A Tale of Two Jokes

Well, one is not really a joke, but a story. If you want a good laugh, then read on. (I don't know who wrote it, found it on a forum post).

Pocket Tazer Stun Gun, a great gift for the wife.
A guy who purchased his lovely wife a pocket Tazer for their anniversary submitted this:
Last weekend I saw something at Larry 's Pistol & Pawn Shop that sparked my interest. The occasion was our 15th anniversary and I was looking for a little something extra for my wife Julie . What I came across was a 100,000-volt, pocket/purse- sized tazer. The effects of the tazer were supposed to be short lived, with no long-term adverse affect on your assailant, allowing her adequate time to retreat to safety....??
WAY TOO COOL! Long story short, I bought the device and brought it home. I loaded two AAA batteries in the darn thing and pushed the button. Nothing! I was disappointed. I learned, however, that if I pushed the button and pressed it against a metal surface at the same time; I'd get the blue arc of electricity darting back and forth between the prongs.

AWESOME!!!

Unfortunately, I have yet to explain to Julie what that burn spot is on the face of her microwave.
Okay, so I was home alone with this new toy, thinking to myself that it couldn't be all that bad with only two triple-A batteries, right? There I sat in my recliner, my cat Gracie looking on intently (trusting little soul) while I was reading the directions and thinking that I really needed to try this thing out on a flesh & blood moving target. I must admit I thought about zapping Gracie (for a fraction of a second) and thought better of it. She is such a sweet cat. But, if I was going to give this thing to my wife to protect herself against a mugger, I did want some assurance that it would work as advertised. Am I wrong?
So, there I sat in a pair of shorts and a tank top with my reading glasses perched delicately y on the bridge of my nose, directions in one hand, and tazer in another. The directions said that a one-second burst would shock and disorient your assailant; a two-second burst was supposed to cause muscle spasms and a major loss of bodily control; a three-second burst would purportedly make your assailant flop on the ground like a fish out of water. Any burst longer than three seconds would be wasting the batteries.
All the while I'm looking at this little device measuring about 5" long, less than 3/4 inch in circumference; pretty cute really and (loaded with two itsy, bitsy triple-A batteries) thinking to myself, 'no possible way!' What happened next is almost beyond description, but I'll do my best.. .?
I'm sitting there alone, Gracie looking on with her head cocked to one side as if to say, 'don't do it dipshite,' reasoning that a one second burst from such a tiny little ole thing couldn't hurt all that bad. I decided to give myself a one second burst just for heck of it. I touched the prongs to my naked thigh, pushed the button, and . .

HOLY MOTHER OF GOD . . WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION . . . WHAT THE HELL!!!

I'm pretty sure Jessie Ventura ran in through the side door, picked me up in the recliner, then body slammed us both on the carpet, over and over and over again. I vaguely recall waking up on my side in the fetal position, with tears in my eyes, body soaking wet, both nipples on fire, testicles nowhere to be found, with my left arm tucked under my body in the oddest position, and tingling in my legs? The cat was making meowing sounds I had never heard before, clinging to a picture frame hanging above the fireplace, obviously in an attempt to avoid getting slammed by my body flopping all over the living room.
Note: If you ever feel compelled to 'mug' yourself with a tazer, one note of caution: there is no such thing as a one second burst when you zap yourself! You will not let go of that thing until it is dislodged from your hand by a violent thrashing about on the floor.. A three second burst would be considered conservative?

IT HURT LIKE HELL!!!

A minute or so later (I can't be sure, as time was a relative thing at that point), I collected my wits (what little I had left), sat up and surveyed the landscape. My bent reading glasses were on the mantel of the fireplace. The recliner was upside down and about 8 feet or so from where it originally was. My triceps, right thigh and both nipples were still twitching. My face felt like it had been shot up with Novocain, and my bottom lip weighed 88 lbs. I had no control over the drooling.
Apparently I pooped on myself, but was too numb to know for sure and my sense of smell was gone. I saw a faint smoke cloud above my head which I believe came from my hair. I'm still looking for my nuts and I'm offering a significant reward for their safe return!

P.s... My wife, can't stop laughing about my experience, loved the gift, and now regularly threatens me with it!

