Friday, October 16, 2015

The Utility of Spousal Abuse

Let's consider homosexual marriage from a few of the less orthodox, perhaps utterly unexplored avenues.

How much does it cost, cash-wise, if you kill someone? Not the "criminal" penalties, but the "civil" ones. We've previously discussed how it's about a million, give or take, although if you round out with a lot of recent medical malpractice and car crash judgments, that number is starting to head south. How about if you kill an older person? Now we're in "two for the price of one" territory: $400K? $700K? Depends on a lot of little things, but it can easily go to 1/2 to 2/3 of the cost of killing a younger person.

Back to homosexual marriage, though. We've previously discussed just some of the real reasons the government got into the marriage business. Let's go into those in more detail here, and add in some others, also. But first, let's talk about the necessity of beating and killing people.

Kids. Old people. Crazy people. Drunks, pervies, wackos, etc. How do we deal with them? All of these groups tend to be dangerous: kids and elders, often unintentionally by trying to do things like drive cars, start fires, start floods, operate (non-automobile- as well as automobile-) heavy machinery, lash out in anger with deadly weapons without being fully aware of the consequences...they do those things. And so, of course, do crazy people, depending on how you define "crazy."

That happens to be a lot of people. It's an invisible phenomenon in the first world of Terra 2015, but globally, more than a billion people are children, elders, or people with some manner of "special needs" (mentally disabled) who are, very literally, a mortal danger. It's maybe a little scary, albeit maybe a little cute, to think of a toddler who lashes out with a chef's knife if he can't have another piece of chocolate, but at what point does it become no longer funny? At what point can the kid climb onto the counter and get at the knife block, even if it was formerly "too high up"? Same issue, a thirty-year-old woman with a childhood trauma, or a fifty-year-old guy with early-onset Alzheimer's, or a ninety-year-old gal who's really sharp only most of the time?

It happens. Life happens. From time immemorial, the way people dealt with such things was through informal tribal or family connections, and even when the connections were "tribal," it was mostly just the stronger members of the family--the non-insane adults--who could step in and impose order.

Was there a cost? Yes, sometimes a terrible one. Stronger adults might beat people unjustly, or might expose or poison troublesome youth, elders, or crazies, in order to relieve themselves of the burden of care. Like most of these costs, the nation-state hyped and exploited the incidents in order to justify a monopoly on violence. The ongoing result is the replacement of free care, provided by people with a high likelihood of personal and emotional connection to the people needing care (elders, young, disabled), with expensive care, provided by people with a zero likelihood of personal and emotional connection to the people needing care.

Yawn, old news. The State replaced the authority of the family, so that 100,000 women could be saved from spousal abuse yearly with the net result of 500,000 women receiving abuse in the State & Federal prison systems. Or working in the typing pool, etc. The State also replaced the authority of the family in order to protect children from domestic violence by greatly magnifying the perpetual, and perpetually stigmatizing, rape, murder, and abuse they would receive in a network of cruel for-profit fostering and childcare systems. The economic by-products of this were legion, for by stripping open "the family" and replacing it with "the State," the State received billions of dollars in yearly funding to give to elites, who could establish massive bureaucracies filled up with heartless morons who couldn't even get hired at the DMV, which bureaucracies then dictate the course of millions of people's lives. Yearly. Forever.

That, we already know. The concomitant abuses--not merely the billions of dollars stolen each year, but the rape-networks of foster children, the foster-to-school-to-prison pipeline and its disproportionate effects on Afros and Hispanics, the specific bilking of individuals and small communities for punitive funding programs, the invasions of personal and sexual freedom, adult and child and elder, committed by the State itself--are so fucking ginormous that it makes Oliver Twist look like a utopian falsity. Better to be raised by Col. Frank Fitts than get bounced around between a series of ass-raping foster parents seeking a daily County reimbursement, then do a few years in juvie before transitioning to life in and out of various State prisons.

