Things People Need To Stop Believing

As a dusty third worldling, one of the things I learnt first was to see if there were other dusty people in the room whenever I go to any transnational feminist conferences. Something else I also learnt is to not expect ‘solidarity’ from anyone unless expressly proven otherwise — and these views are a result of the way people view me and my body in notIndia, what people assume of me in most internet spaces and fandoms. My friend and I compiled this list comprising of a few of the most repetitive and inane stereotypes that we’ve encountered of Third World Women. By no means is this list exhaustive, feel free to add your experiences in the comments — and tread carefully, the list is full of racial slurs and epithets.

1. We’re not disposable objects or your fetish or ‘flavour’ of the month. Not all Third World Women are ‘women’, but we don’t have the choice to identify the way we want, because exotification gets in the way of our special plans.

2. Not all Third World Women live in lands that are in a state of constant war. We exist in cities, between towns and villages — many in the West. There is no fixity of geo-political location, we don’t need to be in the Third World to be marginalised.

3. Not all of us live in tin shacks or mud houses, like every other group we too are scattered across classes and communities across the planet.

4. In popular culture and media, if Third World Women characters don’t wear shiny and bright colours, reality will not crack I assure you.

5. Hospitals exist in the third world too. So not all Third World Women need to squat in bushes to give birth.

6. Third World Women aren’t all ‘irresponsible mothers’ or ‘birthing cows’ because they have children at [x] age instead of the more socially ‘forward’ and ‘acceptable’ [y] age. I can vouch that the world will not come to an end if you don’t see Third World Women as ‘bad people’ for ‘not knowing better’ and ‘not having careers’.

7. We’re not your ‘Eternal She’, Earth Mother, Infinite Vessel, [Insert Inappropriate Phrase That focuses And Equates Sex Organ With Gender Here].

8. We are capable of doing more than care-taking children, cleaning houses and sewing immaculate quilts. We exist in all fields of work, equating every Third World Woman as a sweatshop worker is not necessary.

9. There is no situation where phrases like ‘exotic princess’ can be considered a compliment, even more so if this ‘compliment’ is based solely on skin hue.

10. We’re not always natural cooks or nurturing ‘goddesses’. We can do said jobs if need be, doesn’t mean we’re ‘more’ adept at menial jobs than anyone else.

11. We’re not ‘eager’ to dispense dusty wisdom and folktales on demand — especially about breastfeeding or childbirth. Take a close look at the Not All Third World Women Are ‘Women’ bit here.

12. No, we cannot be ‘purchased’ outright — definitely not if the sole ‘value’ that decides the ‘purchase’ are our hues.

13. When we say ‘no’ we mean ‘NO’ too. So saying ‘we can’t decipher your tongues’ is not an excuse.

14. Third World Women aren’t always looking to ‘entice’ White Men. Shocking, I know!

15. We’re more than just ‘enticing eyes’, or ‘gorgeous hair’ — we’re people and not body parts.

16. Most of us don’t have names like ‘Kali’, ‘Sarasvati’, [Insert Name Of Exotic Goddess], generally because we know the magnitude behind adopting such names and the cultural significance they carry.

17. If Third World Women have voice parts in popular media, the world will not turn upside down. Especially not if the said voice parts don’t involve being in the hotel industry.

18. Representation of Third World Women that doesn’t posit the hijab synonymous to oppression will not mess with Global Time.

19. We don’t like to be compared to food — ‘exotic’ or not.

20. When we’re involved with White people — sexually and otherwise — saying, “You’re a beautiful hue of Brown” isn’t helping anyone get laid.

21. Not all Third World Women roam shoe-less. (Sidenote: how come we can be shoe-less, but can afford to buy dresses? Curious minds want to know).

22. We’re not ‘sexually unrestrained’ — our cultures do not ‘encourage’ “godless unions and perpetual orgies”.

23. Not all of us have British accents, we don’t speak in archaic prose when addressed. And we do speak even when no one addresses us — apparently this is very shocking for people.

