've not been trusted to elect our government representatives. We've not been trusted to hold a job outside the home, or to hold a job while simultaneously being married. We've not been trusted to own property, but rather, upon marriage, became property. We've not been trusted to choose our own life partners. We've not been trusted to stand in a pulpit and preach the word of God. We've not been trusted to speak our minds, to be artists, to be politicians. We've not been trusted to make decisions.
After all, Eve ate the apple. Pandora opened the box.
We are stupid, silly creatures who cause trouble when left unsupervised.
And we keep getting pregnant when we don't want to.
I did some research into why it is that women get pregnant WAY more often than men. As it turns out: MEN CAN'T GET PREGNANT. They can have sex 75 times a day, 365 days a year, for 75 years and they will NEVER, EVER become pregnant. Not once. Who knew?
But, still, why is it that so many women are having unplanned, unwanted pregnancies? Sure there are the cases of rape and incest, but those only account for a relatively small percentage. Don't the rest of these women use birth control? Even if they do, the failure rate is, at best, 2% (with IUD) which gives women a 1 in 50 chance of getting pregnant even with the BEST birth control method used 100% properly 100% of the time. So if a woman has sex an average of once a week, she's got a shot at getting pregnant once a year. The failure rate rises with the use of hormonal contraceptives (the pill, patch, ring, etc.) and rises even more with barrier methods (condoms, diaphram, cervical cap, etc.).
*NOTE: I do not intend to entertain the notion of abstinence in this post. We all know that one cannot get pregnant if one does not have sex, but I'm guessing most people will have sex in their lifetimes.
According to the Guttmacher Institute:
"The average woman must use some form of effective contraception for at least 20 years if she wants to limit her family size to two children, and 16 years if she wants four children."
Ponder that for a moment.
What that statement is telling us is that even if we use contraceptives for 20+ years, we're still probably going to get pregnant at least twice.
Those are bad odds if you don't want kids. And also bad if it means you can't necessarily CHOOSE when those pregnancies will occur. Not to mention how much worse those odds get when you consider that there are many women who
A. Are allergic to latex.
B. Experience serious physical side affects arising from both hormonal contraceptives and IUD.
C. Experience serious psychological and emotional side effects from hormonal contraceptives.
D. Have little or no access to birth control due to financial problems or availability, or simply were never given the information on how to obtain or use such preventative methods.
Even with all those numbers stacked up against us, you'll be happy to know that a great number of those unwanted pregnancies grow up to be delightful "surprises" or who find themselves in wonderful adoptive homes. However, another great many go on to become the victims of their unwantedness: abused, neglected, NOT adopted into loving "forever homes," but rather shuffled through a struggling, underfunded foster-care system (did you know that the average age of the American homeless person is NINE?).
And then there are still a great many who never get born--this, at their mothers' discretion.
This is a decision that mothers should not only be able to make, but should be TRUSTED to make.
Why? Because it's HER body. It's HER life. YOU don't know what is going on in her life to lead her to make that decision, and frankly it's none of YOUR business.
Maybe she's engaged to be married. Maybe on the same day she found out she's pregnant, she also found out that her fiancé is engaged to someone else, too.
Maybe her community would shun her so badly for being pregnant out of wedlock that abortion would actually be safer.
Maybe she already has children. Maybe she is treading a fine line of poverty and knows that another child would put her family on the street.
Maybe she got pregnant the first time she had sex. At fifteen.
Maybe she's in an abusive relationship with the father.
Maybe she has a terminal illness that she would pass on to her child. Or maybe the father does.
Maybe she has an illness that would be so complicated by pregnancy that it would kill her AND the baby.
Maybe she wants children when she's older and the idea of giving her child away breaks her heart.
Maybe she has a substance abuse problem she doesn't trust herself to be able to kick in time to save the child from the damage it would inflict.
Or maybe she just doesn't want children at all.
Whatever her reasons, they are HERS. NOT YOURS. Women are not here to be controlled.
HEAR THIS NOW:
WOMEN ARE NOT PROPERTY OF THE STATE.
Do you hear me Georgia? Where they not only want to make abortion illegal, but also miscarriages. Where they want to close ALL abortion clinics.
WE ARE NOT YOUR BABY-MAKING SLAVE-FORCE.
Do you hear me, Texas? Where they want to require a waiting period and a sonogram before a woman can receive an abortion, and where they want to limit abortions to only in the cases of rape or incest.
