Archive for the ‘General’ Category
Posted by Henric C. Jensen on July 10, 2014
Posted by Henric C. Jensen on July 6, 2014
Originally posted on Transitions:
“No wonder I’m all confused — one of my parents was a woman, the other was a man.” –Ashleigh Brilliant
This essay started out as a reaction to transphobic comments made in an on-line Community. I wanted to confront some of the comments made, and soon realized that in order to make my confrontation comprehensible, I would have to first clarify the issue of “What is Transgender/Transsexuality?” People don’t know what it is, so they base their opinion on misconceptions, misunderstandings and pure ignorance. This in turn leads them to express themselves in offensive, insulting and derogatory ways. I am a big believer in Education. If you educate people, they will be better people for it, and much hurt and pain can be avoided. There will of course always be people who refuse to be educated, but those are the minority.
For the purpose of this essay and…
View original 1,666 more words
Posted by Henric C. Jensen on June 25, 2014
Originally posted on Mindless Productivity:
Every two or three days, I see an article or blog post or forwarded inspirational quote about beauty. It’s usually something affirming like
“You are beautiful, whether you know it or not.”
“We are all beautiful.”
“Everyone is beautiful to somebody.”
It’s cheerful stuff. It builds the self-esteem, makes people feel valued, and spreads joy and happiness across the internet.
It’s also bullshit.
And you know it’s bullshit, because you really wanted to laugh at that picture.
Everyone is not beautiful. Some people have tumors the size of a second head growing out of their ears. Some people have skin like the Michelin man. Some people lose fingers, legs, or eyes in horrific assembly-line machine accidents. People have warts and blemishes and hair loss and dead teeth and lazy eyes and cleft palates and third nipples and unibrows.
There are plenty of people that are not physically appealing to look at, the…
View original 655 more words
Posted by Henric C. Jensen on January 2, 2011
i wrote this in response to a conversation i had this morning with someone who, by my choice, is no longer on my friendslist.
My Mind is Flammable!
i have tried for 47 years to grow a thicker skin. if i could grow a thicker skin i would have the skin of an elephant by now. i don’t. and it’s not my failing. it’s because of how my neurons are set up. i am not oversensitive, i am hypersensitive.
i shouldn’t need to feel ashamed of this. i shouldn’t have to feel that there’s something wrong with me because i don’t function like ‘normal’ people do.
i shouldn’t have to feel that telling people that I am hypersensitive (to give them fair warning) and that i expect people to consider this when interacting with me, is wrong.
i can learn how to respond to stuff – outwardly, yes, and i have, i still am, but i cannot be cured of this hypersensitivity.
people who are blind are not told to ‘learn how to see’. people who are missing their legs are not told to ‘stop whining about needing a wheelchair and learn how to walk’. so why am i being told that i need to ‘learn to be neurotypical’?
adhd is not a mental illness or a character trait that can be cured with medicines and therapy or hard personal work. it’s a physical, neurological disability.
for years i have been bashed, beaten and berated for being ‘too much’, ‘too sensitive’, ‘too honest’, ‘too open’, ‘too this and too that’, i have even been bullied for being ‘too intelligent’.
i have lost what i thought were friends, because of my neurological differentness. at the moment i have no friends in real life because of my neurodifferentness. and the number of friends that will accept me as I am, on-line is dwindling. right now i have 6 people whom i trust enough to call REAL friends. the other 40 on my list are nice people, but I don’t trust them – incidentally 4 of the 6 are also neurodifferent.
all i want is for people to accept me as i am, not as they wish i was or under some condition that i might change in the future. because it’s not going to happen.
i have a good heart, a strong and big heart, i am funny and goofy and kind and intelligent, and i should be appreciated for this. not berated and bashed because along with those good traits comes a sensitivity that some times makes me hurt in ways and places that others might not hurt in. no, you cannot anticipate those ways and places – even i cannot do that. what i can do it say that i read things a lot more literal than neurotypicals. and even if i can steer my thinking afterwards to a less literal reading, the damage has already been done, and i hurt in ways and places other might not.
one of the positives with adhd (i think) is that i am quick to forgive once the hurt has been heard. but those of you who know me also know this.