24. In the rare instance we do have voice-parts in popular media, and we’re speaking out against the dominant culture, our hair is ‘natural’ and ‘loose’ and ‘wild’.

25. In other rare instances where we do get screen time and space in popular media, we’re freedom fighters, UN refugees, sometimes nurses to Big Important White doctors, almost never as fully developed characters.

26. We’re not ‘natural hard-workers’. Back-breaking straining physical labour isn’t ‘easy’ for us either.

27. As Third World Women, we’re not ‘in tune’ with our ‘natural femininity’. Subservience isn’t coded into our genes.

28. Third World Women are queer too! And still people! Who knew?

29. Contrary to popular opinion, I have on good authority that not all Third World Women despise sex. And we need consensual sex as much as everyone else — even the supposed ‘desperate hookers’ from Pan Asia — and yes, they’re all in one monolithic identity like the rest of us.

30. Some of us speak multiple languages, some don’t. Some have the privilege of speaking in our native tongues and not get shamed for it, some don’t. Don’t expect ALL Third World Women to start ‘shrieking hysterically’ in ‘devilish tongues’ over canned soup.


P.S. Thank you Roshan for your help and company while writing this.

On Peddling Access

This week I heard at an international seminar, “Existing while woman is such a hard thing to do, but I do it because I have no other way out”¹. I thought of saying to this lady, “Existing while woman is indeed hard, horrible, twisted and sometimes oppression’s declassé sibling, Existing While Dusty would be more frustrating, given that we don’t even have Bodies — if I am to see any literature or not-literature that comes out of the West, Center or even Our Core — our bodies are given to us, constructed  with seeds of neo-colonisation, imperialism and capitalism; they’re in a way genetically-socially engineered to ensure we always fit in the shoes of the Other, that this dust you see right under our pores is sewed on carefully so that we remain just where we were fixed so many years ago, and that sometimes I want to sit and bit by bit remove each dust particle out, unravel this debris to see what lies inside, hoping it isn’t yet mutated into something that again just furthers the idea of this epidermal tissue over another”. While I’ve begun to believe in the sacred act of Interruption©, to Not Let People Get Away When They Say Something Inanely-Appropriative, I didn’t say a thing when I heard this, mainly because this isn’t what many Progressive And Liberal-Bending People had come to hear. So if I did foil this plan, it’d foil their money’s worth, as well as make me guilty of having Marxists and other Left-Leaning people think of currency, and that is something my LadyBrain refused to take responsibility for, as there is nothing quite as heinous than having Liberals think they’re being UnLiberal or NotForward even for a second, no? But I digress.

The country they had come to discuss in terms of ‘progress’ and ‘development’ folds itself imaginary border upon border as they talked of sections unmarked by caste and practices, because ‘liberals don’t see such binary distinctions’ and the Land they spoke of had ‘potential’ and a ‘future’, nothing like it reality is, caught in a web of ‘tradition’ and ‘modernity’. What amuses me — where amuses is the new disgust — that these Left-Leaning-Turning-Almost-Right-Liberals’ dedication to unseeing caste and ethnicity of minority tribes as one of the factors they’re kept ‘backward’ as they talk yet again of which policies that will ‘change’ the life of ‘all class minorities’, defining lives of so many people, on class oppression alone, still licking believing Marx’s theory of the feudal-zamindari system, which was untrue then and hasn’t magically righted itself in the past 150 years. The objective of this seminar was clear, “Save the Brown people from their Brown oppressors, and let Marx and Engels decide what is To Be Done Of These People” — they were very subtle in promoting this view, I confess — what shocked me is how many people do actually believe in such dynamics, both Indian and otherwise. Before I could interrupt, one theorist started talking about reproductive labour and simultaneously I saw my braincells leave in a neat row. Words like ‘accessing bodies’, ‘egalitarian goals’, ‘globalised wombs’ swirled around us, as the theorist dabbled on his fanstastical vision of tomorrow’s reproductive labour; as if having the Orient ‘open its wombs’ is a mere co-incidence. What is interesting here (leaving the horrid racism aside) is how a Dusty Feminine Body is assumed to be limitless in a way only third-world-women’s bodies are, infinitely open and possess-able². Many doctors and scholars insist that surplus reproductive labour isn’t exploitative, especially because compensation for ‘womb’ services are rather generous, which just page one of Google proves wrong.