WE WILL NOT BE TERRORIZED.
Do you hear me, South Dakota? Where they want to require a 3 day waiting period and "spiritual counseling." Where they want to make the murder of an abortion doctor legal, under the guise of self defense.
WE ARE NOT YOUR MISGUIDED SHEEP.
Do you hear me, Indiana? Where they want to require abortion providers to dispense FALSE information about a debunked theory linking breast cancer to abortion.
WE ARE NOT STUPID.
Do you hear me, U.S. House of Representatives? Who are trying to strip all funding to Planned Parenthood (including funding for birth control outreach and education, STD testing, cancer screenings, etc.), who are trying to redefine rape as something that would only be legitimate if the victim was visibly physically battered, and who are trying to make it so that insurance would not cover birth control, thereby giving the right to hospitals to deny abortion even in the case of saving the mother.
WE WILL NOT BE BEATEN INTO SUBMISSION.
We women pay taxes, too. We fund half of your billions-of-dollars military wars. We will NOT fund your war on us.
Do you hear me?
WE WILL NOT LET YOU TAKE OUR FREEDOM.
Monday, March 14, 2011
Friday, March 11, 2011
War on Women. Part 1: Let's Talk About "Rape Culture"
Yes, those are scare quotes I put around "Rape Culture," because I believe that term to be a misnomer. I'll get to that in a minute.
The phenomenon labeled "Rape Culture" was originally termed "Rape-Supportive Culture," which I find more appropriate, but not perfect either. I don't know when "supportive" got dropped, but it was sometime between the first time I wrote on the subject about fifteen years ago, and now.
For those unfamiliar with the concept, Rape Culture is a culture which at least subconciously, if not unconsciously, makes sexual assault (on women specifically) seem excusable, acceptable, and expected.
The recent news article printed in the New York Times about the gang rape of an 11 year old girl by eighteen males ranging in age from middle-schoolers to a 27 year old, is a shining example of what is described as Rape Culture. The article makes mention of how the young girl presented herself : "They said she dressed older than her age, wearing makeup and fashions more appropriate to a woman in her 20s. She would hang out with teenage boys at a playground...."
The article goes on to print community accusations of the girl's mother and her perceived lack of parenting skills: “Where was her mother? What was her mother thinking? How can you have an 11-year-old child missing...?”
The New York Times also felt the need to print only this community response to the attackers: “These boys have to live with this the rest of their lives.”
Now, whether this was shoddy reporting on the part of the New York Times, a serious case of denial happening in Cleveland, Texas, or a combination of both, one can't be sure. What we can be sure of however, is that the same old song is being sung here:
That 11 year old girl asked to be gang-raped. She dressed inappropriately and hung out with older boys. And her mother is to be blamed, too.
Why?
Because boys will be boys. Men have needs. And any other cliché you can conjure.
Now, on to the imperfection of the concept of "Rape Culture" itself. I do not disagree or deny that this cultural phenomenon exists. However, I perceive sexual assault (of women in particular) to be a symptom of a much larger cultural problem: Sexual Oppression.
Sexual Oppression of women in our culture is historic and pervasive. Women are taught from an early age what they should look like and how they should act--most notoriously that we should say "no" when we really mean "yes." When it comes to sex, we are taught to lie.
On the playground the boys chase us and pull our hair. They snap our training bra straps and playfully wrestle us. We are told that this is flirting. And I believe this to be true.
Little girls respond by squealing, running away and hiding, yelling "no, no!" We are told that this is also flirting. I also believe this to be true.
Fast forward 10, 15 years and put that little girl in a bedroom with that little boy, maybe at a party, maybe with a few beers, and therein lies the problem. He gets aggressive. She tries to get away... Hey, I thought that was flirting?
So we lie. And then sometimes, we don't. When we don't, we are sluts. And sluts are bad. So we either don't get what we want, or we get what we want and are shamed because of it, or we get what is coming to us because we deserved it. Lose, lose, and lose.
From our homes to our media to our government (more on that in Part 2), women are being seriously shortchanged on the sex front. We women bear the brunt of the responsibility in rearing humankind, yet are forcibly stripped of the very tools needed to promote our species with pride.
I was raped when I was seventeen. Prior to that I had been what some people would call "promiscuous." I was just having fun, checking out this thing called sex. I did not want sex that night. I said "no" repeatedly. I struggled. But I was already a slut, a big scarlet S on my sweater.
