"Deserves got nothing to do with it."
In what amounts to an effort to stonewall and avoid an issue, I have been yet again avoided in the field of combat, verbal combat that is. The subject in discussion happens to be the differences between a "privilege" and a "right" in the minds of two people, myself and the ever optimistic author of Faster Than Light. The recipients of the so-called privileges or the holders of rights are the homeless, disturbed and various other forms of detritus that frequent libraries, both public and private. The point in contention here though stems not from this so called semantic argument, but the fact that there's a cause and effect relationship that results from one principal upheld breeding a response. Before getting into that, though, let's address the issue of a privilege versus a right.

In my world, libraries aren't the "right" of the people; they may be in wording and on some engraved plaques, but they aren't, by any means, a necessity. How else can one explain the decreased funding for libraries in the last few years? Isn't it obvious that libraries aren't a number one priority in any city? If they are, as in Kansas City, they are going to be taken care of in an effort to ensure that they last for years to come and that taxpayer money isn't wasted on a facility that is surrounded by crime and undesirables. The gist of the problem that's perceived by advocates is that by taking care of library administrators will be unjustly targeting the wrong people. Well, guess what? That's too bad. Libraries are not, I repeat not, homeless shelters. They are, though, places where taxpayers, namely families, should be able to bring their children and not be afraid that they're going to have to share their space with an unkempt transient. This just isn't fair. I'm not condoning some world where parents shelter their children from the harsh realities of life, but this is a place, to quote a classmate, serves as "hallowed ground," in many shapes and forms. Because of this, it's necessary to keep the library free of miscreants and create an atmosphere that's welcoming, not filled with the stenches of the unbathed, the incoherent mumblings of the deranged, or the outright lunacy of many homeless people.

Getting back to the issue, then, it is a privilege to enter a library. People should embrace that notion. It's not a right to enter a library simply because it's there. It's not a right to steal materials, deface property, hold on to materials for long periods of time, and any other abuses that routinely plague a library. By taking materials out of a library that are "free" for the taking, you are engaging in a subtle form of contract law. It says the library trusts you to be able to be a responsible person and take "their" stuff out of the library proper. It says you'll be responsible enough to bring it back in the condition within which it was given to you. To be able to take part in this is a privilege, not a right.

Now, back to the point I alluded to above with the cause and effect. Previous posts here referred to an insecure, dolt who fancies himself a vigilante of sorts, a white knight, if you will, of all the damsels in distress under his wing. The reasoning behind my hostility regarding this individual stems from the fact that he views me as a "threat" to his underlings. I don't know why he thinks this, but I'm incensed by the fact that every time I pass this creep in the library, I'm either in store for a sideways glance to my face or a glare, at my back as I pass. Apparently, there's nothing I can do to alleviate this situation. I guess short of confronting him, nothing seems to serve as a means to calm his fears. Regardless, the reason I bring this back up is for two reasons.

One, his behavior has been rationalized, and essentially condoned, by FTL in her responses to my posts and a recent exchange on her site. What's frustrating about this is that there's no give in this back and forth. I'm resolute in my opinion that this is wrong, and FTL, in an effort to avoid conflict, for what else is it, defends this behavior, or if not defends it at least rationalizes it to a point. Essentially, I'm told to deal with it because I'm "intimidating." That could serve as either a compliment or an insult. The point, though, that this is expected behavior and defendable is utterly unfathomable to me. It's defendable on the grounds that it's akin to viewing someone as a vulnerable ditz. There's a huge difference, I think. I'm being categorized, and profiled into a stereotype, and a bad one at that. I'm being seen as a predator, which is a huge difference being viewed as a dopey blonde.

Two, if this place had its own "safe zone," perhaps there wouldn't be a need for this guy to be on his toes all the time another male is in the vicinity. The cause and effect here is that by letting everyone under the sun to walk into a library, you are courting disaster and creating an environment that's not viewed in a pleasant context. Keep the trash out and there's no need to be paranoid about patrons with ulterior motives. Maybe this guy just wants to keep an eye on his harem, and maybe that makes him feel powerful in some sense. The fact remains that there's no reason to do this if there's a set of expectations upon entering. You aren't going to run into people that are dangerous if they are kept out. Perhaps a fascist reaction? Sure, but the library wouldn't suffer and neither would the patrons who deserve to be inside.

In the end, I guess I've rationalized the behavior of my nemesis, but that's fine as long as my point is made and it makes rational sense. I hope this puts an end to this nonsense, but I doubt it will. I can feel his cold, reptilian eyes on me now.