Another question that I can’t wrap my thoughts around is, who decides ‘surplus’ on reproductive labour? How can anyone determine that the Body has ‘x’ amount of reproductive value and everything else is surplus is there any way of possibly determining what the body can or cannot do? — that after a ‘certain limit’ this labour or value becomes sellable. Of course, it’s pesky giants like neo-Empire that insists this ‘surplus’ value should be translated to money, and the caste-class-religion minorities do all they can, to survive for which I can never judge them. My problems step in — and are unanswered — when we begin to question the autonomy of these ‘womb-carriers’ or ‘breast-givers’ in such transactions, autonomy that legal documents do not support nor encourage. To further ‘complicate’ matters, many hijras also solicit their bodies³, as their other options are to beg for money, gatecrash weddings, make ‘profit’ from the mystique and Othering society places on them. As hijra bodies, their bodies and gender presentations don’t conform to ‘normal’ (read: chromatically heterosexual) manifestations, again questions of ‘surplus’ remain static. For instance, a hijra woman’s womb may be categorised as ‘surplus’ — because labelling people like laboratory animals is quite fun, no? — as zie doesn’t ‘need’ or has ‘no use’ of her womb, so to speak. But the ‘rates’ of hijra wombs are considerably lower because of their chromosomal anomaly, as people don’t want to ‘use outcast bodies’ if they can help it. In many cases, hijra women make less money than they would in their ‘traditional’ activities of begging and dancing. So is the ‘value’ of such a womb still ‘surplus’?

The insistence of the Left-Leaning-Right-Liberals that, ‘when people consent to certain trade activities, things like caste and religion don’t matter, only monetary gain or loss does’ disables the exploitation dusty wombs go through, precisely because the narrative of class-oppression is given importance, while consequences of being caste-religion-sexual minorities are consciously erased so that consumption of Third World Reproductive Labour can take place with a ‘placated’ conscience and ‘without any violations’. Access is peddled to us, through us, so that the guilt of erasing and privileging bodies goes invisible. How’s that for being Liberal?


1. This was supposed to be ironic humour. But, all irony is lost on me when not-Dusty people start sprouting the woes of their lives, especially when they refuse to acknowledge what their Light Skin is screaming to me in neon signals, which is basically, “I’m shiny, you’re not. So I win”. Or maybe I have no sense of humour at all, which is understandable because ladies aren’t supposed to be funny anyway.

2. Ask Chandra Talapade Mohanty, she’ll explain everything.

3. “We must make use of all the body parts we can“, Jyoti a hijra said this, when asked why is she a prostitute as well a womb-subject of potential surrogacy in a CNN interview.

