Saturday, February 27, 2016

The Man Trap

I wanted to share something that I have recently discovered after being separated from my wife of 27 years.  It has to do a lot with the law.  The above diagram is known as the "Wheel of Violence" and it was apparently invented by the "Domestic Abuse Intervention Project".
First I make the disclaimer that I am not for violence of any kind.  In fact that is why I love the law. Good law prevents violence.  It gives a remedy to disputes without the need for violence.
Secondly I want to make it clear that I am not against women or their rights, being image bearers of the creator just as much as men are.  They are entitled to the same love and respect as is due men and, like men, they should be held accountable when they break the law of love and truth just as men should.
With that disclaimer in place I wanted to note the incredible bias of the above diagram.
This diagram is clearly from the feminine perspective - it explicitly states "her" all over the place. This is a very "legal" definition of "domestic violence" used by our courts throughout our land.  It is one-sided and this is the problem and the trap for any married man.
This can be easily and fairly analyzed by stating each point from a man's and a woman's perspective respectively and then asking yourself if our society treats both viewpoints fairly.
Using Coercion And Threats
1) Making and/or threats to do something to hurt "her".  (... to hurt "him")
2) Threatening to leave "her". (... to leave "him")
3) To commit suicide. (him and her)
4) To report "her" to welfare (... report "him"...)
5) Making "her" drop charges (... making "him" ...)
6) Making "her" to do illegal things (... making "him" ...)
Notes: If these rules were taken fairly from both side's perspectives it might be fair but it still is ridiculous to make these law.  It actually restricts legal and lawful activity (reporting a crime to welfare for instance).  Also the idea of "making" someone do anything implies either a codependent relationship or a victim mentality that absolves one of responsibility for their abilities and actions. It is impossible to "make" anyone do anything.  You can threaten them with all kinds of things - like governments do all the time - and yet, the undesired behaviors will persist.  Even the death penalty is not a sure-fire way to "make" someone do what is right.  "The devil MADE me do it." - a cop out at best.  Also note that "hurt" is not defined here.  Is that physical harm or emotional harm or mental harm or what?  It is easy for one person to "hurt" another unintentionally - it happens in marriages all the time.  Yet here, we see a potentially unintentional action classified as "abuse".  Also note that in typical marriages, it is the man that more often accidentally hurts his wife in ways he is clueless about.  Women hurt men too but men typically cannot whine about their pain and get sympathy from anyone.  Woman can whine even about imagined things and often get full support and sympathy from society - "she's a woman for cryin out loud!"  A similar victim mentality type of propaganda is used in the phrase "think of the children!" which we will discuss more about shortly.
Using Economy Abuse
1) Preventing "her" from getting or keeping a job (... "him" ...)
2) Making "her" ask for money. (... "him" ...)
3) Giving "her" an allowance. (... "him" ...)
4) Taking "her" money. (Taking "his" money)
5) Not letting "her" know about or have access to family money. (... "him"...)
Notes:  This is truly amazing.  So I can't stop a wife from getting a job even if I need her at home to take care of the kids while I earn a living.  I can neither grant nor deny her money - so I am an abuser either way.  There is no clarity here on what money would be "his", "hers" or "family".  I remember my spouse clearly implying to me during our separation "what is his is ours, what is ours is at least half hers and what is hers is hers."  Ok does that sound fair?  Let's write that with the sexes reversed: "what is hers is ours, what is ours is at least half his and what is his is his.  Is this equally acceptable?  If not, it is not fair.
If these rules were done fairly from both perspectives it would be impossible for any marriage not to have both parties guilty at all times of "domestic abuse".  As it is, every man is guilty by this standard and women are typically exempt from enforcement.
The idea that only a man can economically abuse a woman is sexist at its core, especially these days. Women have all the power and privilege of getting jobs that men have and in fact have significant advantages due to "reverse discrimination".  A business can easily hire all women with no real problem but imagine what a large company would look like if it only hired men?
Using Male Privilage
1) Treating "her" like a servant. (... "him" ...)
2) Making all the big decisions. (him or her)
3) Acting like the "master of the castle". (him or her)
4) Being the one to define mens and womens roles (him or her)
Notes: When two or more people are tied together in a relationship like marriage it is like a mini commune.  All is held in common and a team is formed.  All teams must have a leader or they will run into chaos.  I have no problem with the woman in a marriage being the leader IF she is also the provider.  Separating provision from authority creates a slave of the provider.  If party A is responsible for providing for a family but party B makes all the "big" decisions, then A is a slave of B, it's that simple.  If both parties earn or brought in money, they logically should make final decisions about that which they produced - but this is not optimal.  We have a house divided against itself and it will not stand.  What you have are two independent roommates sharing in common what they decide to.  This sounds nice on the surface but I wouldn't define that kind of relationship as a marriage.