Posted by Henric C. Jensen on March 7, 2010
I witnessed a dialogue between two people – which ended with the person represented by text in red leveling some outrageous accusations against the other – based on nothing but assumptions (and, I suspect, a dark malicious heart dead set on hurting and harming another). Quite disturbing, considering where it took place – in a site where people are supposed to be guided by ‘their higher selves’.
"It doesn’t matter what one’s intentions are, ___.
Hitler’s intentions were to create a better Germany for Germans.
Conquistadors were to create more prosperous home world.
USA attacked Iraq and Afghanistan to defend USonians.
All good intentions.
What they did to reach there was inexcusable and very wrong."
"USA attacked Iraq and Afghanistan to defend USonians."
I had to look up the term USonians as in my entire 53+ years of living as an American I have never heard the term used in reference to my countrymen.[…]My conclusion: an archaic term which has outlived modern usage and not in use today. ___, I suggest you update your vocabulary and use the term American when discussing my countrymen so as not to offend or confuse us.”
“I realize you are not American and thus cannot share in my pride in being one, but many nations around the globe would certainly be upset if the money that the United States contributes to their coffers were to suddenly dry up because we American’s decided to stop those payments and instead use those funds to take care of issues at home instead of abroad. We Americans are getting very tired of criticisms from countries abroad though some are rightly deserved. Its just that when you get shot down enough with criticisms you lose the desire to help those who shoot you…and there also goes the desire to help with foreign aid…Perhaps it is time for other countries, perhaps yours, to make up the payments the United States has been making to the rest of the world for a few years???”
95% of the world is not USonian. I am 100% sure that there are more people who would be happy to have the “Yankees (and especially Dixies) go home” and take their armies, coca cola and MacDonald’s with them, than people who would be sad.
USA is not alone in the world, and it has deserved every bit of criticism it gets. USA does a lot of good, but also a lot of bad. If you get tired of the criticism, don’t blame the critics, DO SOMETHING TO IMPROVE YOUR ACTIONS.
Don’t help us. We can manage fine without you. We did it thousands of years before United States of America was even thought of, and we will do it fine even after you have long ceased to exist.
Besides, most of the USonian help comes with a price tag that is way too expensive.
Look at what happened to Hawai’i when US came to “help” them. :->
When US UNFAIRLY AND ILLEGALLY attacked Iraq and Afghanistan, and some countries objected to this, what did US do? Started demanding “gratitude for WWII”, when “you saved us” AND a slander campaign against these countries. :-> You seem to have forgotten it, but I haven’t.
Don’t forget that your dear US has a national debt held by foreign nations of about 3 trillion dollars. That is 3 and 12 zeros.
Don’t forget that USA hasn’t paid its due to ODA nor UN for years, if ever.
Don’t forget that 75% of US aid money is private donations, and that PROPORTIONALLY EACH OF THE DEVELOPED COUNTRIES GIVE MORE THAN USA, even after the private donations are counted.
You might need to read this: USA: Foreign Aid
Don’t forget that USA has been very active in CAUSING the damage countries need help with. Not only by warring (always on someone else’s land, huh?), but by murdering democratically elected presidents, because they happen to be socialists, forcing countries to accept unfair trade contracts, colonialism and not to talk about the environmental damage.
Don’t forget that most of your oil comes from somewhere else. Do you still remember when the gas price started rising and how the US reacted on that? Now, think what would happen if you didn’t buy any oil at all from outside US.
Don’t forget that most of your human resources are foreign imports, immigrants or their children.
I think you would do better to be less prideful and more realistic, understanding that you might be one of the richest, biggest and strongest countries of the world, but you are still only one country among the about 200 countries of the world.”[…]
“I had to look up the term USonians as in my entire 53+ years of living as an American I have never heard the term used in reference to my countrymen.”
“Isn’t it great that you learn still new words in English after half a century of using it?
Actually, it’s not an archaic term. More and more people are starting to use it in this new Millennium, to synchronize the language use in the world that is getting smaller.
I can tell you that I too was used to use the word “American” of only USonians, until some years ago I participated in a discussion in which many non-USonian Americans expressed being offended by the use, as it was making United States THE America, as if no other American country mattered.
It’s not “American army”. It’s “US army”.
In your stamps it doesn’t say “America”, it says “USA”.
In many maps the country you live in is called “United States” or “USA”.
Everyone knows what United States mean, but America – could mean a lot of things.