OutSourcing Dusty Bodies

Existing as a Dusty Third Worldling while being a Lady is a strange enough predicament on its own –whether it’s under Western or Oriental eyes — anyone who identifies as a Lady in this part of the world will tell you so. Before you can get your words out, she’ll tell you how unfair her life is simply because there is no Y-chromosome in her body, she will meet your stare and agree that it was too essentialist of her to fixate on that Y-chromosome but won’t let you make her feel guilty as she firmly asserts, “This is how things are here” and when you start to talk about enough trans*people in the world get discriminated over a few socially ‘unfit’ or ‘mismatched’ genes, she’ll observe wryly that it’s the System and Patriarchy that makes her so and this cold, scientific speech and facts aren’t her preferred mode of communication or discourse anyway; then she’ll go on to say how trans* bodies are policed in her community and you’ll squirm in your seat, wondering why did you ever challenge the notion that being a Dusty Third Worldling  is a hard position to occupy as she points out systematically the many viscerally real forces that oppress her while now you feel guilty for pitying her even as she talks which she sees right away and starts enumerating other factors that lead you deeper in the existential quagmire this conversation has long become and you further alarm yourself by thinking if she wants some donation money out of you as you try to keep your face expressionless. Meanwhile, the ‘economically-challenged’ Dusty Lady she employs sweeps the floor beneath your feet as the two of you further dis-sect the post of the post-colonial.

Leaving creative flippancy aside, many discussions and discourses coming out and around the Third World tend to not engage with the Subaltern — who knew the Third World had its own systems to squash and oppress? — they simply talk about this bottom tier as it were. Words keep floating by, and till people from the Subaltern are addressed by someone stepping in from caste or class privilege, the Subaltern is kept mute — raise your hand if you think this is too imperial to be true — and when the Subaltern does speak, these words are too exotic, even for its Dusty counterparts. So then this detongued bottom shelf is appropriated and fixed in as many ways as possible, quite akin to a laboratory animal positioned to be experimented on. One example of this Subaltern-animal is the burgeoning female surrogacy industry in India, where we speak of the people who give out away their Wombs as helpless, agency-less creatures who don’t understand the ‘importance’ or ‘boon’ that motherhood is as she ‘pawns’ her uterus away. Not only is this image of the benevolent Third World Woman perpetuated in urban and privileged echelons of India, but quite predictably in the West as well, with an even more sinister motive. When the image of the Dusty Goddess-Mother is created for Western audiences, it creates quite ostensibly a loophole that allows people to see it as a part of our chemical make-up, where we exist to serve you and just as easily over-writes the slavery it really is, leaving the Westerner free of guilt and ready to consume bodies, like microwaveable dinners. It comes as no surprise that Indian wombs come cheap for rent, as medical tourism is quick to remind us; too quick even. While I am not at all against surrogate mothers or people who choose to have babies through IVF, I am skeptical to what extent this transaction is consensual or non-exploitative for Dusty Ladies.

Thanks to India’s lax laws when it comes to adoption and surrogacy, we’re the perfect location for OutSourcing Bodies, both in reality and in metaphor; both locally and globally. One thing that irks this LadyBrain to no extent is how many people completely dismiss surrogacy as potential exploitation by saying “It’s paid for, like a womb-service if you will. Besides it’s not like the mother is made to do 16 hours of backbreaking labour each day” as if exploitation or exploitative spaces exist only if menial labour is factored in. As a Lady who has never given birth, I cannot possibly know what are the emotions associated with birth or the attachment a mother develops for her child, I do know however arguing that “the skin tone of the child will be different from that of the mother, so she wouldn’t feel very attached to this child” is too simplistic and an effort to erase Dusty Ladies off of the scale of sentient, autonomous graph. Such myths also obscure other forms of reproductive labour, such as contracted breastfeeding — like Mahashveta Devi’s text ‘Breast Giver‘ beautifully shows — and bonded child-rearing. More often than not, the Lady offering her mammary glands or other parts of her body associated with reproduction is of a lower caste background — somehow here we aren’t too concerned with casteism in such instances — and a backward socio-economic background; giving people with means a ‘Mother’ to purchase and use. Like Devi says, contracted motherhood isn’t as simple as an exchange of money as capitalism would have us believe, she even goes as far as to say, ‘Is a Mother so cheaply made?/Not just by dropping a babe!” bringing to our notice how the label of ‘mother’ can mean a plethora of violent meanings. Even mothers of ‘normal’ households are aware that they’re womb-machines, like Gehna of Balika Vadhu contests in one of TeeVee’s most popular shows, she even walks out on her husband and child initially keeping up with the implied transaction but she’s (predictably) brought back due to insistence of a large horde of fans. As Dusty Ladies, we know how important our wombs are in society and in determining our value as ‘useful resources’, which is precisely why Indian surrogate mothers are said to be ‘more compassionate‘ as we know how skin-deep the stigma of being barren goes.