Don't you just love it? Did it make you laugh?

Here's another joke that came by my inbox recently.

Tired of constantly being broke & stuck in an unhappy marriage, a young husband decided to solve both problems by taking out a large insurance policy on his wife with himself as the beneficiary, and then arranging to have her killed.

A 'friend of a friend' put him in touch with a nefarious dark-side underworld figure who went by the name of 'Artie.' Artie then explained to the husband that his going price for snuffing out a spouse was $5,000. The husband said he was willing to pay that amount, but that he wouldn't have any cash on hand until he could collect his wife's insurance money. Artie insisted on being paid at least something up front, so the man opened his wallet, displaying the single dollar bill that rested inside. Artie sighed, rolled his eyes, & reluctantly agreed to accept the dollar as down payment for the dirty deed.

A few days later, Artie followed the man's wife to the local Woolworths store. There, he surprised her in the produce department & proceeded to strangle her with his gloved hands & as the poor unsuspecting woman drew her last breath & slumped to the floor........ The manager of the produce department stumbled unexpectedly onto the murder scene. Unwilling to leave any living witnesses behind, ol' Artie had no choice but to strangle the produce manager as well.

However, unknown to Artie, the entire proceedings were captured by the hidden security cameras & observed by the store's security guard, who immediately called the police. Artie was caught & arrested before he could even leave the store.

Under intense questioning at the police station, Artie revealed the whole sordid plan, including his unusual financial arrangements with the hapless husband who was also quickly arrested. The next day in the newspaper, the headline declared ....

'ARTIE CHOKES 2 for $1.00 AT WOOLWORTHS!'

So, did you have a laugh at that one?

I didn't. And because I replied to the Artie Choke Joke sending person a reply about social constructs, and then a few days later followed with the Tazer Gun story, I was accused of having 'double standards'. According to my accuser, the Tazer Gun story denigrates men.

But I don't think it does. I didn't see it that way, and that got me thinking about the differences between these two jokes. I'll attempt to explain how I see the differences. I'll start with the Artie joke: First up the punch line isn't really all that clever, but someone thought of it and decided to construct a joke for it. The 'joke' is based around the sanctioned murder of a woman by her husband which is the extreme end of violence and in particular it's done by the man who is her intimate partner. Secondly, we don't know the gender of the manager and if it's a male this is conveniently left out. Thirdly, it's the husband who gets caught that is referred to as hapless, and there's no mention of the hapless circumstance that had befallen the wife and the manager, so we are left to lament the 'poor' husband because he got caught. Lastly, the joke is centred around the value of the wife's life being as low as $1. So, overall the reader is expected to laugh at this series of circumstances and find that murdering your wife is funny.

With the tazer gun story I see a man who has written a story about himself, and he's done it in a humourous way. First up, he shows that he has a moral conscience in that he should tell his wife about the burn mark on her microwave. Secondly, he shows that he has empathy, by morally reasoning that the cat should not be the subject of his experiment. Thirdly, he is not afraid to disclose his curious and creative mind. Fourthly, I believe he really does care for his wife's safety. And lastly, and most of all, the man who wrote this can laugh at himself, and isn't that such a wonderful trait to have? His story does not harm or devalue anyone, not even himself, really. Overall, I think the guy who wrote this is a warm, caring, compassionate and funny person.

The ability to laugh at oneself is one of the best traits we can all possess. I wonder if the tazer man has a brother....:-)

Disney on Ice and all that fairytale stuff

I had the opportunity to book tickets for Disney on Ice in a pre-release offer. So I thought, Why not, as you do, and I went ahead and booked VIP tickets for me and Stephanie and her Dad. The performance is on Thursday 25th June and we have tickets at centre front stage in the 4th row. I'm really excited about going, I think it will be a fantastic night, and it's things like this that create great memories of our childhoods. I think Stephanie will be thrilled.

I have a bit of a 'thing' about fairytales, you know, all that Prince and Princess stuff. Which is ok, there's nothing wrong with a bit of fantasy in our lives, in fact, I think it's a good thing, but do wonder sometimes how some fairytale stories have changed and in particular, the story-lines and characters portrayed by Disney, which seem to have so much emphasis on girls achieving happiness by marrying their prince.