One should also note that there certainly is such a thing as female privilege which is "used" by women probably on a daily basis without them even realizing it.  Ladies first, save the women and children first, the weaker sex, "she's a woman for cryin out loud"....  Using female privilege is not considered "domestic abuse" but using male privilege is.
As for defining roles that is what the head of any team does when he assigns positions to players - it is simply necessary for the team to function.
Using Children
1) Making "her" feel guilty about the children (... him... )
2) Using the children to relay messages
Notes: I am not sure how being guilty about children works here.  Is this some kind of argument against telling a mother to stay home to take care of the kids so I can go to work thing?  Relaying messages via children is certainly not mature and is indicative of a non-functioning relationship between man and wife - but is it abuse and a crime?  Sometimes a relationship can be temporarily so dysfunctional that essential communication can only be done via a 3rd party and children are quite convenient for that and sometimes the only practical choice.  Making this a crime seems very insensitive to me.  Children are the fruit of a marriage and logically are the property of the creators - so using children, especially constructively, does not seem to be an inherent crime of "abuse" to me.
Using Intimidation
1) Making "her" afraid by using looks, actions, gestures. (him too)
2) Smashing things.
3) Destroying "her" property. (his as well)
4) abusing pets.
5) displaying weapons.
Notes: Again we see this "victim" mentality of "making" someone do something.  How often do you see a man talking with something and a questionable issue comes up and the man looks at his wife for approval before answering?  ALL THE TIME.  How often do you hear of women smashing things in a fight?  What happens to a man's property when a woman divorces or separates from him?  Often destruction because the house is divided and destroys itself during the fight and the emotional energy expended and damage caused can cause both parties to significantly lose ability to provide for themselves for a long time to come.  Weapons are weapons - they aren't male or female and the display of them (a kitchen knife, a hunting rifle, etc.) is often standard practice in many homes.
Intimidation implies a threat and it can go both ways, but as we see here, it's only intimidation by the man that is considered "domestic abuse".
Using Emotional Abuse
1) Putting "her" down. (him?)
2) Making "her" feel bad about herself. (him?)
3) Calling "her" names. (him?)
4) Making "her" think she's crazy. (him?)
5) Playing mind games.
6) Humiliating "her". (him?)
7) Making "her" feel guilty (him?)
Notes: All of this happens both ways yet only the man is guilty of "domestic abuse".  Men and women are two very different types of creatures and they think very differently.  One can "humiliate" the other and not even realize it.  One can have a poor self image causing the other to be guilty of making them "feel bad about themselves" - and again here we have this "making" term which is victim mentality all the way.  Two people that think very differently can appear to be playing "mind games" with the other even when no harm or manipulation is desired.
Note also that many women simply are not gifted in providing and naturally become dependent on a man for their provision.  This is certainly not license for abuse by the man but it can naturally make a woman feel less important or powerless.  It is the love of a man for his wife that can help overcome these feelings. With today's whacked out medical practice of issuing anti-depressant meds for depression instead of detoxification, even the love of a good man may not be enough these days.
Using Isolation
1) Controlling what "she" does, who "she" sees and talks to, what "she" reads, where "she" goes. (he?)
2) limiting "her" outside involvement. (his?)
3) Using jealousy to justify actions.
Notes: Supposing a man felt like watching porn?  Would it be abuse for his wife to "restrict" what he sees?  Supposing a man goes out and gambles habitually?  Would it be abuse for his wife to "restrict" that activity?  Supposing a woman habitually spends money like water to the point of threatening to make the family insolvent?  Would it be right for the man to "restrict" this activity for the sake of the family?  Either party can be irresponsible in many ways and with the other holding him/her accountable and helping the other to exert more "self control" we get a stronger pair of people. When the state steps in and uses the force of law to dissolve a relationship "without fault" it destroys both party's ability to hold the other accountable.
Minimizing, Denying and Blaming
1) Making light of the abuse and not taking "her" concerns about it seriously. (... "his" ...)
2) Saying the abuse didn't happen.
3) Shifting responsibility for abusive behavior.
4) Saying "she" caused it. (He?)
Notes: abuse means bad-use and it is never good to use someone else, even well.  Marriage is a mutual give-and-take kind of thing but the mature have mastered the art of giving much more than is taken.  Things can sometimes be taken too seriously as well.  Many marriages turn out to be a mutual-use/abuse deal.  "I want sex, you want money - we can work something out."  This is what you get when God is not in a marriage.  Both parties start to play a power game and unfortunately, most men are stronger, bigger and tougher than most women.  When this power struggle finally gets violent it is usually the man that "looses it" and strikes or otherwise physically abuses the wife and so it can appear to be all the man's fault.  If things do progress to this point, like they did in my marriage, the wife has prima-facia evidence to leave him and take half (or more) of his stuff and even demand support for the rest of her life.