In instances as hued as these, a traditional Marxist analysis of exploitation of labour doesn’t do as Marx never really accounted for the transaction of wombs or other reproductive services, certainly never thought about Dusty Reproductive labour. For instance, many surrogate mothers give up to some extent, domestic space and work post the first trimester and the Dude of the house resumes the domestic responsibility for a while. So, who is being exploited in the case, the domestic worker who doesn’t get paid or the person renting out her reproductive service? It’s important to see Dusty politics from our perspective and more importantly from the point of view of the Subaltern — I am after all a privileged lady class and castewise — to see how far OutSourcing reconciles the notion of ‘profit’ or even ‘just compensation’ back to people who need it the most. The Breast Giver’s milk is Dusty, she squats in the muddy soil while stepping in (un)knowingly in the shoes of the Earth Goddess, and to validate such a specific position we use tools and methods of analysis that were designed to leave her out of the bargain? Explain to me once again, how this isn’t exploitation; I admit, I’d love to see you at least try.


Dislocating Discourses; Rewriting Boundaries

This weekend my parents’ friends are visiting some obscure little village in some Dusty Part of India, because they apparently have a house there — and they didn’t even know it! — and the lovely Government wants to run it down and make a road connecting two villages, all in the name of progress that almost never reaches people it professes to help. After dinner, while cleaning up my Mum wondered out loud how different their lives would have been, had they lived in that house instead of this one in Mumbai. My sister and my cook began to imagine hilarious scenarios of stereotypical country life, of menial labour — because bonded labour is the new funny, People Of The Olde Interwebes — and suddenly she exclaimed, “They would speak a different Gujarati! And their English would sound like something out of a bad nightmare. I’m so glad they live here”. The idea that language and dialect would be different troubled her, especially that the family’s English wouldn’t be as ‘polished’ as it is now; their past-present-futures are different when this new dialect is injected in. The friends in question started marking the differences, he said he wouldn’t have been a corporate lawyer, she wouldn’t have been able to work and so on. Through this dinner I was stuck with a bitter taste in my mouth thinking how easily the Other is always an intruder, a predator, dangerous; it unsettles this well-established center. The Lady in question concluded, “We could be better people living here. Can you imagine us there? We would have probably been zamindars or something” and many other UnEntertaining variants of playing the Desi Coloniser. It’s always easy to claim superiority if you’ve already relegated a space that unbelongs and is unhinged as different, for this is what difference boils down to, an excuse to claim, possess and punish in one swift act¹.

