Her name was Jassi Sidhu.
This story was made into a documentary on DateLine. I watched it several months ago. The friends and family members who supported Jassi have created a website to continue fighting for a full investigation into the actions of those still not prosecuted, including the family members who participated or planned the murder.
Those friends and family members on Jassi's side have created Justice for Jassi. It has a petition, and I have signed it. I hope you will too.
Fight everywhere.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Re-thinking "abuse": word choice and concept analysis
In my very first post on this blog, I posited a definition of "abuse" that expanded on the views of society and law. I used this expanded definition in my post, Child abuse: Not understood at all, but affecting every human rights issue (as noted here)
Since then, I've had a lot of time to think, and second-guess, these earlier attempts at expanding the definition. These days, I'm thinking that I'd prefer using other words to describe parental oppression (or at least potential oppression, questionable behavior, things worth examining, etc.)
Examples:
unnecessary criticism,
excessive criticism (criticism that may be justified in moderate doses),
yelling,
parents lying to their children,
social normalization of parental excesses: ("all families are psychotic", dysfunctional family comedies, etc)
What I'm proposing is that we examine the differing behaviors that parents do and ask "is this justified?" And sometimes the answer may be "yes, if...no, if". Other times we don't have a yes/no, but only commentary. Really, the behaviors exist on a continuum.
Perhaps we should address some behaviors separately rather than place them under the banner of "abuse". That is not to say that such behaviors are definitely right or non-harmful, but that we need to give them names other than "abuse", at least for now, because otherwise the word "abuse" comes to mean too many different things to mean anything knowable.
For example, I heard a MySpace friend and Bill Maher suggest that letting your kid eat high-fat foods that make him fat should be considered "child abuse". I would rather it be called "neglect" or "overly-permissive", though you can argue that since the parents are giving the kid the food, they are actively inflicting the harm, thus fitting the definition of abuse. Maybe that's good enough reasoning. But I think of abuse as denying your kids too much freedom, as opposed to letting your kids have too much freedom. Too much freedom can fall under the "overly-permissive" category.
I should concede that the mindset of this blog biases me towards viewing abuse as a greater evil than over-permissiveness. It's the libertarian in me: "give me liberty or give me death", "I'd rather have the inconveniences of too much liberty than too little of it". Patrick Henry, and Thomas Jefferson respectively. I want to think there is a wisdom in this bias, at least for those of us who claim to support free societies.
But ignoring the damages of over-permissiveness puts me in no camp of wisdom. Yes, letting your kids have too much freedom is the cause of many young people acting out. Ideally, good parenting steers away from over-permissivness as much as from abuse. Though decisions come up where a parent may have to weigh on one side or the other. And we can't demand perfection.
Though I am hoping we can demand correction over time. What was done today need not be done next time. To do this requires a willingness to question and examine the behaviors of ourselves and others acting as parents...and a willingness to let ourselves be questioned and examined including by our own children.
After all, those whom we have authority over have a right to question us, the ones who have authority over them. An authority holder who reacts with a "how dare you!" is one that wants to be an unquestioned authority holder, even if she does not think that way consciously. We must walk the walk.
Since then, I've had a lot of time to think, and second-guess, these earlier attempts at expanding the definition. These days, I'm thinking that I'd prefer using other words to describe parental oppression (or at least potential oppression, questionable behavior, things worth examining, etc.)
Examples:
unnecessary criticism,
excessive criticism (criticism that may be justified in moderate doses),
yelling,
parents lying to their children,
social normalization of parental excesses: ("all families are psychotic", dysfunctional family comedies, etc)
What I'm proposing is that we examine the differing behaviors that parents do and ask "is this justified?" And sometimes the answer may be "yes, if...no, if". Other times we don't have a yes/no, but only commentary. Really, the behaviors exist on a continuum.
Perhaps we should address some behaviors separately rather than place them under the banner of "abuse". That is not to say that such behaviors are definitely right or non-harmful, but that we need to give them names other than "abuse", at least for now, because otherwise the word "abuse" comes to mean too many different things to mean anything knowable.