If only I could have been thought of as another human. Unfortunately, "slut" sticks.
But that shouldn't have been an excuse then, and never should be an excuse in the future.
You think what I'm wearing is sexy? Thank you. No, I am not going to have sex with you. Good night. [End Scene]
Everyone should have the right to have sex. But YOU don't have the right to have sex with EVERYONE and EVERYONE does not have the right to have sex with YOU. Say "yes" when you mean "yes" and "no" when you mean "no." And have the respect to honor your partner(s) either way.
How fucking simple is that?
The phenomenon labeled "Rape Culture" was originally termed "Rape-Supportive Culture," which I find more appropriate, but not perfect either. I don't know when "supportive" got dropped, but it was sometime between the first time I wrote on the subject about fifteen years ago, and now.
For those unfamiliar with the concept, Rape Culture is a culture which at least subconciously, if not unconsciously, makes sexual assault (on women specifically) seem excusable, acceptable, and expected.
The recent news article printed in the New York Times about the gang rape of an 11 year old girl by eighteen males ranging in age from middle-schoolers to a 27 year old, is a shining example of what is described as Rape Culture. The article makes mention of how the young girl presented herself : "They said she dressed older than her age, wearing makeup and fashions more appropriate to a woman in her 20s. She would hang out with teenage boys at a playground...."
The article goes on to print community accusations of the girl's mother and her perceived lack of parenting skills: “Where was her mother? What was her mother thinking? How can you have an 11-year-old child missing...?”
The New York Times also felt the need to print only this community response to the attackers: “These boys have to live with this the rest of their lives.”
Now, whether this was shoddy reporting on the part of the New York Times, a serious case of denial happening in Cleveland, Texas, or a combination of both, one can't be sure. What we can be sure of however, is that the same old song is being sung here:
That 11 year old girl asked to be gang-raped. She dressed inappropriately and hung out with older boys. And her mother is to be blamed, too.
Why?
Because boys will be boys. Men have needs. And any other cliché you can conjure.
Now, on to the imperfection of the concept of "Rape Culture" itself. I do not disagree or deny that this cultural phenomenon exists. However, I perceive sexual assault (of women in particular) to be a symptom of a much larger cultural problem: Sexual Oppression.
Sexual Oppression of women in our culture is historic and pervasive. Women are taught from an early age what they should look like and how they should act--most notoriously that we should say "no" when we really mean "yes." When it comes to sex, we are taught to lie.
On the playground the boys chase us and pull our hair. They snap our training bra straps and playfully wrestle us. We are told that this is flirting. And I believe this to be true.
Little girls respond by squealing, running away and hiding, yelling "no, no!" We are told that this is also flirting. I also believe this to be true.
Fast forward 10, 15 years and put that little girl in a bedroom with that little boy, maybe at a party, maybe with a few beers, and therein lies the problem. He gets aggressive. She tries to get away... Hey, I thought that was flirting?
So we lie. And then sometimes, we don't. When we don't, we are sluts. And sluts are bad. So we either don't get what we want, or we get what we want and are shamed because of it, or we get what is coming to us because we deserved it. Lose, lose, and lose.
From our homes to our media to our government (more on that in Part 2), women are being seriously shortchanged on the sex front. We women bear the brunt of the responsibility in rearing humankind, yet are forcibly stripped of the very tools needed to promote our species with pride.
I was raped when I was seventeen. Prior to that I had been what some people would call "promiscuous." I was just having fun, checking out this thing called sex. I did not want sex that night. I said "no" repeatedly. I struggled. But I was already a slut, a big scarlet S on my sweater.
If only I could have been thought of as another human. Unfortunately, "slut" sticks.
But that shouldn't have been an excuse then, and never should be an excuse in the future.
You think what I'm wearing is sexy? Thank you. No, I am not going to have sex with you. Good night. [End Scene]
Everyone should have the right to have sex. But YOU don't have the right to have sex with EVERYONE and EVERYONE does not have the right to have sex with YOU. Say "yes" when you mean "yes" and "no" when you mean "no." And have the respect to honor your partner(s) either way.
How fucking simple is that?
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Why you gotta make us beg?
This is just a quickie.
I'm on vacation in a tropical paradise concerning myself with the following first-world problem:
Updating my various social networking feeds, reminding my followers to vote for my projects in the local paper's reader's poll.