Where the hell does gay marriage come into this? Well, one of the things that nation-state "marriage" did is impose State control over old-age care. In the olden days, when 95-year-old Wife Emma got violent, horrible dementia, and had a lucid moment, she could beg 99-year-old Husband Harold (or her 64-year-old Son Harry Jr.) to bring it to an end. And the next time she wandered off into the woods, he could say a prayer, wait several days, then bring the family together to mourn.

Nowadays, the State's version of the marriage contract requires Husband Harold to call the police right away, send a SWAT team into the woods, and drag Wife Emma into a nursing care facility where Emma will be filled up with eight kinds of powerful drugs, for only $5800 a month, and forced to live until she finally gives out after three bedridden, semi-conscious years of terrible pain. If Husband Harold lets Wife Emma take that Last Walk, he goes to jail. If Wife Emma talks to Doctor Dolores about a peaceful overdose, Doctor Dolores ends up in jail. After decades of fighting, Wife Emma won the right to write up a "living will" so that she doesn't need to be kept "alive" in a coma, but that's the farthest she can go. Semi-conscious endless pain, lying covered in bedsores and shit-laced urine, is not a state--sic--from which she can extricate herself without a gun (and for the few more years she's allowed to buy one of those, she wouldn't be permitted to, given her age and health, just like she wouldn't be permitted to take the Long Last Walk in the Woods. Oh, that wonderful, life-affirming nation-state!).

Okay, so Husband Harold wants out--he wants a divorce. Breaks his heart, but if he realizes what a terrible scheme State "marriage" is, and wants out, "divorce" is the way to go. And thanks to feminism, we have no-fault divorce, so it should be easy to get out.

Wrong: one of the traps that the nation-state sets for exit from marriage is whether or not one of the spouses will be likely to become "a ward of the State." Which means that, if Wife Emma is old, and she wants to break up from Husband Harold so that she can go die peacefully in the woods without getting Husband Harold tossed in jail, the State will levy a fine on Husband Harold: for the rest of his life, he'll have an "alimony" or "spousal support" obligation to pay Wife Emma's monthly medical bills so that she can be kept in the nursing home.

That's the magic, right there. That's why the State got into the marriage business: because it allowed the costs of the welfare state to be outsourced to individual citizens who are already paying taxes to support the rest of the welfare state. Granted, millions of western women out there take alimony/child support and use it/them to buy shoes, go on vacations with the new boyfriend, etc. There's definitely a component of that in there. But the screw-job that the State gives to "senior citizens" (senior inmates?) is, perhaps, more profound, considering the undignified suffering through which they're put, even when they want to pass into the night.

"Gay" people have managed to escape this. For hundreds of years, monks and cat ladies and TV-dinner bachelors have been able to enjoy non-State relationships with their loved ones (or their lusted ones; whatever), and then, when the time was right, take their Last Walk...or take a bunch of sleeping pills and drift off on the couch, to be found reeking by the landlord three weeks later. They had that freedom. The same protective shell that kept the State from interfering in "family" affairs kept the State out of "household" affairs, too, so a couple queers could bone each other for forty years, get bored, split their stuff however they wanted, and then die apart, completely off the State radar, on their own schedule.

It's vanishing, now. As it did for the Christians a century ago. Take the "Social Security survivor's benefits" lure and the "social respect" lure, and guess what--you're on the hook for the nursing home for the most vulnerable 10-30 years of your life. You're going to get forced to drug yourself into drooling complacency with a bunch of undertrained low-income staff members feeding you corn mash and treating you like a fucking infant. There are few escapes from State marriage, and one of the last remaining doors was recently slammed shut, cheerfully, to the tune of rainbows.

We talked about death, right? Well, there are far worse kinds of death than the Last Walk. How about the nursing home staff forgetting you after activity time, and leaving you in a corner of the basement to freeze and starve for three or four days? How about them being too busy to toilet you, and you bang your head on the sink and bleed out for a couple hours on the cheapest, nastiest, most urine-soaked linoleum you ever saw in your life?

The exchanges have been made. The kickbacks have passed from hand to hand. In trade for dubious protection from spousal abuse, "the family" lost to "the State" a lot of other things, too. Again, this one emphasizes how awful physical or sexual abuse is--and how much worse it becomes when you're passed around like a treat between foster parents and boarding schools. Indeed, how much more often it happens!