For example, I heard a MySpace friend and Bill Maher suggest that letting your kid eat high-fat foods that make him fat should be considered "child abuse". I would rather it be called "neglect" or "overly-permissive", though you can argue that since the parents are giving the kid the food, they are actively inflicting the harm, thus fitting the definition of abuse. Maybe that's good enough reasoning. But I think of abuse as denying your kids too much freedom, as opposed to letting your kids have too much freedom. Too much freedom can fall under the "overly-permissive" category.
I should concede that the mindset of this blog biases me towards viewing abuse as a greater evil than over-permissiveness. It's the libertarian in me: "give me liberty or give me death", "I'd rather have the inconveniences of too much liberty than too little of it". Patrick Henry, and Thomas Jefferson respectively. I want to think there is a wisdom in this bias, at least for those of us who claim to support free societies.
But ignoring the damages of over-permissiveness puts me in no camp of wisdom. Yes, letting your kids have too much freedom is the cause of many young people acting out. Ideally, good parenting steers away from over-permissivness as much as from abuse. Though decisions come up where a parent may have to weigh on one side or the other. And we can't demand perfection.
Though I am hoping we can demand correction over time. What was done today need not be done next time. To do this requires a willingness to question and examine the behaviors of ourselves and others acting as parents...and a willingness to let ourselves be questioned and examined including by our own children.
After all, those whom we have authority over have a right to question us, the ones who have authority over them. An authority holder who reacts with a "how dare you!" is one that wants to be an unquestioned authority holder, even if she does not think that way consciously. We must walk the walk.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Long time, many busies
Hi gang,
Been out there for a loooooong time. Sorry for the MIA. The easy answer is that I'm prepping for grad school this fall. Housing and what not. And with mom discouraging me from leaving her house - saying it'll never be cheap enough, you'll never find a place - getting out of here is a top priority...though of course these feelings always have to be balanced with a rational temperament as I maneuver through many demands: my (hopefully last) undergrad summer course, taking a diagnostic test for grad school, trying to remember my online friends, jogging, therapy, flossing, budgeting, thinking about doctor visits, etc, etc, etc, etc.
Of course, many of you out there probably got it tougher. But whether you do or not, I'm happy to listen to all your stories in dealing with controlling/toxic/abusive parents and on your personal journeys to build and define your own lives, neither complusively obeying nor compulsively rebelling against the endless commands, irrational or excessive, which they have no right to speak (no matter how much money their giving you).
My head has never stayed on earth for very long, but I'm still here, and I will still listen.
Onward, to the next assignment...
UPDATE: Never forget to take mental and physical breaks. They are necessary for success, survival, and flourishing.
Been out there for a loooooong time. Sorry for the MIA. The easy answer is that I'm prepping for grad school this fall. Housing and what not. And with mom discouraging me from leaving her house - saying it'll never be cheap enough, you'll never find a place - getting out of here is a top priority...though of course these feelings always have to be balanced with a rational temperament as I maneuver through many demands: my (hopefully last) undergrad summer course, taking a diagnostic test for grad school, trying to remember my online friends, jogging, therapy, flossing, budgeting, thinking about doctor visits, etc, etc, etc, etc.
Of course, many of you out there probably got it tougher. But whether you do or not, I'm happy to listen to all your stories in dealing with controlling/toxic/abusive parents and on your personal journeys to build and define your own lives, neither complusively obeying nor compulsively rebelling against the endless commands, irrational or excessive, which they have no right to speak (no matter how much money their giving you).
My head has never stayed on earth for very long, but I'm still here, and I will still listen.
Onward, to the next assignment...
UPDATE: Never forget to take mental and physical breaks. They are necessary for success, survival, and flourishing.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Rob and Arnie have transgender journalist Autumn Sandeen
They actually introduce the discussion in a way suggesting they've been enlightened:
Rob/Arnie (don't know which): "For those of you out there who think that free speech means you can say anything, without any consequences, this show is not for you. Conversely, for anyone here who thinks the solution is to silence all discussion, this show is also not for you....
"For anyone [who is a fan of me] who thinks that this situation is about silencing opinion, like my opinion, let me tell you: If I honestly thought that this was about my opinion being silenced, I wouldn't be here".
Damn. This did disarm me. But don't let your guard down too easily. The devil is in the details of what they will acknowledge and won't acknowledge, AND how they truly feel, or might feel, REGARDLESS of what they say.