While I appreciate the recognition from the press, the fact that I feel like I have to beg for votes makes me a little ill.
And why do I feel like I have to beg for votes? Because if I don't spam my followers daily with reminders, like many of us do, then I may lose a nomination. And frankly, I would prefer if my work were judged for its quality and by how much it entertained its fans, rather than how diligent I am in my social network. I do not live to tweet. And I certainly don't tweet to live.
So, that said, I hope that when these "elections" arise, as they so often do, that you do indeed take the time to vote for your favorite taco, your favorite nail salon, your favorite band, your favorite yoga studio. For a lot of entrepreneurs and artists, a nomination in these polls can bring about the kind of attention we need to continue in our successes. And it helps us to know that you really really like us.
We don't like begging for votes, and it's not our fault, really, what with the whole "you can vote once a day every day for 6 weeks from each of your email addresses/IPs so that all the potential nominees will spam you once a day and drive you to our website once a day" strategy.
If you're a follower of mine, I suspect you know what I produce and in what categories to nominate my productions, if you deem them worthy of recognition.
Thank you for your support and your time and your ear/eye. This is my last piece of voting spam, then I'm going back to the beach. Sending sunshiney vibes up north...
Excess and Ohs,
Sugar
I'm on vacation in a tropical paradise concerning myself with the following first-world problem:
Updating my various social networking feeds, reminding my followers to vote for my projects in the local paper's reader's poll.
While I appreciate the recognition from the press, the fact that I feel like I have to beg for votes makes me a little ill.
And why do I feel like I have to beg for votes? Because if I don't spam my followers daily with reminders, like many of us do, then I may lose a nomination. And frankly, I would prefer if my work were judged for its quality and by how much it entertained its fans, rather than how diligent I am in my social network. I do not live to tweet. And I certainly don't tweet to live.
So, that said, I hope that when these "elections" arise, as they so often do, that you do indeed take the time to vote for your favorite taco, your favorite nail salon, your favorite band, your favorite yoga studio. For a lot of entrepreneurs and artists, a nomination in these polls can bring about the kind of attention we need to continue in our successes. And it helps us to know that you really really like us.
We don't like begging for votes, and it's not our fault, really, what with the whole "you can vote once a day every day for 6 weeks from each of your email addresses/IPs so that all the potential nominees will spam you once a day and drive you to our website once a day" strategy.
If you're a follower of mine, I suspect you know what I produce and in what categories to nominate my productions, if you deem them worthy of recognition.
Thank you for your support and your time and your ear/eye. This is my last piece of voting spam, then I'm going back to the beach. Sending sunshiney vibes up north...
Excess and Ohs,
Sugar
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Cumpulsory pre-blog blog. The Why.
I have started at least three or four blogs in the past four years. And by "started" I mean I registered to start them, and never actually wrote anything.
Like other social networking tools--Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, etc--I always feel like these are forums for people to just blather their thoughts out into the universe in hopes that someone (please?) will listen. Always feels a little pathetic at the start.
I'm always slow to get on the newest social network bandwagon. I've primarily done it to promote my businesses and my art (the one blog I own which has any content on it is for The Slutcracker--and I admittedly hire other people to manage it). But I can't deny that I have engaged in very thoughtful discourse via the cyber social network...and said discourse often leads to further face-to-face discourse. So for that, it is certainly worth it.
So why a blog? I suppose for no other reason than that every now and then I have a bit more to say than will fit in a status update, be it a short story, a monologue, a poem, a letter to the editor, etc., which up 'til now I have shared as notes or "blogs" on Facebook or MySpace. I may eventually decide to archive those all here. We'll see how motivated I get.
The purpose of this blog? I realize many blogs have dedicated subject content. This here blog will just serve to spew out random noise that is swirling around in my brainhole (you're welcome, Aaron). If someone reads it, great. If someone likes it great. If not, I'm OK with that. I have no problem admitting that this blog is primarily self-serving in that it's a forum for me to blather my thoughts out into the universe. And I'm OK if they never land anywhere.
So there you have it. My first for-realsies post is in the works. Feel free to to read it once it's up, or not. No offense taken either way.
Excess and Ohs,
Sugar D
Like other social networking tools--Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, etc--I always feel like these are forums for people to just blather their thoughts out into the universe in hopes that someone (please?) will listen. Always feels a little pathetic at the start.
