This post may end up being my least popular one yet. But it's something I feel strongly about, and frankly, it's tough to get me to sthu about something I feel strongly about.
I am all for protecting children in whatever fair ways we can. I am totally against doing it in a way that is unfair and doesn't make sense.
In Oregon, if you have a kidnapping I or II offense against a minor who is not a relative, you must register as a sex offender, even if no sexual offense occurred. Don't believe me?
Source: http://www.oregon.gov/osp/SOR/pages/or_reg_sex_crimes.aspx
(Scroll down almost to the last statutes, to 163.225 and 163.235.)
For anyone out there who is a parent or who cares about one or more children they know, the thought of one of those sweet innocents being taken somewhere against their will is probably one of the most horrifying things you can imagine. And I don't know why this law went into effect. Perhaps there was some research and some correlation between kidnapping and having a motive for sexually offending the victim.
BUT--what about people who have committed an admittedly horrible crime, but did not sexually offend the child? What if the kidnapping was due to believing the child was in danger? Also, if you look at the legal definition of kidnapping, it could be refusing to let someone else's child leave a certain space, against their will. If you think about the crazy things humans do, you can probably come up with lots of scenarios in which this is less serious than it sounds, and someone decides to press charges due to a personal vendetta.
What I am NOT saying is that there needs to be no consequence for kidnapping.
What I am saying is that it doesn't make sense to force someone who is not a sex offender to register as a sex offender.
If this rings true with you, please join me in writing your local congressperson about this issue.
Thank you.
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
I'm not his perfect match
In less than a year, I am getting married to the love of my life. And I am not his perfect match.
He is neat as a pin, and likes a place for everything, and everything in its place. Clutter doesn't really bother me.
His idea of a great night is watching a movie or some TV shows and eating dinner. Too many nights like this, and I start to fidget, and get stir crazy, and bug him to take me on adventures.
He likes a comfortable, indoor environment, without the hassle of big crowds. I drag him to big weddings and family get togethers, many of which are outside in the summer heat.
We both like sports; I am grateful that he has become a fan of my Beavers, and I think he is happy to have a fiance who likes sports so much. However, he prefers to get to the stadium an hour early after a nice, indoor meal. I like to tailgate with my family for several hours, rain or shine, and get to my seats about 20-30 minutes before kickoff.
Guess what else? Sometimes we argue. Presumably comfortable in finally gaining some official-ness or stability in our relationship, our first fight was about 1 week after we first said "I love you." The first 4-5 months of being together (together 2,000 miles apart!) was trial by fire. We argued about everything you can think of. Some of those things were understandable, and some of those things were a little more petty. (This is for another post, but I actually think this is one of the healthiest things about our relationship. We were defining our contract, so to speak.)
There are many things I love about my fiance, and there are many things we agree about. But it is not in spite of not being "perfect matches" that our love and commitment is so strong; it is precisely because of them.
Our relationship has been fun, uplifting, satisfying. But equally, it has been hard work. And it should be. Love does not "feel good" all of the time. And it shouldn't. Love should make you more selfless. Love should make you a better person. Love should be deeply satisfying, but it is not free of cost. Because you get what you pay for.
He is neat as a pin, and likes a place for everything, and everything in its place. Clutter doesn't really bother me.
His idea of a great night is watching a movie or some TV shows and eating dinner. Too many nights like this, and I start to fidget, and get stir crazy, and bug him to take me on adventures.
He likes a comfortable, indoor environment, without the hassle of big crowds. I drag him to big weddings and family get togethers, many of which are outside in the summer heat.
We both like sports; I am grateful that he has become a fan of my Beavers, and I think he is happy to have a fiance who likes sports so much. However, he prefers to get to the stadium an hour early after a nice, indoor meal. I like to tailgate with my family for several hours, rain or shine, and get to my seats about 20-30 minutes before kickoff.
Guess what else? Sometimes we argue. Presumably comfortable in finally gaining some official-ness or stability in our relationship, our first fight was about 1 week after we first said "I love you." The first 4-5 months of being together (together 2,000 miles apart!) was trial by fire. We argued about everything you can think of. Some of those things were understandable, and some of those things were a little more petty. (This is for another post, but I actually think this is one of the healthiest things about our relationship. We were defining our contract, so to speak.)
There are many things I love about my fiance, and there are many things we agree about. But it is not in spite of not being "perfect matches" that our love and commitment is so strong; it is precisely because of them.
Our relationship has been fun, uplifting, satisfying. But equally, it has been hard work. And it should be. Love does not "feel good" all of the time. And it shouldn't. Love should make you more selfless. Love should make you a better person. Love should be deeply satisfying, but it is not free of cost. Because you get what you pay for.