Long after this dinner, I was still thinking of the above conversation. I couldn’t put down exactly what unsettled me so deeply, it was only when I started rereading Spivak’s essay ‘Can The Subaltern Speak?’ did the pieces fit together. At one point she writes, “The Coloniser constructs himself as he constructs the colony”; like did this couple. While imagining this alternative life, their present life was romanticised and their rural “would-have’s” were conspicuously ‘backward’, which is precisely why selling away that house didn’t pose a big problem to them. Unfortunately, this isn’t the only instance I’ve heard or experienced where more ‘developed’ or narratives of ‘progress’ take center stage. This week my friend put up a picture of me on Facebook dressed in traditional Indian clothes. A few people who know me from my blog and know this friend found it startling that someone who speaks so ‘freely’ and ‘liberally’ on many issues can choose to bend down tradition’s way. These are times when my ethnic identity or just wearing ‘ethnic’ dress becomes interchangeable with embodying tradition and essentialism; the alternative is to completely disengage with this identity and embrace being ‘universal’ Western. What’s the problem with e-showing and choosing to dapple in my ethnicity — out here as a Hindu woman of a certain caste and class privilege — you say? More often than not, I’m perceived as someone who doesn’t necessarily have a voice or someone who is touting for my country’s oft spoken about ‘traditionalism’. Anyone who knows me, even a little bit, knows about my strong distaste for patriarchy. Somehow in traditional clothes, the ‘me’ they saw was a different one,  and immediately an inferior one. One acquaintance even wrote to me asking if everything was okay because as she put it, “This is so out of character for you!”. And on Facebook, a tiny argument broke out assessing if I’ve changed or not; while no one talks to me just about me. This is another advantage of being Othered — as DustyLadies, this is a common experience for us — words fly all about you, but you will never be able to catch them. Like the figure of Sati (the widow who has to put herself on her husband’s pyre and be immolated with him), there are only two readings of DustyLadies. Either some ‘progressive’ Westerner is telling us how terrible our lives are, because we follow certain traditions or our Male Counterparts who speak for us (like they did in the case of Sati) and almost always showcase tradition as a voluntary act. Meanwhile the woman on the pyre burns.

Disgruntled by the thin demarcation between ‘ethnic’ and ‘orthodox’ I turned to a few close activists who know the rural realities of my country better than I do to see if there was anything of credit in this construction at all. While they understood and sympathised with my situation when speaking in a Glocal context, they referred to Indian rural women as “ourselves undressed” more than once. While this binary is troubling, damaging and too narrow, this is a very common opinion; it perhaps even has a dash of truth lodged somewhere between the Othering and imperialism. But once again, voices are being dubbed as ‘tongue-dumb’, as ‘backwater verses’ and god knows what else — I had tuned out of the conversation long before this part — these voices are repeatedly disallowed of agency and choice. My school teacher always talked of dislocating discourses from their words and environment, to see them empirically in order to arrive at a fair conclusion. One Dalit activist I know is trying to get her anthology of short stories published, and is often rejected because it doesn’t ‘tap into the tribal sentiment’ of Dalit women. Because her voice is different, because it cannot be localised to this part of this state, coming from this dialect and community, it’s declared ‘inauthentic’. Another example is of the poet Kamla Das who salaciously wrote her autobiography in order to earn much needed money, later she interrogates her fault at leaving out or exaggerating certain parts of her life, blaming the ruthless form of the autobiography for expecting a specific role out of her, and then she blames herself for giving in. Because, once again, her relationship with truth is a controversial one, her poems are rejected as ‘authentic’ experience of an Indian Woman. We still want to adhere to the well-formed Indian Doll Figurine in the words of Torru Dutt or Sarojini Naidu.

Voices of Dusty People — Dusty Ladies in particular — undergo a lot of censorship, self-imposed or otherwise, and in this case to dislocating such voices becomes a double bind, not only you strip them of any ethnicity, authenticity and value, they’re reduced to muffled words that easily slip into the ‘Ourselves Undressed’ bind that the West is waiting to devour. I’m not arguing that anyone who identifies themselves primarily through their ethnic persona is wrong but rather I am more than what I dress, how I speak. When you ‘other’ me, immediately cast me two steps below everyone else because of my difference, dislocated from my soil, all you will find is an empty shell of ‘me’.


1. See the brief history of colonisation circa start of time till present date.

When Freedoms Are Threatened, #1

There comes a time in American politics where the Politicians take certain movements too far. Such as the banning of Gays in the military. Or the attempts to ban Firearms, and Violent Video Games (in California, no less.) What they try to make a point in, is that by taking away violence in video games, or removing firearms from the public vendors, you suddenly remove any possible means for anyone to get their hands soaking in blood. But this is wrong, you see. The Criminals who attain these weapons when otherwise being unable to purchase them publicly, will be even more dangerous. They will have access to all sorts of underground arms that common folk have no idea where to even begin to look. And asking around is suspicious… And then about video games? Jeez, kids at such a young age will just go outside and play “war” with each other. Beat each other up, use play-guns to “shoot” each other, and imagine maiming and bleeding out. So, what’s the point? I will say that Politicians like those who try and pass these movements are either a) trying to make a name for themselves(McCarthy vs. Communism), or b) just plain idiotic, or c) both.