I'm always slow to get on the newest social network bandwagon. I've primarily done it to promote my businesses and my art (the one blog I own which has any content on it is for The Slutcracker--and I admittedly hire other people to manage it). But I can't deny that I have engaged in very thoughtful discourse via the cyber social network...and said discourse often leads to further face-to-face discourse. So for that, it is certainly worth it.
So why a blog? I suppose for no other reason than that every now and then I have a bit more to say than will fit in a status update, be it a short story, a monologue, a poem, a letter to the editor, etc., which up 'til now I have shared as notes or "blogs" on Facebook or MySpace. I may eventually decide to archive those all here. We'll see how motivated I get.
The purpose of this blog? I realize many blogs have dedicated subject content. This here blog will just serve to spew out random noise that is swirling around in my brainhole (you're welcome, Aaron). If someone reads it, great. If someone likes it great. If not, I'm OK with that. I have no problem admitting that this blog is primarily self-serving in that it's a forum for me to blather my thoughts out into the universe. And I'm OK if they never land anywhere.
So there you have it. My first for-realsies post is in the works. Feel free to to read it once it's up, or not. No offense taken either way.
Excess and Ohs,
Sugar D
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Civilized Musings from a Wild Animal
Your daughter is a wild animal. So is your fiancée. And your bartender. Your favorite ballplayer, your landlord, your second grade teacher, your priest--all of them, wild. Your senator. Your parents, too.
And so are you.
And me. And the Fantastic Mr. Fox.
"Nay!" you cry, pinky out, sipping on Earl Grey. "We are but civilized!"
Yes. Civilized. Which means we have laws and we have manners. Both are self-imposed.
Sometimes we lose our manners. And sometimes we break laws. Wilderness is not safely bound by Civilization.
Concerning the events of the last week--Jared Loughner's attempted assassination of Congresswoman Giffords and the subsequent 19 casualties, and the ensuing public puzzling over "why?"--consider this: Jared Loughner is a wild animal who lost his manners and broke some laws, neither of which were imposed by him.
His particular case involved "senseless violence." The behavior of a "deranged" and "disturbed" individual.
Now switch from the news to a nature program and watch as a gentleman with an exotic accent narrates the thoughts of the simple minded creatures on your TV screen. We see two animals fight to the death--and not for food, mind you. Perhaps it was territorial--justified for "wild animals" and justified in war. Perhaps it was in self-defense or in defense of the herd--justified for "wild animals" and in defense of oneself or one's family. Or perhaps, perhaps the attacking "wild animal" was alone and terrified, with no perceivable reason to attack other than it was scared. Is that wild animal deranged? No. Because that "wild animal" is not expected to have manners.
When are we most prone to act violently (physically, verbally, or otherwise)?
When we feel threatened.
When do we feel threatened?
When we are scared.
When are we most scared?
When we are alone.
Jared Loughner was alone. And terrified. And for whatever reason, he felt the need to attack his local public servant. Or perhaps there was no reason, other than that he is a wild animal who acted on very basic primal instincts. Perhaps even he doesn't really know his motive. How often do we do something or say something without any sense of control?
"Why did you do that?"
"I don't know. I wasn't thinking."
"Why did you say that?"
"I don't know. It just came out."
And then there are all the times that we think or dream horrible horrible things, things we can't ourselves even believe, and thankfully, most of us don't act on them most of the time.
We are wild animals, unpredictable, even to ourselves. Maybe some of the wilderness has been bred out of some of us more than others. Maybe our individual "wild-streaks" are unique to our genetics. Or maybe, like many wild animals, some of us are better at being domesticated. Some of us make better pets.
The one true thing that separates the human species from the rest of the animal kingdom is our deeply indoctrinated belief that we are superior.
I'm sure this sentiment precedes Biblical literature, and the sentiment certainly exists outside of religious doctrine, but a great example of this admission is this:
Genesis 1:26 (King James)
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."
This line of thinking has led to the most horrible atrocities committed in the history of this planet. Air pollution. Genocide. Deforestation. Enslavement. Oceanicide. All in the name of "civilization."
But what if that sentiment read more like this:
"Let man be one with the earth, like the fish of the sea, like the fowl of the air, like the cattle, and like every other creeping thing that creepeth on the earth."
Because we are not better than the fish of the sea, the fowl of the air, the cattle, or any other creeping thing that creepeth on the earth. Nor are we better than the earth. Or one another.