So I was quite pleased to come across some literature on this very subject while looking for some readings on a topic for Uni. It was refreshing to read Tess Cosslet in her account Fairytales: revising the tradition, which looked at Cinderella and Snow White in more depth.

She writes: "the stories assume that beauty is the highest value for women, and the possession (or not) of this quality sets women against each other as rivals for male approval. It is also assumed that greater beauty means greater virtue and that beauty is constructed in terms of 'whiteness'. Beauty is what gains the love of the handsome, rich Prince, which leads to marriage, which leads to wealth. Hence, wealth is the highest goal to be aimed at and marriage is the end-point in a woman's life. But to attain their goals the heroines are not active, but passive. Cinderella has to wait for the Prince to find her and her wish to go to the ball is fulfilled by magic, not by her own efforts. Snow White in her glass coffin is an extreme example of woman's passiveness and in both cases externalities are what rescue the heroines, who just happens to be the active male. The only assertive, active females in these storylines are wicked and thus female activity, resourcefulness, energy and anger are equated with evil or villianness, while female passivity is equated with goodness."

"Furthermore, the passive females are associated with domestic roles, Snow White with the dwarves, and Cinderella with servanthood, although she doesn't want to be there, she passively accepts her role. The end result, which can cover in some form or another ALL of Disney's fairytales is that women function as passive objects and rivals for male attention, marriage is their only goal and that a good woman stays in the domestic sphere and that any other kind of female behaviour is demonic, abnormal and monstrous."

Cosslet goes on further to look at fairytale history, and tells us they were once the popular art of the poor, passed on by word of mouth for entertainment and it was not until they were written down that a number of changes were made. The point is made that they were tales of people, expressing their hopes and fears, particularly of how they may escape hunger, exploitation and injustice and get their hands on the power, money and land of the rich. In such, fairytales then reflected the social ideology of the times and it's interesting to make the connection that since Walt Disney got his hands on these particular fairytales their scope has narrowed. The theory is that they have been given the voice of the dominant ideology. Which is an interesting point. Given that, in the 21st century we supposedly live in 'enlightened' times which give a much wider scope for women (and men)to live their lives, when do you think we shall see some rather radical changes to Disney fairytale storylines?

So, you might gather I'm not a huge fan of Disney. I much prefer other productions, such as Shrek, which gave a more balanced view of the rescued heroine, and one where beauty wasn't of such ultimate importance.

Will any of my views or awareness of the narrow scope of Disney characters and stories ruin my night at Disney on Ice? Hell, no! But will I be aware of the underlying social construct on display. Hell, yes! And because of my awareness I have the ability to give my daughter a wider scope.

Such as: Cinderella: You're not stuck doing something that you really, really hate and don't wait for the Prince or Fairy Godmother to change your life for you, you've gotta do it yourself. Snow White: You don't have to cook and clean for 7 little guys if you don't want to, if you want to go to work, then you can go too. And finally, Ariel: You don't have to give up your identity to get the man you love, if he loves you back he'll accept you for who you are.....and finally, a) you can be still be happy even if you don't get married, b) there is much more to men than the image of rescuer, so much more.

It's going to be a great night!

The best news ever!

I am totally stoked. I got a letter this week, it reads:

Dear Lynn,
Congratulations on your outstanding academic achievement, which has placed you in the top 15 percent of undergraduate students at Flinders University in 2009.

I first read it and discarded it to read later. Which I did, and it took quite a while for the news to sink in. I knew I had done well last year, but this is quite unexpected. Initially I thought I'd attained the top 15% for my topics but as I re-read it more and more I realised that I'd attained it throughout all undergrads in the Uni! That is so amazing! I am so thrilled. I am also so motivated to do even better! Wow!

There's a certificate and some network connections for jobs and stuff (although I'm not at that level yet with 3 years still to go to completion), and membership to an international organisation called Golden Key International Honour Society.