Just Plain Idiotic

In the last 10 years, during of which the 8 that President Bush took office, the Senate believed it had more power than the congress originally allowed them, and took great advantage of it. The Evidence? Passing several business related laws to send jobs from various established companies, such as Boeing, overseas to countries – mainly China. Or let’s say, the Patriot Act, which is only two or three steps away from Martial Law, and the lawful invasion of privacy. (Quick Point: The Patriot Act, under a different name in the 60’s and 70’s, allowed police officers to mine data from civilian activity to weed out Communists, Hippies, and Gays.)

In short, the banning of Video Games and Firearms break the first two Constitutional Amendments: 1, and 2. These are the most common of debated Amendments, the Right to Free Expression, and the Right to Bear Arms.

The Right to Free Expression: Video Game makers aren’t elves who live in a tree who make diabolical games in order to enslave people and rack up money using obscene prices (unless you’re EA.) They are a group of Artists and Programmers who are dedicated to a common goal, of expressing their creations. This is especially true when they make games that often look controversial, or appeal to very small groups of cult-style fans. There are of course other supposed “repercussions,” such as:

  • violent games cause addiction
  • violent games cause crimes
  • violent games cause social deviancy

We should remember that Parents, Lawmakers, and Idiots, will always target things they don’t like FIRST. The sad incident of Columbine was first blamed utterly on Doom, one of the original First Person Shooters of that time. Yet, the game “Doom” didn’t show up in the diaries of the two assailants of this massacre. What was pointed out by them was bullying, teasing, and the inability to act or think in classrooms. One was a great manipulator, and the other was a great follower. Neither really had social lives. Therefore, it must be blamed on Video Games. (See Above, “Causes Social Deviancy,” “Causes Crime.”)

Allow me to explain a little bit about addictions. Normally, they happen on their own. Whether or not someone has an addiction, is mostly based on their “Addictive Nature.” Sexual Addicts, Drug Addicts, and Alcohol Addicts (or Game Addicts) aren’t really there for the thrill, excitement, or pleasure… rather for the power, need, and habitual nature. Game addicts aren’t any different from the other Addicts. They seek out something, anything to defeat boredom, and the normal every-day beat of life. Often this happens without realizing that this escape becomes their every-day life.

Let me point something out about the Grand Theft Auto games. On news broadcasts, in the Senate discussions, and in talk shows, GTA has been demonized for allowing the player to kill Police Officers, beat Hookers with baseball bats, and run various people over without any cause of belief that you’ve done anything wrong. Well, it’s true! One, it’s a video game! The moment you walk in front of a Police Officer and point a gun at him, think of two things. 1. You probably don’t know how to handle a real firearm, as opposed to your high-rank in the video game. 2. The Police Officer knows how to not only use their sidearm, but WILL fire on you if he/she is threatened. Next, people need to think about what they’re saying. Many Politicians sleep with Hookers, but then deny them their rights on the Senate Floor, but then give them the same “humane leniency” in video games. This is kinda screwed up, honestly. While there isn’t any reason for beating up anyone, the game simply “allows” this to happen. Meaning, there are no missions where you actually are forced to beat up hookers. The same style of Postal 2, is that you are “allowed” to do as you wish. I once went through a GTA game WITHOUT beating up a hooker. Let’s look at it another way. Hookers in Television: Bad, nasty women who hear all the good talk, and sell that information. They’re dirty, full of diseases, and you should probably stay away from them. Hookers in Movies: Bad nasty women who like being dominated by their Pimp, and do so voluntarily. In the case they don’t like it, the movie becomes based around them in a freedom-seeking hour fest that somehow introduces a Manly Man to do a lot of fighting. Yet, in GTA, Hookers just act like Hookers IRL: they want you to get “in the mood” so you buy their services. So, you can either buy their services, deny their services, or in GTA, run them over with a Semi-Truck at full speed. For more on this topic, you can watch this video.

Who’s The Tool Now?

Much like adolescent Emos, guns are highly misunderstood. They are often confused as being “violent” and “dangerous.” Yes, they are. However, like many tools of trade, anything able to craft or destroy is considered dangerous. Take for example, how many workers lose fingers or entire limbs due to the Industrial Machine, in comparison to actual gun related injuries or death. It’s actually rather small! Next, take Automobile deaths per year, and compare them to gun deaths! Another gap! Yet Automobiles, for their sincere advantages over (gasp!) walking, they will never be banned. Since guns don’t necessarily have a practical use in modern society — not here, here, here or even here! — (sigh) nevermind. The above videos are a reminder that it isn’t always the criminal who has the firearms. But let me tell you that these videos would be far more gruesome and tragic if those same firearms were banned. Across the United States, the most common gun-related robberies are related to Pizza-Deliverers, who are lured to the robbers home… or taxi drivers. California has been very hard-pressed to ban firearms to the public, but considering how many well-armed gangs there are in California, I would say that it would be very stupid to disarm the innocent half

Another point that I have, is that many news casters and journalists very rarely look at Police Reports given to the public for common knowledge, which will show the actual numbers recorded with Firearm Involvement with Crimes, as opposed to “trusting” private research institutes. The number of true gun-related assaults are very small, even in urban cities. Well, this is because of how expensive Firearms are in a Gun-Shop, and surprisingly (or not so) more expensive in the underground trades. Not to mention, a knife is more deadly than a gun in many aspects. For one, a bullet when penetrating a soft target may only cause a small entrance wound, and an exit wound of only an inch or so more wide (With the exception of Hollow-Points, and some larger rounds/cartridges.) Most deaths related to gunfire are mostly due to shock and bleed-outs, but they can actually be treated easily. Knives on the other hand are much more mortal. Do your own research, I don’t really need to explain the idea of metal slowly rubbing against skin, as opposed to a bullet that shoots faster than the blink of an eye.

Rather than outright banning the Private Trade and Selling of Firearms, why not just require a permit that requires schooling and training? If a Police Officer must pass a training exam to earn his 9mm, why shouldn’t common folk like us? And I don’t strictly mean being able to hit the bulls’ eye at least 3 of 50 shots, I mean proper handling and knowledge. You know, the most important aspects of knowing when, where, how, and why to use a firearm for personal protection. If someone doesn’t know how to properly store their weapons away from children, or even the robbers themselves, they shouldn’t own a weapon of any kind. In fact, either your child should never know you have a firearm, or you should at least have the common sense to teach them about how dangerous the weapon is. No, wait, always educate everyone about dangerous tools that you have around your home. Or, just don’t own one.

My main point is, that the Gov’t should have the option to regulate weapon trade as far as difficulty goes, but remember that there will always be someone with a much more easy way to sell a gun – even if it were illegal. Just look at how well banning Marijuana has improved in keeping it away from people. Heh, not very well. The Gov’t also needs to constantly remember just why Thomas Jefferson and John Adams wanted the public to own firearms. Personal Defense, yes, but more importantly so the public can rise up and have a fighting chance against any possible dictatorship. It is so that a Militia can defend their country in time of dire need, should it arise, instead of running away. If many of our own revolutionaries ran away from conflict, then Britain may still be in control of America, Canada, India, and Africa with their colonies. Perhaps even China would be a part of their growing colonization? Oh wait, guns were only a small portion of the American Revolution. Barely anyone remembers all the talk, paperwork, and community aid that actually won-over the war for America, and all that jazz.


  • Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 76 other followers