I have not listened to the show beyond these first few lines. I got a train to catch. But, I will listen later, and you folks can listen here:
A series of podcasted segments, start with the first one.
Rob/Arnie (don't know which): "For those of you out there who think that free speech means you can say anything, without any consequences, this show is not for you. Conversely, for anyone here who thinks the solution is to silence all discussion, this show is also not for you....
"For anyone [who is a fan of me] who thinks that this situation is about silencing opinion, like my opinion, let me tell you: If I honestly thought that this was about my opinion being silenced, I wouldn't be here".
Damn. This did disarm me. But don't let your guard down too easily. The devil is in the details of what they will acknowledge and won't acknowledge, AND how they truly feel, or might feel, REGARDLESS of what they say.
I have not listened to the show beyond these first few lines. I got a train to catch. But, I will listen later, and you folks can listen here:
A series of podcasted segments, start with the first one.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Rob and Arnie capitulate, according to Pam's House site
Have the parental-violence-endorsing bastards given up? Check it.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Pam's House Blend has post on Arnie and Rob's violent dialogue
Autumn Sandeen writes, "Nonviolence In Response to the Rob, Arnie & Dawn in the Morning Tirades On TransYouth"
Autumn Sandeen is a transgender person and a primary journalist for the murder trial for victim Angie Zapata. Angie was a trans-woman who was beaten to death by a man she dated who found out she used to be a man. He was charged with both first-degree murder AND a bias-motivated crime (another word for hate crime). He is now serving life without parole.
Justice was done for Angie, but we need to keep an eye on those whose words may incite others to committ violence, especially violence of parents against their own children.
I had written an email yesterday to the the Vice President and General Manager John Geary of the radio station, KRXQ-FM.
You can write him, or Arnie & Rob, or anyone else you can find - please tell me!
Autumn Sandeen is a transgender person and a primary journalist for the murder trial for victim Angie Zapata. Angie was a trans-woman who was beaten to death by a man she dated who found out she used to be a man. He was charged with both first-degree murder AND a bias-motivated crime (another word for hate crime). He is now serving life without parole.
Justice was done for Angie, but we need to keep an eye on those whose words may incite others to committ violence, especially violence of parents against their own children.
I had written an email yesterday to the the Vice President and General Manager John Geary of the radio station, KRXQ-FM.
You can write him, or Arnie & Rob, or anyone else you can find - please tell me!
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Two radio hosts encourage parental violence against transgender children
The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) examines the media's portrayal of gay and transgender people and the political and social issues surrounding the gay/trans communities. Today in my email, GLAAD sent me an action alert about two radio hosts who had this to say about children who question their gender identity:
ARNIE STATES [13:27]: If my son, God forbid, if my son put on a pair of high heels, I would probably hit him with one of my shoes. I would throw a shoe at him. Because you know what? Boys don’t wear high heels. And in my house, they definitely don’t wear high heels
ROB WILLIAMS [17:45]: Dawn, they are freaks. They are abnormal. Not because they’re girls trapped in boys bodies but because they have a mental disorder that needs to be somehow gotten out of them. That’s where therapy could help them.
....... ARNIE STATES [21:30]: You got a boy saying, ‘I wanna wear dresses.’ I’m going to look at him and go, ‘You know what? You’re a little idiot! You little dumbass! Look, you are a boy! Boys don’t wear dresses.’
-------
Their transcript plus the audio clip can be found at this GLAAD action alert, which also gives contact information for the radio hosts and the radio station.
ARNIE STATES [13:27]: If my son, God forbid, if my son put on a pair of high heels, I would probably hit him with one of my shoes. I would throw a shoe at him. Because you know what? Boys don’t wear high heels. And in my house, they definitely don’t wear high heels
ROB WILLIAMS [17:45]: Dawn, they are freaks. They are abnormal. Not because they’re girls trapped in boys bodies but because they have a mental disorder that needs to be somehow gotten out of them. That’s where therapy could help them.
....... ARNIE STATES [21:30]: You got a boy saying, ‘I wanna wear dresses.’ I’m going to look at him and go, ‘You know what? You’re a little idiot! You little dumbass! Look, you are a boy! Boys don’t wear dresses.’
-------
Their transcript plus the audio clip can be found at this GLAAD action alert, which also gives contact information for the radio hosts and the radio station.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)