And the abuse itself? Well, what if Husband Harold gets aggressive dementia and becomes aggressive, and starts scaring Wife Emma? Whom does Wife Emma call? She has the options of Son Harry Jr., who can out-muscle his father, or the police. Let's contemplate both ways, and see which is worse for Husband Harold:

1) Wife Emma calls Son Harry Jr., who comes over, lays down the law to his father, takes away the car keys, and warns him to pay attention to mom or he's going into a home. Husband Harold is resentful and confused, and his arm hurts where his son grabbed him to pull him away from the cutting board. Life goes on much as normal, except he watches TV more, complains twice as much about it, and grumbles to his friends at the VA that his wife and son are "mean" to him.

2) Wife Emma calls the police, who throw Husband Harold into a neurological ward. Husband Harold has two roommates who scream at night, and every week or so he is struck with a bedpan or cafeteria tray. He is given three kinds of medication to keep him calm, one of which causes him stomach pain, for which he takes another medication, and another of which causes him to lose bowel control, for which he wears adult diapers constantly and takes another medication which causes him to feel dizzy sometimes. The attendants usually frequently remember to change him sometimes occasionally on most days, but when they are understaffed he sits in his feces until he develops crusty sores that never fully heal. Every couple of weeks he goes into the hospital for a powerful antibiotics regimen to combat the infections he develops through his adult diapers. When Husband Harold tries to tell the triage nurse that it's the fault of the caregivers at the respectable senior community in which he lives, his voice is loud and confrontational, and the triage nurse nods understandingly and thinks, "Crazy old jerk."

Which is the more humane? How many nasty octogenarian medical tales or orphan horror stories would you need to hear before you found the "State" at least as bad as the "traditional family"? The homosexuals haven't had to do this, yet. Some of them have had to live through the Juvenile Affairs hell, but almost all of them haven't yet had a chance to live through haven't had to live through the Elder Affairs world of being marriage-fucked by Uncle Sam.

All across the kingdom came the sound of the hidden doors closing. Long ago, the Christians were lured into the bosom of the State with the promise of "tax benefits" and "social status." Should've stuck with your churches, guys. Whatever the emotions of the fight you so recently lost, don't begrudge the LGBTQPZs their "victory," for it shall grant them the same punishment which you have yourselves received for the same sin which you have yourselves committed.

3 comments:

  1. You think the state will continue with warehouse care? LOL I don't even think there will be that much. Elysium time people... old people will be eating out of the restaurant trash just like my grandma described the Great Depression. Rxs will be handed out only to people with money to follow up and get more (i.e. become addicted) ... the poor will have to get theirs black market. I used to think weed would be the escape, but Big Marijuana (as one of my old Yippie friends is calling it) might make that as inaccessible to old people as organic kale. Then again, you can also grow kale and weed yourself, and back to the land has always sounded good to me. I'd rather die out there, too. On my way now to the woods, where I want to get lost when I am old, die with the swamp rabbits and owls looking at me and thinking, another lost oldster, we get em every few years...

    Interesting and provocative post which fills out for me WHERE YOU ARE COMING FROM, which I have had some trouble discerning.

    PS--I am Miss Thing this week, linked on Daily Beast and Wikileaks for this one: http://daisysdeadair.blogspot.com/2010/12/on-feminist-collaboration-with-state.html ... thought you might enjoy it too, since we think alike in bizarre ways. ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. <3

      (And btw, eating out of restaurant trash is terrible, but think of the positives: if the State is willing to let you die, then you aren't trapped in hospital prison, hooked up to machines that keep you in suffering confusion for decades. Neither option is good, but starving outdoors at least offers the potential of escaping eventually.)

      Delete
  2. From the way every innaleckshul, both the Ordained and the self-described, fear minarchism and anarchism and label them both as cruel and killing, it would seem that these Fearers of the Small Govt would much rather be Coppertops like in the Wachowski gig. "Hey I'm alive here!" Well it's not much of a change, they're not really alive now anyway.

    ReplyDelete