The Olympics start next Friday – there are five rings on the Olympic Flag, representing the five continents: Europe, Asia, Africa, Oceania and America.
When I say “Asian”, I mean a person who comes from the continent of Asia.
When I say “African”, I mean a person who comes from the continent of Africa.
When I say “European”, I mean a person who comes from the continent of Europe.
Naturally, when I say “American”, I should mean a person who comes from the continent of America.
I could suggest you update your vocabulary and use the term USonian when discussing with non-USonians so as not to offend every other person living on the continent of America.
As I don’t assume you are after offending anyone, and because I understand that the world is so used to use words for which the reasons to use them is past recall, I’m not suggesting it.
But, you might take it under consideration. An old Swedish man protested in the newspaper against the prohibition of the N-word, as he was used to use the word and didn’t mean anything negative, offensive or derogatory with it. In Sweden, we are discussing other such words that have become part of the colloquial language, but that are obviously offensive, when one understands the reasons why people started using it.”
"I spent time Google searching the term and any reference to the term in describing American’s was old, or infrequently used by non-American’s but the vast majority of references to the term Usonian was to the style of architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright who was designing housing before I was born in the 1950’s.
I find the term archaic and every time I see you use it I cringe because I do not consider myself Usonian but American. I am not a type of architecture and I find that when you use that term to describe me and my countrymen you are offending us, an entire nation of Americans.
You have to be careful how you approach people in the words you use to them. You went out of your way in that discussion to use that term at every point just to be obstinate so you could offend me and my countrymen time and again and you were successful. You went out of your way to be hurtful and this is the type of activity that you engage in that offends people again and again ___. Since you engage people in these ways time and again you get the negative reactions/responses you get from people ___. Stop intentionally trying to be hurtful to others like you did to me and you will stop having those types of reactions."
Where did the person represented in blue text “go out of their way to be obstinate…to offend…”? Where did the person represented “go out of their way to be hurtful…”?
The answer is: Nowhere. The person represented by text in red and green is going by nothing but their own assumptions about another’s motivations and intentions, and formulating accusations and personal attacks based on this assumed ‘fact’ – which they have no way of knowing anything about. This is accepted in a site where the tolerance for personal attacks is supposed to be zero. Where people who give air to their personal perceptions – clearly stating them as such are told by the Site Admin that they should be careful about ‘assumptions’. Pardon my French, but what kind of frigging crap is that??
Posted by Henric C. Jensen on January 4, 2010
A friend of mine is involved in a discussion with another Gaian – and there is some rather constipated thinking going on, on part of the other Gaian. My friend is being kind and at the same time slightly pointedly attempting to disclose to the other where they are ‘missing the point’ and ‘not getting it’.
At this point in the discussion the other is ‘confused’ and confesses to not being able to reply to my friend’s last post and visits his Grapevine with the following statement:
"no prob…i don’t know how to answer your post…i am not talking about enlightenment…i am speaking of waking up to being human…"
It seems to me that those two are the same :)
Wouldn’t you agree?
Posted by Henric C. Jensen on February 18, 2009
Even when the person asked about their “shadow perpetrator” is a woman, does the conversation focus on the ills of men. “Do all men have an inner rapist?” The possibility of asking such a question about women doesn’t even register. Ok, well it actually did – for one line and only through the use of “human” instead of “men”.
Violence, domination , the need for and use of power is assumed when it comes to men, even by men themselves and any attempt to hold women accountable and responsible for violence committed against men and children by women is disregarded. Women and violence doesn’t even compute within the scope of a gender discussion.
What is this other than a willful invisbilization of men? What is this other than a willful denial of reality on the part of women? It is a crime against womanhood, committed by feminism and ultimately by women themselves, in that it denies women their full potential and paints an inaccurate and untrue picture of women and in the end keeps women from achieving any true equality. Feminism in that respect is just another “gender politics” that aims at maintaining status quo, while pretending to liberate women.
Without full accountability and responsibility there can be no true equality. Unless women step up and accept their full potential they will be forever locked in victim hood. Unless we demand of and allow the same for both genders, we cannot expect both genders to grow into Human, because maturity can only be had through accountability and responsibility.
In the 70’s a Finnish-Swedish author, Märta Tikkanen, wrote a book titled “Men cannot be raped”. The book tells a tale of a woman who avenges the rape she suffered at the hands of a man after a “night on the town”. The title of the book is the underlying thread that binds her actions together. She will get away with the atrocities she visits on her rapist, because it is assumed that rape entails two things women are assumed not to have: the physical strength to overpower a man and means by which to penetrate him. The book also assumes that men lack means by which to be raped. In the end the main character succeeds in her intentions to avenge herself and in raping her rapist. Without getting caught.
The book was received with loud cheers and a sense of triumph among Swedish and Finnish feminists as the ultimate revenge on patriarchy. It is still the staple diet of Scandinavian Feminists. While there is nothing wrong with wanting revenge on one’s rapist and it is quite understandable that one would want such a revenge, the general thesis of the book is symptomatic of what is inherently wrong with feminism; the assumption, which it shares with patriarchy, that men cannot, in any true sense, be violated and women cannot in any true sense violate.
A few years ago I hosted a men’s group on line. Women were welcome to participate in the discussions, which dealt with issues ranging from silly jokes to gender, equality and recognition of abuse, as long as they did so with the understanding that they were guests in the men’s home. A majority of the women held and expressed the opinion that men’s statements about being survivors/victims of abuse were offensive to women because such statements, by necessity, must be a negation of women’s reality as survivors/victims of abuse. Some even went as far as to demand that when men shared about their experiences of domestic violence and other abuse in the group, they must first qualify that women’s experiences of domestic violence and abuse are worse and more painful because 1. they are women and 2. there are more women that are abused by men than there are men that are abused by women.
What I am trying to say here is that it’s all good and well that men are being made to understand what kind of impact they have on women’s lives, but if we truly want gender equality and the eventual eradication of gender, we have to see both genders for what they are in terms of violations against humanity. This means that women too have to be made to understand what kind of impact they have on men’s lives and how feminism is screwing both genders to the bone and serving neither men nor women in the long run, but in fact cementing the skewed ideas we have about men and women.
Posted by Henric C. Jensen on February 14, 2009
“Zionism is not merely a political movement, but in its essence represents a deeply disturbed view of the world, which is a reflection of a terrible disease of the mind.”
Since those Radical Far Leftists equates Zionist with Israel with Jewish as a matter of course, this pro-palestinian equates being Jewish with a disease of the mind. And then those Radical Far Leftists have the gall to claim that they are not antisemites…*lol*
Posted by Henric C. Jensen on February 14, 2009
Silly Old Bear, may I ask what defines you as a Jew? I believe there is a certain amount of dissension as to whether your heritage is carried via the mother or the father or both. Can a proselyte become a Jew? I am in no way anti-semetic but isn’t the Jewish faith and/or race as exclusive as any religion – perhaps more so?
“I am in no way…anti-semitic….but…” That’s what they all say. When you read or hear “I am not….but” you know, it’s a dead give-away that there’s something treif (non-kosher) about that person’s thought process. Non-Jewish people who wish to define Jewishness wish to do so because they want to profile someone.
This guy is not interested in the answers to his question – if he really was, he could just as well Wikipedia the answer – Who is a Jew? – No, he just has to target the only openly Jewish guy in the discussion and demand answers to insensire question – question born out of his antisemitism
About two years ago I wrote this:
“The Jews control the media…”
“The Jews control the diamond trade…”
“The Jews created those Muhammad cartoons…”
“The Jews control the world’s banks…”
“The Jews controlled the Slave trade…”
“The Jews cause the Black Plague…”
“The Jews control the UN…”
“The Jews control the movie industry…”
Why is defining someone as “Jewish” important? What does someone being Jewish have to do with the media, the diamond trade, the Muhammad Cartoons, the Slave Trade, the Black Plague, the UN, the movie industry?
Why is that all other peoples in the world are defined as the country they live in, but a resident of Sweden or America or any other country, who also happens to be Jewish, is defined as “Jewish”?
One guy actually came in and responded to the question with “to show bias” – and probably thought that he was only saying that he wants to show the “Jewish bias” – well, it turns out that he also shows his own bias – against anything “Jewish” – and so does anyone insisting on defining things as Jewish, where “Jewish” is completely irrelevant.
