Stephann
Posts: 4214
Joined: 12/27/2006
From: Portland, OR
Status: offline
|
Stella,
I'll try to keep my answers brief. I doubt you'll enjoy reading my thoughts.
ORIGINAL: stella41b
quote:
ORIGINAL: Stephann
While I agree, the bus driver's a jerk, I also feel that when you do things that you know, clearly, are going to violate social norms that you're going to be faced with these sorts of issues. That, to me, is part of the repercussions for my flaunting my lifestyle choice.
This isn't the issue. I don't fit in with society but it isn't in my case a lifestyle choice but a genetic defect. Where do I get the abuse? From the ignorant people who assume that I am who I am through a lifestyle choice.
First, this wasn't about you. There might be similarities between your story, but do keep in mind that you're the one making this about you. That being said, if you feel you're being abused for living 'as a woman' than it's because you're not living as a woman; you're living as-a-man-who-lives-as-a-woman. If I chose to live as a woman as my lifestyle, rest assured the only souls on God's green earth who would know what is or was between my legs would be me, my doctor, and those who knew me before I made the switch. The door to being abused is left open only by you.
The issue here is tolerance, minding one's own business, and respecting other people's individuality.
Tolerance doesn't equal 'minding one's own business' and there's no law that says I must be tolerant, respect anyone, or mind my own business. I am entitled to be as hate filled, mean, viscious, angry, and spiteful as I wish, so long as I am willing to accept the social consequences of my behavior. In my shop, I am allowed to snarl, growl, curse, or refuse service to any individual I please. Don't like it? Shop somewhere else. Legally, it's only discrimination if I do it to several persons based on very clearly defined patterns (sex, religion, or ethnicity.) That means I can choose not to serve gays, goths, rednecks, or rap music enthusiasts. (Having said that, I don't personally discriminate against any group of person, for any reason, I'm only pointing out the fact that I have the right to discriminate if I wish.)
What are 'social norms'? Who is to say who is normal in society and who isn't?
Watch a small river. The water that flows with the rest, is normal. That which does not, is not normal. Society works the same way. If I choose to go against the flow of society, I'd better be prepared to face the consequences of my choice. Obviously, for some people this is a choice between a rock and a hard place; I have nothing but compassion for gays, foreigners, muslims, goths, or any other group of people who routinely face discrimination or negative interactions. My point isn't "it's ok to treat goths badly" my point is "choosing to go against society carries inherent risk and makes life difficult." The choice to get through such discrimination takes guts, and I respect people who face it. I refuse, however, to pity them when they sob 'woe is me.'
The people in the article are dead right. This is fascism, you can even call it nazism, whatever, but it's prejudice, it's pointing the finger at someone and deciding that they don't fit in, they're socially 'substandard'.
This is no different to the persecution of the Jews by Hitler, by Stalin, by Alexander the Great, it's the same 'I am normal, I fit in, these people don't, they are not as productive to society'. Bullshit!
You need to study History a little closer. Persecution of Jews had nothing to do with being (or not) normal; it had everything to do with liquidating a convenient group of wealthy people, to pay for a military-industrial complex.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Stephann
Addtionally, there was a part of the article that had me irked a bit. She made it clear she doesn't cook, clean, or go anywhere without her owner (the assumption here is that she doesn't work either.) Later, I saw this tidbit:
"The couple, who live on benefits in a council house and plan to start a family, have been friends for years."
So what? What is the employment market like in Dewsbury? What employment opportunities are there in Dewsbury? What are their skills as a couple? Education? How do you know that they are not seeking work? There's a lot of women working who don't do housework or cleaning.
You're ignoring my point. They're not entitled to have children, if they cannot feed themselves.
Why not face facts and just accept that there are a lot of able-bodied people who maybe want to work but who at this moment in time cannot find work?
I'm not railing against unemployed people. I'm railing against people who expect not to work, and rely on the government to take care of them because they don't.
Some of us (myself included) do spend periods on welfare. I stopped working for an employer in 2000 and have mainly supported myself through my work in theatre. When I was homeless and going through the system I was also actively seeking work - any sort of work - but nobody wanted to employ me because I am transgendered. In the end I gave up, and spent a further year developing my next theatrical project and running workshops voluntarily.
Again, you bring up being transgendered; when you stop using it as a crutch, and start approaching the concept of employment on your own merits, you'll have far more success. The fact is, by your own admission, you haven't supported yourself, for almost a decade. You do things you don't get paid for, and complain that nobody pays you. If I start cutting my neighbors' lawns, and they refuse to pay me for them, I don't go back out there two weeks later and cut them again.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Stephann
Erm... I could be reading this wrong, but doesn't this mean they live on welfare, yet are trying to have kids? I'm all for people living their dreams, but when they start expecting their fellow taxpayers to finance them... that's a real problem to me. Looking at their photos, either of them easily spent more on their outfit than I do on a weeks worth of clothes. Goth clothing is NOT cheap.