It really doesn't get any better than this. Feeling nervouse about the presentation night already.....:)))))))))))))))))))))))

The old Nature Vs Nurture debate

In academic circles this debate is pretty much done and dusted. The debates tend to centre around how much the degree of nature or nurture has life-long effects on individuals. So I was interested to read a passage in our recent readings, title The Parental Fallacy, the following: "But never, ever could the state of your soul be attributed to what your mother or father did to you some thirty years ago!"

I believe this statement is false on several levels, firstly when talking about individuals is it not incredibly short-sighted or narrow minded to use the words "never, ever"? For me, this invalidates the statement straight away. Individuals are too varied to have a "one size fits all" blanket statement to ring true for all people. Secondly, overall I believe that what your parents do and say to you as a developing child, absorbing their knowledge in an unconditional, unequestioning way does leave impressions on our psyche.

So, I was quite interested when a fellow student started to discuss this reading and the "never, ever" statement was brought up. The view was that what our parents did to us thirty years ago was not a basis for any "blame" that may be attributed to them. I didn't think the statement was referring to "blame" and I said so, and asked questions about what she thought "state of soul" meant. I was genuinely interested in wanting to hear her views, as it was different from mine, and hence, the opportunity for me to learn where someone else is coming from. She insisted it was a "blaming" statement and when I brought up the effects of abuse, she still believed that a background of abuse or not, the parents still did not have any part to play in a child's actions or circumstances as an adult. Further enquiries about where she may have got some evidence or such to support her views, resulted in a quick dismissal of the conversation, with her walking off not giving any answers, and finishing with "I fully agree with that statement". End of story.

It was disappointing to see the conversation end as such, but it got me thinking about incidences in our childhood that could and I believe, do, leave us with physiological, biological and psychological hurdles to overcome if we do wish to make a good and happy life for ourselves as adults.

I'll start with the patriarchy style of parenting. It's a hard pill to swallow and quite sobering when a person comes to the conclusion that the majority of the behaviours, decisions, comments, values and beliefs instilled in one by one's parents are actually not made in the child's best interests. In all manner of growing up, there's a hidden agenda that girls are inferior to boys, should not be given the same treatment and that high levels of control are required for the girls while the boy-child is given and taught that he will achieve things with little effort. I have more than one friend who was denied a University education because of the father's attitude, "Oh, you'll only get married and have babies and do nothing more than that in your life." Her dreams of becoming a Doctor dashed at a very young age. Or the girl-child who's opinions are invalidated, told that she is too stupid to know anything about politics, while she watches her brother encouraged to speak up and express his views. The girl-child is told that she must learn how to cook, sew, knit, do washing and ironing and spend inordinate amounts of time on the weekend assisting with household chores, while her brothers spend time with Dad searching the car yards for their next acquisition. At the same time the girl-child is told that she is responsible for the behaviours of boys and men. For instance, she should not dress as to provoke looks from boys. She is responsible for being attacked if she's out at night-time waiting at a bus stop because she should never have been there. She should stay virginal until marriage but if this does not occur and she is violated against her will, it is her fault for attempting to seek a relationship with a boy in the first place. And she is told that the notion of living independently without a husband is "ridiculous and stupid." And what about the boy-child in these types of families? They are taught that they will marry and have rights, their wife will be their possession and will attend to all their domestic needs. The boys are shown by example and emphasised with words they are born with a right to authority and a sense of entitlement, regardless of how unrealistic this may be. And while these values, beliefs and actions are infiltrated into the children, there is a hidden agenda to further the father's role of authority within the family. He's the one that is in charge, and it is to be unquestioned.

So, I ask, in family roles such as this, what "state of soul" erupts from this type of environment? How far does it follow you into adulthood before you realise what the hidden agenda was? It has been my observation that the "patriarchal" style of parenting is believed not to exist by the majority of society, it is denied. So, if you were one of those that was brought up in such a manner, what does that say about your childhood? Are your experiences invalidated, did they not exist as per your own personal observations? If the adult-child, at 50, begins to question the values of the past, if the boy-adult's sense of entitlement has landed him in trouble with the law, or if the girl-adult's sense of playing 2nd best to her husband has left her bereft of any financial status at all, how much of "blame" is on the parents? None? I doubt it. But for many people, they believe this to be the case. I believe, the parents do shoulder some responsibility for their choices of how they conditioned their child to enter into the adult world. For the boys, the sense of entitlement is a state of their soul, and for the girls, the sense that they aren't important is a state of their soul. Can it be changed? I believe so, but it still has it's limitations, they may actually never be free from the limitations on the psych that the indoctrination of their childhood has left them with.