Because our society has become highly feminist in its overall outlook, the man can actually become seriously "abused" by the courts and others.  One mistake can strip a man of his dignity, finances, health, peace, friends, reputation, and future in a very short period of time.
Our society has encoded these feminist ideas into law as a way of "leveling" the playing field - which is inherently sexist thinking.
Better, I would think, is thinking about what is true and what is lovely and what is loving and let go of the fight for control.  With truly impartial help and some simple maturity I would hope that most of this stuff would go away but if you separate authority from provision you condemn one party to live as a slave to the other.
Marriage is hard and it needs all the support it can get - let's not tear it apart by playing victim games and biasing things to make it "fair".  My heart goes out to every man and woman that has had to suffer separation or divorce.  It truly is a painful road to travel.
The above wheel of violence is part of a required course anytime either party is granted a restraining order. Unfortunately it is enforced almost solely against the man and if he doesn't toe the line well, he could find himself penniless and in jail.  Who knows what consequences I might face for even publishing this blog?
I believe much of this is caused simply by the love of money.  No fault divorce makes too good a living for too many lawyers.  Empowering women to destroy their families for gain and not empowering the man to defend himself is destroying more marriages in this nation than most probably realize - till you've been there.  In most marriages, there comes a point where you realize what you have can only get you so much and disillusionment sets in on both sides.  Then the challenges of older age, health, finances and an empty nest can tear what is left of a marriage to bits.
My hope is that younger men and women will read this and avoid the pitfalls.  Don't get a marriage licence - it is neither biblical nor is it at all wise.  It is effectively a licence to divorce and take from each other far down the road.  It can become like the apple of Eden, wreaking destruction in its wake when the time is ripe.  Without a lot of maturity, marriage done commune fashion can simply be impossible to sustain. Better to be room-mates under a common-law marriage than a state sanctioned business used for tax purposes.  The morality of a marriage or what happens in a marriage is not the proper domain of the state.  It is a creation of God and it will be between you two and Him that decides what is right and wrong.

Saturday, February 13, 2016

Deadly Food

I have, over the years, become allergic to wheat and have found that sprouting it and then drying it and then grinding it into flour makes for some tasty bread that I don't react to as badly as I do to other breads.
I have some pretty old wheat I bought tons of for Y2K years ago and I have been sprouting that for my flour for several years.
I have also begun to sprout this wheat to eat the sprouts themselves as they are an excellent source of enzymes and live food.  Sprouting seeds also makes them go much further as feed for animals.

I recently purchased some seeds from Azure Standard to broaden my variety of sprouts and immediately mixed them with some of my old wheat and started sprouting them.
After two weeks, no luck.  Nothing sprouted at all in the mix.
So I tried again, but this time I sprouted the seeds separately. The fennel, chia and flax seeds I got from Azure Standard would not sprout while my old wheat sprouted fine.
This told me that not only was the Azure seed dead, it was deadly.  It killed my wheat when soaked in water with their seed!
Upon this discovery I asked Azure if I could return my seed for a refund.  The best I could get was a 50% buyback from them. (I had bought nearly $100 of seeds!)  They told me that the seed was not meant for sprouting.  They also mentioned over the phone that there were regulations that prevented them from telling people certain things about their seed.

Along with these seeds I tried to sprout some Einkorn wheat I got from  I bought this after skimming through the interesting book "The Wheat Belly" which explains that our epidemic problems with gluten allergies are due to changes in our wheat that have taken place genetically that are making the wheat indigestible to humans. This ancient Einkorn wheat also did not sprout.  When I tried to get my money back from the "GROW" people they pointed out that the website had clearly stated that this wheat was dehulled for human consumption. After telling them about this post they sent me about a 60% refund.  I have yet to try to sprout my old wheat with the Einkorn wheat to see if that too is deadly and not just dead.

I recently was talking with a person from our local health-food coop about this and she mentioned that she cannot sell non-organic-certified food grown by local growers.  Only the supermarket can do that.  However, she can buy the food from the grocery store (the very same stuff from the local growers) and resell that.  She can, however, still sell food she has personally grown.

Just last week I bought some tomato seeds for my garden.  A packet of 10 seeds cost about $2.  As I poured it out on my hand to plant I noticed that there was only about a gram of seed there or less!  You got it - individual tomato seeds costing some 20 cents each!!!

There is clearly some real shenanigans going on here. Regulations of our own government are skewing things to promote grocery chains, insert middlemen and kill our food.  I know that all imported food is radiated before we can get it to our tables. What in the world was done to the Azure seeds that killed my wheat?  The price of the live tomato seeds tells me a big source of the problem - the love of money!

I asked both the Einkorn wheat and Azure people how I can tell if my food is alive or not if they will not sprout?

No answers to this question have yet arrived.

I have let both Azure and the heritage grain conservancy know about this post and they are welcome to comment here and give their side of the story.