Nonetheless, the vast majority of humans believe themselves superior. And how do we prove we are superior? We pledge to stop acting like wild animals. We practice manners and create laws to enforce the practice of manners.
But sometimes, sometimes we can't help it. Sometimes we are just animals. And then we are punished. And kept in cages. Because humans have been granted divine dominion over the animals.
Humans are animals
Humans have been granted divine dominion over animals
Therefore
Humans have been granted divine dominion over humans.
Jared Loughner might be inclined to agree.
Am I suggesting we should all start acting like wild animals?
No.
I'm saying we don't have a choice.
I am a wild animal. And so are you. And the Fantastic Mr. Fox.
And so are you.
And me. And the Fantastic Mr. Fox.
"Nay!" you cry, pinky out, sipping on Earl Grey. "We are but civilized!"
Yes. Civilized. Which means we have laws and we have manners. Both are self-imposed.
Sometimes we lose our manners. And sometimes we break laws. Wilderness is not safely bound by Civilization.
Concerning the events of the last week--Jared Loughner's attempted assassination of Congresswoman Giffords and the subsequent 19 casualties, and the ensuing public puzzling over "why?"--consider this: Jared Loughner is a wild animal who lost his manners and broke some laws, neither of which were imposed by him.
His particular case involved "senseless violence." The behavior of a "deranged" and "disturbed" individual.
Now switch from the news to a nature program and watch as a gentleman with an exotic accent narrates the thoughts of the simple minded creatures on your TV screen. We see two animals fight to the death--and not for food, mind you. Perhaps it was territorial--justified for "wild animals" and justified in war. Perhaps it was in self-defense or in defense of the herd--justified for "wild animals" and in defense of oneself or one's family. Or perhaps, perhaps the attacking "wild animal" was alone and terrified, with no perceivable reason to attack other than it was scared. Is that wild animal deranged? No. Because that "wild animal" is not expected to have manners.
When are we most prone to act violently (physically, verbally, or otherwise)?
When we feel threatened.
When do we feel threatened?
When we are scared.
When are we most scared?
When we are alone.
Jared Loughner was alone. And terrified. And for whatever reason, he felt the need to attack his local public servant. Or perhaps there was no reason, other than that he is a wild animal who acted on very basic primal instincts. Perhaps even he doesn't really know his motive. How often do we do something or say something without any sense of control?
"Why did you do that?"
"I don't know. I wasn't thinking."
"Why did you say that?"
"I don't know. It just came out."
And then there are all the times that we think or dream horrible horrible things, things we can't ourselves even believe, and thankfully, most of us don't act on them most of the time.
We are wild animals, unpredictable, even to ourselves. Maybe some of the wilderness has been bred out of some of us more than others. Maybe our individual "wild-streaks" are unique to our genetics. Or maybe, like many wild animals, some of us are better at being domesticated. Some of us make better pets.
The one true thing that separates the human species from the rest of the animal kingdom is our deeply indoctrinated belief that we are superior.
I'm sure this sentiment precedes Biblical literature, and the sentiment certainly exists outside of religious doctrine, but a great example of this admission is this:
Genesis 1:26 (King James)
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."
This line of thinking has led to the most horrible atrocities committed in the history of this planet. Air pollution. Genocide. Deforestation. Enslavement. Oceanicide. All in the name of "civilization."
But what if that sentiment read more like this:
"Let man be one with the earth, like the fish of the sea, like the fowl of the air, like the cattle, and like every other creeping thing that creepeth on the earth."
Because we are not better than the fish of the sea, the fowl of the air, the cattle, or any other creeping thing that creepeth on the earth. Nor are we better than the earth. Or one another.
Nonetheless, the vast majority of humans believe themselves superior. And how do we prove we are superior? We pledge to stop acting like wild animals. We practice manners and create laws to enforce the practice of manners.
But sometimes, sometimes we can't help it. Sometimes we are just animals. And then we are punished. And kept in cages. Because humans have been granted divine dominion over the animals.
Humans are animals
Humans have been granted divine dominion over animals
Therefore
Humans have been granted divine dominion over humans.
Jared Loughner might be inclined to agree.
Am I suggesting we should all start acting like wild animals?
No.
I'm saying we don't have a choice.
I am a wild animal. And so are you. And the Fantastic Mr. Fox.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)