Secondly, I'll take a look at the "uninvolved" style of parenting, which was mentioned in the same article. It can fit in closely with the patriarchal one, in so much as that many behaviours, attitudes and child-rearing practices are in fact, centred around the interests of the parents, but cleverly disguised as being in the best interests of the child. These parents use guilt and shame as their major tools to show the child they really care, but they don't. Because attending a regular sport activity is bothersome for the parents, the minute something does not go right it's the best excuse they have to stop the activity. They will however, tell the child that ballet, or little athletics, or cricket is stopped because of the "nasty" people involved and that the child is best kept away from those "sorts". Hence, almost everything the child wants and looks forward to is unlikely to come to fruition. A long-term exposure to disappointments leaves an indelible mark on the child's soul. They begin to feel they are unworthy of anything, but they are told that it is in their best interests to not continue. School trips and camps provide the only relief for this parented child to achieve an outside activity, but when back home, the child is constantly told how "lovely" the house was without their presence. I've heard my friend's mother scream at her, "You ruined my life, I wish I never had you. Kids ruined everything I wanted to do." Hmmm, now are we going to say that exposure to this type of comment doesn't leave a long-term mark?

Last of all, there's the abusive type of parenting, not that to say the above three aren't abusive, they all are. So my reading has taken me to find Genie, the 1970's discovered 13 year old child, strapped on a potty chair and locked in a bare room for more than 12 years, every single day. Her story, you can Google "Genie abused child" and even find youtube videos that show her, is one of horrendous abuse, deprivation and neglect that's ever been seen in California. It's a tragic story, which has still not ended. And the fact that she never was able to learn grammar (due to synapses pruning in the brain at 6), and that she now lives in a home for retarded adults is testament, in the extreme, of how treatment by our parents can have irreversible life-long effects. Now, if anybody takes the time to read Genie's story, or the Trilogy by Dave Pelzer, A Boy Called It (referred to in this blog archives) and can see the long-term effects on the brain and the psyche of what abuse does, then they'd really appreciate that the statement "But never, ever could the state of your soul be attributed to what your mother or father did to you some thirty years ago!" Is a statement that could "never, ever" be true.

Getting distracted

A recent event on a male-dominated forum has got me thinking. It's not like it was the first time for it to happen so I got to wondering about attitudes that are more common place in our society than we are aware of. The topic was about sharai law and discussion was started about how muslim women are jailed, tortured and even stoned to death for being victims of violence, mostly rape, perpetrated against them. Most comments condemned the actions and went along the lines of: "doesn't have any place in our modern world", "is abhorrent", "glad it doesn't happen here". Replies such as this are dismissive and don't address the real issue, effectively they aren't realistic when one delves a little deeper, and realises these comments provide nothing more than a distraction. One comment in particular, "what about violence perpetrated against men?" was the biggest distraction of all. I question whether a comment such as this is even appropriate in a discussion about violence perpetrated against women - because it isn't appropriate. The acts of violence against men and women are worlds apart. They happen for different reasons and have different consequences. Violence against men deserves it's own discussion thread and should never be used as a distraction to avoid the topic of violence towards women.

As this topic is my passion I wasn't about to let a great opportunity go past by not joining in. Thus I joined in at a level of critical analysis, using some statistics (quantitative study) and peppering it with some experience references (qualitative observations). I did this as another poster (the one who became insulting, no less) had rightly observed that both types of information gives a more complete picture. For my efforts, a return post was full of personal attacks against my character, my thought process, my knowledge, and indeed my worth as a person. Another distraction? It most certainly was. And it succeeded too. Through that one vitriolic post the whole thread got deleted and I never got the chance to really focus in on the topic at hand. Another form of discussion and possible enlightenment for the greater majority to fully realise the extent of violence perpetrated in our society gone and swept, once again, under the carpet, or in this case, the deleted cyberspace heaven.