Here we go again, this neofascist attitude disguised as other people being financed by 'fellow taxpayers'.
The welfare I receive, like everyone else on welfare, is money I'm entitled to.
In short, it's people believing that they are entitled to welfare, that ensures that we are forced to pay taxes to support welfare. Your attempt to sidestep this fact doesn't change the fact that government housing and subsidies come from taxes, that are paid by people who earn incomes.
Personally, I am a strong supporter of welfare, with a very limited (and likely Naziesque by your standards) perspective. I think people who lose a job they've had more than a year should be entitled to one month's insurance; contingent on the fact that they can document 8 hours worth of effort to secure a new job (i.e. demonstrating 5 job applications per day, or cc's of 20 emailed resume's each day.) When a person loses their job, finding a new job, should be their job.
Those who haven't found one in a month, should then become eligible for additional benefits, but only if they also enroll and succeed in free job training seminars and classes; this means after a month, to continue receiving their monthly stipend, they take classes and demonstrate a continued effort to pursue employment. Those who refuse, should be cut from the system cold.
I also think drug rehabilitation systems should be free in-patient (for at least a month) facilities that also include job rehabilitation/training. In short, people's 'entitlements' should be earned, not given.
Farglebargle wrote in another thread that most people are clueless when it comes to large scale finance and how the financial world operates and do you know what? I have to agree with him. The 'taxpayer's money' argument is a clever strategy to get readers all upset and emotional over what is written in the papers, it's one of the basic ploys of journalism, and it never ceases to amaze me how many people fall for it.
So, you're saying because you don't understand Big Finance, that it must be a conspiracy?
Let's face facts here. If you're working and paying income tax, just accept that you're fortunate enough to be one of the remaining people in this world who are able to support themselves, have a livelihood and freedom over their own income. It just means you're less subsidized than people who are not working because you use toilets, roads, transport, healthcare, and so on just like everybody else. Give yourself a pat on the back. But also understand that you are also being subsidized by people who are richer and better off than you.
So by living on welfare, you're really sticking it to 'The Man,' making it ok to live off of other people's tax money? A quick lesson; it aint the rich folks paying into that pot.
Oh and incidentally, if you are a 'taxpayer' and working I also hope you're paying a sizeable chunk of your income into a private pension fund for your retirement. Please bear in mind that in 2018 or thereabouts the number of elderly people over pensionable retirement age will exceed that of the working population. It's also worth bearing in mind that there's an awful lot of elderly retired people who worked from the age of 14 and 15, never been on welfare, always paid tax and insurance, who are now dependent on a state pension. Think very carefully before attacking the welfare system because in 15-20 years it's more than likely going to support you.
Or break, and support nobody because (drumroll) it's already being overabused.
Therefore I'm sorry but this 'taxpayer supporting other people' argument doesn't wash, and people who make such statements are actually making fascist statements made socially acceptable by a mythical argument.
That's right; money just grows on trees, and people don't actually work for it.
Returning to the article, I was born in Dewsbury and grew up in that part of the country - West Yorkshire. We're very blunt people, we speak our minds, and we'll tell you to your face openly, as opposed to people 'down South' who prefer to do it behind your back or from a distance.
But he was a bus driver, it was at a bus station, he was at work, and I don't care whether you're the Prime Minister or a toilet cleaner when you're at work you keep your mouth shut and your opinions to yourself. But then again it was also in a public place, and basic common decency and respect for others dictates that you think what you like and you keep your opinions to yourself. There also used to be such a thing known as 'minding your own business'. However it appears that a lot of people have forgotten about such basic courtesies of human interaction.
Nobody, and I mean nobody, has the right to tell me to shut my mouth and mind my own business. I have every right to say whatever the hell I want; accepting the consequence that I may lose my job, is the responsibility part of that right. You're going to have to get over this 'I'm entitled to common decency' crap. You're not.
I personally see no difference between what happened to the couple in Dewsbury and what happened to me last month at Atlanta Airport when I was denied entry to the States. It's discrimination, it's fascism, and it's unacceptable in any society which claims to be civilized.
You obviously didn't read my thoughts on your ordeal. You're certainly entitled to be wrong, though.
http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=1486223
Stephan
_____________________________
Nosce Te Ipsum
"The blade itself incites to violence" - Homer
Men: Find a Woman here
|
RE: No pets allowed. - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread