Trump is playing on your stupidity.

I’ve always felt this way, especially when people tell me the horrifying line “But he says what everyone is thinking.”

If everyone is thinking Mexicans are rapists?
If everyone is thinking Muslims are terrorists?
If everyone is thinking Native Americans are destroying his business schemes?
Then we have more problems than I thought.  I hope people aren’t thinking that way.

I cringe when Trump talks.  He literally has no idea what he is doing.  For a businessman, you would think he could answer a question.

Why does he sound like a moron when he talks?  Well, here’s a video about his speeches being at the 4th grade level.

And if it seems like Trump knows how to manipulate the stupid, it’s because he’s talked at length before on how to do it.  It is all a “publicity stunt”, and he outlines his strategy very clearly, as revealed by the beginning of this video.

 

I’m not saying you should support a non-Trump candidate, because the options aren’t very pleasant.  But if you can flat out say you support what Trump has to say, I have no respect for your support of a sexist, racist, xenophobic bigot.  Even if it’s all part of his “publicity stunt”.  This is verging on promoting hate crimes.  Actually, he’s probably gone beyond that, I’m just sick of listening to him.

riding the earth.

from Earth MovementsTohono O’odham poetry translated

She said she felt the earth move again.
I never knew whether she meant she felt a tremor
or whether it was the rotation of the earth.
I like to think she felt the rotation, because
anyone can feel a tremor.

And when she felt this
she could see herself
standing on the earth’s surface.
Her thick, wide feet solidly planted,
toes digging in.
Her visualization so strong
she almost feels her body arch
against the centrifugal force of the rotation.
She sees herself with her long hair floating,
floating in the atmosphere of stardust.
She rides her planet the way a child rides a toy.
Her company is the boy who takes the sun on its daily journey
and the man in the moon smiles as she passes by.

L’utilisation d’Inès Serrano dans la Pièce Huis Clos par Jean-Paul Sartre

Found an old paper of mine from when I was living in Arles, France.  For my History of Theatre course.

Kayla DeVault
Le 25 juillet 2013
L’histoire du théâtre

L’utilisation d’Inès Serrano dans la Pièce Huis Clos par Jean-Paul Sartre

La pièce du théâtre, Huis Clos, était publiée par Jean-Paul Sartre en 1944, juste avant de la fin de la deuxième guerre mondiale.  L’histoire est au sujet de trois personnes – Garcin, Inès, et Estelle – qui sont trappés ensemble dans une salle en Enfer.  Ils restent dans la salle et ne voient qu’un garçon a la porte fermée.  Après quelques temps, c’est évident qu’Inès aime Estelle, Estelle aime Garcin, et Garcin cherche pour leur foi de ses histoires et ses actions.  Ils torturent leur-mêmes par leurs pensées et leurs avis et chaque personne ne peut pas trouver un miroir pour voir soi-même comme il veut.  Sans miroirs et sans sortie, ils découvrent éventuellement qu’ils sont leurs tortureurs, l’un l’autre.

Huis Clos est souvent analysé pour ses manifestes politiques à cause de sa coïncidence et sa juxtaposition avec l’Occupation de la France par l’Allemagne pendant la guerre.  Sartre soi-même était une partie de la résistance contre cet Occupation.  L’écriture de cette époque et de la France était souvent une proclamation artistique et un peu dangereuse contre le gouvernement nouveau.  Cependant, il y a des autres parties scandaleuses dans Huis Clos en addition à la comparaison de l’Occupation à l’Enfer : Sartre, un hétérosexuel très connu, a souvent écrit des pièces avec des personnages homosexuelles.  En Huis Clos en particulaire, ce personnage est Inès Serrano.

La présence des personnages homosexuels en écriture pendant cette époque est vraiment plus rare et bizarre.  Pendant la guerre en particulier, il y avait beaucoup de haïr et peur autour du monde contre les blacks, les juives, et les homosexuels.  En lisant Huis Clos et réalisant l’utilisation d’un personnage homosexuel, on peut penser que Sartre suggère que les homosexuels sont damnés à cause de leurs choix.  Cependant, si on continue de lire le texte, on trouve qu’Inès est damnée à cause d’une « affaire avec Florence » (55), la femme d’un ami qui puis les a tué.  Elle suggère souvent pendant l’histoire qu’elle est une lesbienne avec des petites phrases, comme quand elle dit « en chemise ou non, je n’aime pas beaucoup les hommes » (34).  Donc des questions importantes restent pour demander : Pourquoi Sartre a choisi une lesbien pour comprimer une des quatre personnages dans cette pièce et comment elle effet l’histoire ?

La première observation est la plus simple : l’existence d’un personnage homosexuelle vraiment rend possible l’histoire.  C’était nécessaire de créer plus que deux personnages dans la salle pour ajouter la torture et les effets plus dramatiques sur les esprits de l’un l’autre.  On peut écrire une histoire avec deux hommes et une femme, mais la présence d’un lesbien dans Huis Clos supprime plus tension entre les personnages et limite les solutions possibles au problème romantique par les intérêts de chaque personnage.  Au contraire, quand il y a deux hommes et une fille, la fille peut change ses préférences sans réservation.  Les personnages dans Huis Clos ont un choix seul : Inès peut aimer Estelle et Estelle et Garcin peut aimer l’un l’autre, mais Garcin refuse.  C’est Inès qui a l’intelligence pour découvrir que « le bourreau, c’est chacun de nous pour les deux autres » (42).  Cette observation fait la distance entre les trois.

La deuxième observation est un peu plus complexe : avoir une personnage lesbienne comme Inès permit une contraste forte contre une personnage hétérosexuelle comme Estelle.  Estelle est très, très féminine ; elle est un peu bête et complètement consumée par les miroirs et son apparence.  C’est la même apparence et beauté qu’Inès adore.  Estelle refuse Inès, puis Garcin refuse Estelle comme il refuse la compagnie des deux femmes.

La personnage d’Inès donc a cette niche entre les autres : elle dote sur Estelle, conduit la femme de fuir a Garcin qui est compliqué par sa couardise.  Cette couardise, la cause de son abandonnement de l’armée, est la même chose qu’Inès se moque sans réserve.  Elle a une personnalité très forte, honnête, et direct.  Inès n’a pas peur de dire qu’ils sont « en enfer !  Damnés !  Damnés ! » (41), quelque chose qu’Estelle voudrait oublier.  Elle n’a pas honte de parler des choses qui blesse la fierté de Garcin, mais elle protège Estelle avec les mots doux et polîtes.  Inès est très directe, comme quand elle dit à Garcin « Ne me touchez pas.  Je déteste qu’on me touche.  Et gardez votre pitié. » (66)  Parce qu’Inès est une lesbienne, elle peut ignorer Garcin, être gentille avec Estelle, et donc conduire la torture mentale entre les trois sans révocation de son personnage naturel.

Avoir un personnage homosexuel dans Huis Clos est donc très vitale pour la compréhension de l’histoire.  Inès est la factor qui conduit naturellement le conflit et la torture mentale parmi les occupants dans la salle en Enfer.  L’utilisation d’un personnage comme Inès est encore rare pour l’époque, mais Huis Clos soi-même est vraiment radicale pour une histoire écrit pendant l’Occupation allemande de la France.  Sans Inès, on ne peut pas vraiment sens l’effet de l’Enfer français de l’époque.

Sartre, Jean-Paul.  Huis Clos.  Editions Gallimard, 1947.

this is white supremacy.

It’s already difficult working in policy where you have to talk about intricate things like paradigms and culturally-relevant language.  Try speaking to government leaders – who make important decisions affecting tribes – about very specific tribal philosophy.  Many of those leaders still fail to realize tribe exist, that they have a supposed sovereign status, and that their culture is unique and rich.  If there’s any concept of a Native culture, it’s usually some Hollywood-inspired, Pan-Indian misconception.

More often than not, policy and projects are entrenched in this White Savior Complex as almost this default residual of past Manifest Destiny tradition.  This can be hard to see.  For example, NGO projects look well-intentioned on the outside, but in reality they are just a tool of modern colonization.  One group assumes power through knowledge and resources over another, comes in to “fix” that community’s problems, and meanwhile fails to connect at a cultural level that respects the community’s traditional wisdom, values, and belief system.

Epistemology is a popular term in Navajo Philosophy.  In many ways, it describes how Native cultures have knowledge and wisdom in Pre-Columbian times.  The problem is the lenses of Western society fail to acknowledge the credibility in that knowledge.

Epistemology studies the nature of knowledge, the rationality of belief, and justification. Much of the debate in epistemology centers on four areas: (1) the philosophical analysis of the nature of knowledge and how it relates to such concepts as truthbelief, andjustification,[2][3] (2) various problems of skepticism, (3) the sources and scope of knowledge and justified belief, and (4) the criteria for knowledge and justification.

Not acknowledging the complex culture and wisdom of non-Western societies is the horrible error made by Europeans who attempted to colonize the Americas.  Manifest Destiny was based completely on this concept of “inferiority”.  Despite the incredible Aztec temples that are still visited by tourists today, the white leaders of the Manifest Destiny era only saw wild, untamed societies who lacked their God.  A lot of the NGO work that is done today has nuances and undertones of the same superiority-inferiority complex.  But critiquing work for not incorporating traditional wisdom or philosophical paradigms is just one small but intricate piece of lingering white supremacy.  Some of it is far more blatant.

How can we progress when leaders are making public announcements that white people built the world?  That white people are the reason for everything great?  That Christianity has done nothing but save everyone?  Anyone with a true understand of World Civilizations and an unbiased perspective will see this is far from true.  But Representative Steve King, a Republican in Iowa, is convinced otherwise.

While on a panel discussion with MSNBC host Chris Hayes, discussing the racial makeup of the Republican Party on the first day of its convention, Mr. King blatantly declared that nonwhite “subgroups” have not contributed to society.  The conversation began when Mr. Hayes commented about diversity maybe finally making its way into the party.  The conversation continued as such:

Mr. King: “This whole ‘old white people’ business does get a little tired, Charlie.  I’d ask you to go back through history and figure out where are these contributions that have been made by these other categories of people that you are talking about?  Where did any other subgroup of people contribute more to civilization?”
Mr. Hayes: “Than white people?”
Mr. King: “Than Western civilization itself that’s rooted in Western Europe, Eastern Europe and the United States of America, and every place where the footprint of Christianity settled the world. That’s all of Western civilization.”
(Panelist frantic shouting)
April Ryan (reporter on panel): “What about Africa? What about Asia?”

As if the Chinese invented nothing.  As if the Mayans did nothing.  Or Indians.  Or Egyptians.  What about the impressive skills of the Maori?  All of the scholars and scientists who have come from the continent of Africa?  Or this site, describing a vastly non-white number of civilizations that are widely considered some of the most “advanced” civilizations on earth?  My Archaeoastronomy course in college that studied ancient Native civilizations as being complex in ceremony and their knowledge of multidimensional math to follow the pattern of celestial bodies?   And construct large buildings around it?

The fact that we have people like that in power is terrifying.  His mentality is not very different from that of Hitler’s when you think about it.  Christianity saved the world?  Christianity has also been responsible for mass genocide for thousands of years.

strangers.

Everyone has a purpose in our lives.  Sometimes, it would seem like people only exist to anger us or annoy us.  But there’s a purpose to why they’re there.

Or, maybe we retroactively assign the purpose.

But,

Whatever the case,

There’s a take-away from each account.

Sometimes those people are only people in our lives because we passively encounter them in public.  We may never say a word to them, or even look directly at them.  We might only overhear a comment they make, and then they move on.  That moment might be the only moment in all of history that we are near that person, never to see them again.  But what they say, we might hear it.  And it might stick with us.  And if it angers us, it might become fuel for us.

Today, I am writing from Phoenix.  It is currently 106F.  Hot, yes, but not as hot as it gets in the summer here.  To be honest, I like the heat.  I think it’s because I’m always cold.  People pull me out of the sun constantly, saying “Stand in the shade!”  I just say, “I sit in the shade too much.  I need this.”  It feels good.  It makes vitamins.

I miss the forests.  I miss the moisture and the greenery.  I want so badly to swim, but there are very few rivers or lakes to swim in.  The absence of these things really tear at me.

But I also love the desert.  I love its resilience.  I love the chemistry of its skies.  I love its living geology.  Its biodiversity becomes so much more evident to me as I drive from the Chuska Mountains to the Sonora Desert.  Elevation has an incredible effect on beings.  We must adapt to our environments.

Unless you’re a human in Phoenix.

At lunch, I overheard a conversation about weather.  The man beside me was complaining about the cold.  He insisted living in cold weather was illogical and nearly impossible.  It was too much work to shovel snow off a car.  It was too cold to warm back up again.  All you needed to do was live where it is hot, run some air-conditioning, and feel comfortable.

This person, I might never see him again.  I never looked at his face, just his right shoe.  I don’t know his name.  What I do know is that he has no regard for the environment, no concept of the climate crisis, no idea of how social status affects one’s access to things like electricity and climate control.  Based on his comments during the conversation, he lives in Phoenix because he lives in an isolated, indoor environment, completely detached from the reality surrounding him in the environment, on tribal lands, and on the international southern border.  The woman across from him even described a friend of hers as being someone “interested in environmental rights or whatever you call it”.  Like, what?

This person could easily mean nothing to me, but was he really without purpose?  Whoever he is, he did contribute in one way or another to my view of Phoenix, of Arizona, of the United States, of the world.  It is a valid point that people don’t understand that air-conditioning is no global solution.  It is true that these people don’t realize the seriousness of living the way people live in Phoenix, the heart of a desert enclosed by tribal and park lands to the point that its growth is severely limited without infringing on environmental and/or indigenous rights.

Sometimes, we have to overhear the ignorant comments and conversations.  Without them, we wouldn’t know where to make corrections.  We wouldn’t know how to identify progress.  We would be stagnant.

In a way, strangers represent an entire population.  The majority of a population will likely always be strangers anyway.  It’s the ideas they have, the things they think and say, and their inability to see through other perspectives that become my concern.  That’s where I see the importance of strangers to my career path and my life.  Without these strangers demonstrating street ignorance, I might not realize the severity of such gaps in perspectives and understanding of critical topics.

Yahdilah…y Pa’lante!

COP22.

Today, was invited to – and officially accepted – COP22 as a U.S. delegate.  I don’t think it has completely set in yet.  Honestly, receiving a cheery call from Morgan Curtis of SustainUs feels cheery in and of itself; realizing that’s she’s really saying, “See you in Morocco to push amazing global policy work on climate change and the environment!” is a whole other thing.  To think, 10 years ago today I was stressing out over which shows my high school, Celtic Rock band would or would not choose to play in…Actually, 10 years ago this summer I was competing in my first Junior Olympics in Detroit.  But that’s besides the point.  The reality is, 10 years ago today I never imagined I would be more than a female violinist behind a male-dominated music ensemble, or more than a defenseman on a team I hardly made the cut for.

It’s exciting to see all of my work come together.  What’s the most exciting is not a day goes by without me realizing how much of my work came from my grandmothers.  My paternal grandmother, who just had her 87th birthday on Friday, taught me work ethic.  She’s been independent for decades.  In fact, she’s been independent her whole life.  The only girl among many brother and half-brothers, she always held her own.  She worked a whole slew of jobs, bought her own cars, and even worked to keep the farm afloat when her husband died and she was on the verge of poverty.

Then there’s my maternal grandmother, teaching more than maybe she realized.  I’ve traced my lineage through a line of medicine people, the clan I’m enrolled in, and it seems fitting.  The emphasis she placed on plants.  The central part gardening played in our lives growing up.  Making salads of Lovage from her Salad Bowl…It has all translated into my work today.  It has taken me some time, but I finally realize how many people have lost this common sense.  That’s why so much of my work is dedicated to food sovereignty, seed saving practices, and native seed banks.

One thing I love about engineering is how flexible it can be.  I learn all of the tools to apply it to fancy technology, but there’s a whole other realm of possibilities too.  That realm is where engineering overlaps with the most basic concepts.  “Expounding on traditional knowledge” is probably my favorite way to describe it.  It’s taking engineering to analyze why certain traditional farming and other techniques work, then looking at how to make them even more efficient or effective.  Water use and resource management.  Seed cleaning, saving, and distribution.  Even traditional structures.  (Did you know kivas utilize convection to function?)

It’s hard to imagine, based on how I grew up, that people don’t raise their own food, that they don’t know how to grow it or how to save seeds.  But I’m realizing how much that is the reality.  Through the local programs our AISES group has been collaborating with, I’ve been able to work with Working in Beauty, members from COPE, and a variety of other organizations to tackle food sovereignty topics on both the educational as well as policy levels.  Outreach.  Outreach.  Outreach.

If you ever want me to speak at your function, be sure to contact my agent.  Just kidding…my agent’s on vacation this month. 😉

lemonade.

I have been avoiding listening to Lemonade by Beyonce.  Why?  Because I don’t really care about Beyonce’s music, and I most certainly don’t care about “celebrities”.  (Seriously, people ask if I “keep up” with such-and-such…but WHO CARES.  They are people, we are people, and we obsess over details in their lives, details we don’t even care to know about our neighbors.  In that way, modern society is pathetic, imho.)  However, I finally listened to the whole album in the last 24 hours.  And I’m not sure I’ll be able to encapsulate the disappointment and hurt the album caused me, but I’ll try.

From what I’ve popularly heard about Lemonade, people have praised its musical power – specifically in having elements the closest to blues that Beyonce has ever had.  However, some friends I know have praised it (undeservingly, in my opinion) for its powerful black woman message and its unique, poetic sound.  Let me just say first of all: I haven’t listened to much Beyonce, but this album sounded exactly like the Destiny’s Child album I have from 2000-something where she dramatically quotes the Bible.  She’s changed…so much (sarcasm).  And while I do love certain motifs regarding the sacredness of matrilineal heritage and womanhood, I find that she completely destroys those values.  Her “powerful” message was nothing but insulting and weak as I heard it.  In fact, the messages I was hearing were so triggering and upsetting for a person who has been through experiences she was glorifying that I actually had to walk away and keep myself from having a panic attack.

I was thoroughly disturbed by the message she was sending.  After listening to the whole album, I still am.  This is not an album to emulate.  This album brings shame to women.  It hurts me to think people call this “strength”, but I guess these people haven’t experienced the things I have.  If you did, you would likely be triggered in the same way and be revolted by Beyonce’s weakness.  And the argument that she’s so strong for making lemons out of lemonade, for making an album like this out of her pain?  Okay, cool, she’s exploiting true women’s issues for profit.  I don’t admire that.  Who the F*** would admire that.  Especially as a person living and coming from Indian Country, glorifying a man making the sacredness of a woman un-sacred – and her accepting of it – is absolutely sacrilegious, damaging, and horrifying.  Maybe it’s the privilege of not having experienced what I have experienced that makes people fall in love with this kind of bullsh*t.

Lemonade
The album consists of a number of songs: 1) Pray You Catch Me, 2) Hold Up, 3) Don’t Hurt Yourself, 4) Sorry, 5) 6 Inch, 6) Daddy Lessons, 7) Love Drought, 8) Sandcastles, 9) Forward, 10) Freedom, 11) All Night, 12) Formation, and 13) Lemonade.  In the music video, there are interludes of text read the same way Destiny’s Child read the Commandments in their previous work.

Pray You Catch Me starts off in an intriguing way.  Beyonce is in a field, without makeup.  There’s a southern feeling like Savannah to it with women in dresses.  But Beyonce immediately starts off talking about men in a way that implies abuse is “tradition”, that it is inherited.  That it is a curse.  She even suggests suicide from her distraught, demonstrating how completely vulnerable she is.  Fasting, abstaining from anything that makes her happy, acting like womanhood is less than human…everything about the first track and a half screams shame on women, and men are in control.

NOT.  POWERFUL.

The scene is in this extortionist style of film, dramatic but not settling in how it portrays womanhood.  It talks about self-sacrifice, about no matter how much she tries to make herself a better person, she is still bent out of shape over the idea that her husband has cheated on her.  I literally can hear nothing but I’M WEAK I’M WEAK I’M WEAK, I am not an example for young women.  It makes you think: maybe she’ll evolve?

She never does.  She just gets weaker.

Hold Up is about ANGER.  It is about not being able to control yourself.  Beyonce rattles on about how her cheating husband is the best, how she loves him, asking why would he treat her like this if she’s the best.  She’s going through his phone.  She says, “Imma f*** me up a b*tch”…”What’s worse, lookin’ jealous or crazy?”

WHAT?

Weak.  Pure weakness.  Honey, you’re letting this man rule your life.  Do me a favor and STOP PROMOTING THAT THIS IS OKAY.  It is HARMING our COMMUNITIES when women default to thinking this way!!!

To make matters worse, she goes into this dark poetry, discussing how she’ll take on the appearance of this other woman.  She’ll wear her face, her hair, her skin – basically saying, use my body if you think it’s this woman you love more and I won’t complain.

This.

Is.

So.

Wrong.

I CAN’T EVEN!  From a women’s rights, anti-women’s-violence perspective, I literally just can’t even… (Yes, that’s me going into teenage sass-mode, but I can’t even.  Can’t even so much that I just can’t…I just…can’t.)

Oh, but wait!  She mentions her father’s violence against her mother.  Strangulation.  Brilliant.  So now we painted this picture with violence and somehow justified it in the name of broken love (which, sorry, but it doesn’t exist anymore.  Not after all of this.)  She mentions that everyone else can see her, but he can’t.  And this disturbs me too.  This attitude that, just because someone is a celebrity, they are a “catch”.  F*ck, no.  People are people.  If you think a celebrity is a catch, you’re probably just sexualizing her body.  Probably because she exploits it for fame.  And that’s not the f*** okay.

I’m also not a fan of how she exploits men.  Women don’t talk as much about this topic because women are currently much more exploited than men, but it’s not like it doesn’t happen in the other direction.  Her sassy, “strong” look is merely accompanied by language like “dick boy”, how she’s going to walk out on her husband for what he’s done.  There are traces of strength in this song, but not in any degree worth applauding when you look at the abusive language she chooses.  Also, she quotes Malcolm X, saying that black women are the most unprotected and neglected Americans.  That’s actually not true, but close to true.  Violence against Native women is considerably higher.  Like, appallingly higher.  (It’s not a pity fest, and I understand why she put it in there because black women need respect in society, but I’m just making that point.  Not enough people hear it.)

In her Apathy monologue, Beyonce compares what her husband has done to her as killing her.  This is insulting, as many women are actually killed because they won’t leave their abusive husbands.  Beyonce was cheated on, and yet she won’t leave him.  I don’t know, isn’t that kind of hypocritical?  In some way, isn’t that privilege?  Either way, it’s not doing anything to hold up women in bad situations.

Her song Sorry, she wears some kind of tribal painting and hints that she’s leaving him.  But she doesn’t.  Oh, actually, she becomes a complete hypocrite.  This song is about how he’s “interrupting [her] grinding”, in other words an “eye for an eye”.  That is NOT something to EMULATE!  Seriously.  I was expecting a powerful album out of this, not hypocrisy and weakness.  She even suggests killing herself again, suicide.  It’s disgusting.  She pathetically ends a song, crying “Come back, come back, come back…”

She talks about abuse.  Physical and sexual abuse.  Father and husband abuse.  She normalizes it.

She repeats, “You are the love of my life.”  Over and over and over again.

“10 times out of 9 I know you’re lying”, she says.  “You’re my lifeline, are you tryna kill me?” she asks.  Then she says, the only way to go is up, she says her skin has gotten thick and she’s tough.

Beyonce is literally saying toughness = weakness.  Toughness is dealing with problems you should be LEAVING.  This is what we see in Indian Country, this dependency.  THIS is what you should never teach your daughter.  THIS is an example of severe weakness, of needing help.  Beyonce is making this look like strength.  I am disgusted by it.  (Also, anyone else catch the New Orleans Indian headdress exploitation?  Yeah, sore topic.  Thanks, Beyonce, for sexualizing the headdress yet again.)

Her next section is Forgiveness, and I wish I had an album in hand so I could smash it to a million pieces and make something useful out of it.

Sandcastles.  Letting another woman completely tear her apart.

Freedom.  The idea that returning to a cheating husband is somehow freedom or strength.

Redemption.  Comparing the strength of her grandmother to the choices she’s making today.  That, to me, is an insult.  That is not how you honor your ancestors.  “Nothing real can be threatened” should mean a real woman can move on and be strong.  Instead, Beyonce twists her grandmother’s words to justify her weakness and her dependency.

All Night.  Trusting again.  Like, are you joking me.

I’m sorry but, as a woman defined by our lovely government as a person of color, I seriously cannot tolerate this.  I fight too hard on the policy level to allow mentalities such as the one perpetuated by Beyonce to solidify in the minds of women in our communities.  We face the highest rates of violence, rape, assault, you name it.  Abusive relationships are so rampant, we become numb to it.  When Beyonce writes an album like this, she’s touching people who feel the same because they’ve been through it – then she proceeds to normalize the abuse and to justify accepting it.  It’s so freaking damaging, I’m literally in shock that people are okay with it.  Does no one else feel this?  Maybe you have to feel what she’s talking about to realize it’s so wrong.  The irony of it all.

It took me reading other articles with the same vein of thought to realize I’m not alone.  I just wish more people could see it.  Because they can’t, well that points exactly to why certain elements of this society are crumbling.