As this experience replicated an earlier one on a different blog some months prior, I wonder about a prevailing attitude that is a common thread throughout our male-folk thought processes, but women's as well (although I am yet to experience the same vitriol through a female person). I have concluded it is one of not really wanting to acknowledge the extent to which wives, sisters, mothers and particularly daughters, are at risk of being violated in our so-called civilised western society. The prevailing attitude is that things like terrible rapes, beatings, burnings, beheadings (such as what has recently happened to a muslim woman in the US by her husband) and child-murders and pedophilia are things that happen in other countries, miles away.

But it's just not true, it's not worlds away, it's in our own society, the only difference is that we victim blame the woman for her suffering in silence, the only difference with sharia law to our own laws is it's legal to be a pedophile, or sexual offender and here it's not. But exactly how effective is that law?

The point that I really wanted to make in the thread that got deleted, and that nobody got to read is that rape crimes have convictions as low as 1.5%, and that is only on reported rapes. According to the Australian Feminist Law Journal, 2007, of an estimated 5,200 rapes in SA in 2003, only 12 of 786 reported were convicted as charged. That's a miserable low conviction rate, and an indication that crimes of this nature occur with impunity in our own society.

A comment in a recent report issued by the ABS, states, "the level of risk of women being victimised by sexual assault as they go about their daily activities in our society is on par with sexual assaults on men in jail". This says it all and the action of deleting a topic thread, supposedly to stop personal attacks on the person who delivers this information has only served the purpose of sweeping the issue aside and has successfully supported the poster who used insults to distract from the topic and thereby dismissing the fact that "it does happen here."

Just barrelling along

Stephanie's entry into school has been so positive I'm actually a little surprised. Today she wants to attend OSHC (Out of School Hours Care) so I've booked her in early. She was always going to attend on Wednesdays and Fridays starting next week when I go back to Uni, but her insistence has her now booked in 1 week earlier and for Monday, Wednesday and Fridays after school. And she really, really, really wants to read. Last week she finished her homework, designed to last 5 days in the first night, and she did it 4 times!!! She also gets a new book out of the library every single day. And she's adamant that she's not to get on the "Consequence Chart" at school at all! Ever!

She's also going to Little Nippers that David booked her into on Saturdays, which is the Surf Life Saving Club, and she's now attending swimming lessons on Thursday nights with him. To say she's keen is an understatement, as the pic shows.

I start Uni next week and so looking forward to it.

New School

Well, I've had a whisper in my ear that it's about time I updated my blog. The biggest news is Stephanie starting school, of course. She just loves it! Her teacher is now called Mrs Ritchie and she's Stephanie's idol. She's so keen that she gets herself ready and demands breakfast (boy, is that a new one for me!) and is no trouble at all to get ready. The compulsory blister on her heel with her new school shoes, they have to wear lace-ups, being the only minor downside. For the first week she finished at 12.45pm, of which by Friday, there were a few grumbles from the littlies about wanting to stay longer, for this past week they finished at 2pm and this coming week will be the normal finishing time. I'm really impressed with how she's been handling herself, and we're already through about 6 books from the library. There's so many rules and instructions though, I think she remembers them all better than I do, I can tell ya, I'm struggling with it all. The real upside to her going to school is that she's eating more (surprise!) and is easier to get into bed at night, with her being fast asleep within seconds of lights-out (no surprises there!). Here's some pics on her first day.

I've been busy with more seaglass collecting which has extended an interest into bottles and old glass making. I've identified 2 very old glass utility jars that I estimate date from the 1850's - 1890's, as well as big beautiful blue jug. I also now have a nice collection of small ink wells, some black glass bottles, again from about 1860 - 1890, including a Woodroofe's bottle which is a South Australian Company no longer in business (no surprises there). So with that, some flower collecting and drying to make up some pot pourri for ebay which has had some reasonable success, I've been very busy.

Lifeline is still going great guns and I love doing my shift.

Deeply saddened by the fires and subsequent loss of life in Victoria. I've tried not to read too much about it, as this type of thing can make me cry and I feel very sad and upset for some time.