Posted by Henric C. Jensen on January 11, 2009
First, Israel is the only UN member state whose very right to exist is under constant challenge. Notwithstanding the fact that Israel was created with the imprimatur of the UN and has been a member of the world body since 1949, there is a relentless chorus of nations, institutions and individuals denying Israel’s very political legitimacy. No one would dare question the right to exist of Libya, Saudi Arabia or Syria. Why is it open hunting season on Israel, as if we didn’t know the answer?
Second, Israel is the only UN member state that’s been publicly targeted for annihilation by another UN member state. Think about it. The Iranian president calls for wiping Israel off the map. Is there any other country that faces such an open call for genocidal destruction?
Third, Israel is the only nation whose capital city, Jerusalem, is not recognized by other nations. Imagine the absurdity of this. Foreign diplomats live in Tel Aviv while conducting virtually all their business in Jerusalem. Though no Western nation questions Israel’s presence in the city’s western half, where the prime minister’s office, Knesset and Ministry of Foreign Affairs are located, there are no embassies there. In fact, look at listings of world cities, including places of birth in passports, and you’ll often see something striking – Paris, France; Tokyo, Japan; Pretoria, South Africa; Lima, Peru; and Jerusalem, sans country – orphaned, if you will.
Fourth, the UN has two agencies that deal with refugees. One, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), focuses on all the world’s refugee populations, save one. The other, the United Nations Refugee and Works Administration (UNRWA), handles only the Palestinians. But the oddity goes further than two structures and two bureaucracies. They have two different mandates. UNHCR seeks to resettle refugees; UNRWA does not. When, in 1951, John Blanford, UNRWA’s director, proposed resettling up to 250,000 refugees in Arab countries, those countries refused, leading to his resignation. The message got through. No UN official since has pushed for resettlement.
Moreover, the UNRWA and UNHCR definitions of a refugee differ markedly. Whereas the UNHCR targets those who have fled their homelands, the UNRWA definition covers “the descendants of persons who became refugees in 1948,” without any generational limitations.
Fifth, Israel is the only country that has won all its major wars for survival and self-defense, yet it’s confronted by defeated adversaries who insist on dictating the terms of peace. In doing so, ironically, they’ve found support from many countries who, victorious in war, demanded — and got – border adjustments.
Sixth, Israel is the only country that has been censured by name — not once, but nine times — since the new UN Human Rights Council was established in June 2006. Astonishingly, or maybe not, this UN body has failed to adopt a single resolution critical of any real human rights abuser. When finally discussing the Darfur situation, the Council shamefully balked at pointing a finger at Sudan.
Seventh, Israel is the only country that, in violation of the spirit of the UN Charter, isn’t a full member of one of the five regional blocs — Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, Latin America, and West Europe and Others (WEOG) — that determine eligibility for candidacy for key UN posts. While Israel achieved a breakthrough in 2000 and joined WEOG, its membership is limited to New York, not other UN centers, and is both conditional and temporary.
Eighth, Israel is the only country that’s the daily target of three UN bodies established solely to advance the Palestinian cause and to bash Israel — the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People, and the Division for Palestinian Rights in the UN’s Department of Political Affairs.
Ninth, Israel is the only country that is the target of a boycott by the British-based National Union of Journalists. An earlier British boycott against Israeli academic institutions was voided on a technicality because the union that adopted the measure merged with another. There is now an incipient call by some in the British Medical Association to exclude its Israeli counterpart from the World Medical Association.
And tenth, Israel is the only country where some associated with its majority population, i.e., Jews, openly call, for political or religious reasons, to dismantle the state. Is there a comparable situation to those religious voices of Neturei Karta, for example, who traveled to Teheran to join publicly with a leader seeking Israel’s destruction, as well as those political extremists who seek to delegitimize the State of Israel and call for a “one-state” solution? Speaking of our own worst enemies… Tackling any one of these ten, much less all of them, is a daunting challenge, to state the painfully obvious. And, as I suggested, this list is far from complete. But it gives a sense of what’s going on beyond the daily headlines.
The old ad used to say that you don’t have to be Jewish to love Levy’s Jewish rye bread. Well, surely, you don’t have to be an ardent pro-Israel activist to be troubled by the unjust treatment of Israel. All it takes is a capacity for outrage that things like this are going on before our very eyes.
This article originally appeared in the Jerusalem Post.