Thursday, September 6, 2012
The way movies influence us...
The first time Zach came to Oregon, I was telling him everything I could possibly think of to make his first experience with air travel happen as smoothly as possible. After all, I wanted him to get here, be relaxed, have fun, and want to do it again. So I did my very best not to sugar-coat things. I wanted there to be no surprises.
I told him about checked bags vs. carry-ons, "pink tags", and how you board a Southwest flight. I told him about getting there early, what to expect going through security, and how tiny and cramped planes are. I explained that the aisles are very narrow, and that the bathrooms barely give you enough room to spin a full circle.
A couple of things surprised him. First of all, his layover was in Kansas City, and depending which gates you must use it can be a horrible place for a layover. He had to leave the area behind security and go back through it. But he made it.
Secondly, nothing I said convinced him just how cramped airplanes are. "That's not how it looks in the movies!" he said.
We know movies and TV are not reality, but if we are not vigilant and questioning, we may allow them to fill in the blanks for things we really know little about. I remember when I was in 9th grade, my English teacher brought to our attention how incongruous the lifestyles of sitcom families were with the professions of the parents and what their income realistically would be. She highlighted how this kind of thing creates this perception about what kind of lifestyles we should be able to afford.
I don't even know what got me started thinking on this. I think I was thinking about how sometimes I like a little brain candy after a hard week of work, so I will laugh it up at stupid mindless comedy movies. In the summer of 2009, I saw The Hangover four times. It cracked me up, came up with ridiculous situations and predicaments, and gave me an escape from a stressful job for a couple of hours. And it got me excited for what would be my upcoming trip to Las Vegas.
I guess it was sometime after that, I started to think about the characters. The four main ones are a bunch of good old boys...and they are all white. Hey, you know, there's nothing explicitly wrong with that. Then I began to think of some of the other characters...the families and significant others of the main characters--also all white. So I started to think about whether there were any characters that were from any minority groups. As follows:
Leslie Chow, an Asian gangster who acts in bizarre ways and is a major antagonist in the plot
Mike Tyson, who acts violently by punching a main character
"Black Doug" who sells drugs
So how does this fill in the blanks for folks, especially people who live in very non-diverse places, like just about anywhere in Oregon?
What do people think? Does this movie perpetuate harmful stereotypes? I mentioned racism, but does this movie also perpetuate harmful stereotypes about women and men?
And why, 3 years after the fact, am I the first person I know of to be asking these questions?
I told him about checked bags vs. carry-ons, "pink tags", and how you board a Southwest flight. I told him about getting there early, what to expect going through security, and how tiny and cramped planes are. I explained that the aisles are very narrow, and that the bathrooms barely give you enough room to spin a full circle.
A couple of things surprised him. First of all, his layover was in Kansas City, and depending which gates you must use it can be a horrible place for a layover. He had to leave the area behind security and go back through it. But he made it.
Secondly, nothing I said convinced him just how cramped airplanes are. "That's not how it looks in the movies!" he said.
We know movies and TV are not reality, but if we are not vigilant and questioning, we may allow them to fill in the blanks for things we really know little about. I remember when I was in 9th grade, my English teacher brought to our attention how incongruous the lifestyles of sitcom families were with the professions of the parents and what their income realistically would be. She highlighted how this kind of thing creates this perception about what kind of lifestyles we should be able to afford.
I don't even know what got me started thinking on this. I think I was thinking about how sometimes I like a little brain candy after a hard week of work, so I will laugh it up at stupid mindless comedy movies. In the summer of 2009, I saw The Hangover four times. It cracked me up, came up with ridiculous situations and predicaments, and gave me an escape from a stressful job for a couple of hours. And it got me excited for what would be my upcoming trip to Las Vegas.
I guess it was sometime after that, I started to think about the characters. The four main ones are a bunch of good old boys...and they are all white. Hey, you know, there's nothing explicitly wrong with that. Then I began to think of some of the other characters...the families and significant others of the main characters--also all white. So I started to think about whether there were any characters that were from any minority groups. As follows:
Leslie Chow, an Asian gangster who acts in bizarre ways and is a major antagonist in the plot
Mike Tyson, who acts violently by punching a main character
"Black Doug" who sells drugs
So how does this fill in the blanks for folks, especially people who live in very non-diverse places, like just about anywhere in Oregon?
What do people think? Does this movie perpetuate harmful stereotypes? I mentioned racism, but does this movie also perpetuate harmful stereotypes about women and men?
And why, 3 years after the fact, am I the first person I know of to be asking these questions?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)