Saturday, November 13, 2004
The myth of the underpaid woman
I heard it today for the millionth time: "We women are getting paid 75¢ for each dollar that men make... for the exact same work!!"
No no no NO, we are not not not NOT!! Oh, the first part of that claim IS correct, but adding on "for the exact same work" makes it no longer correct; the average woman does in fact earn significantly less than the average man, but that's because women on the average take lower-paying jobs than men do... yes, it really IS that simple. Most doctors and lawyers are men, the gigantic majority of engineers and computer professionals are men, and the financial industry is still heavily male. Men are bigger risk-takers in general than women, so most business owners, and salespeople for big-ticket items like cars, are men, and most workers in hazardous jobs are men. Even when a woman DOES enter a professional field, she's very likely to pick the least well-paid sub-category in that field; female doctors gravitate towards OB/GYN and pediatric, female lawyers go for feel-good work for charities and battered women, female shrinks end up counseling abused kids... all WONDERFUL careers, and undoubtedly deeply satisfying, but FAR less lucrative than the choices that men in those fields make.
If a woman wants to make the big $, she has to do exactly what a man has to do to get it; get the requisite education and training, take the risks, select the right specialties, and put in the hours... until we do, the average man will still make more than the average woman.
Some people try to argue all this, of course, and when they do the following conversation ensues:
Them: No, women ARE making less for the exact same work!!
Me: Do the men who do your job make more than you?
Them: No, but...
Me: Do the men in ANY job where you work make more than the women doing the same job?
Them: No, but...
Me: Do you know ANY woman who says that the men doing her exact same job are making more than she is?
Them: No, but...
Me: So, where exactly are these women who are making less for the exact same job than men?
Them: Uh... well... but I READ about it...
Me: No, you read about what women and men in general earn; women haven't been paid less just because they were women for DECADES, because it is ILLEGAL to do so.
Them: But... but... at some jobs, there's a salary range, right? Don't men earn more than women in those jobs?
Me: More valuable employees DO get paid at the upper edge of the range in those jobs... and the more valuable employees ARE often men.
Them: {horrified gasp} How can you say that?!!
Because it's TRUE. Why? Say you're an employer; what sorts of things would make an employee more valuable to you than other employees doing the exact same job? Education, for one, and men on the average have more education than women (although that trend is reversing, because women make up a slightly higher % of students in college, med and law schools these days, HOORAY!!). Education in an area that might actually be applicable to the job counts, too... and useless majors like Art History are still bursting with women, while impressive majors like Math are mostly "male."
What else would you, as an employer, value in an employee? How about the willingness to work long hours? The average man works significantly more hours per week than the average woman, and, although this is largely attributable to the disproportionate amount of child care women provide, all that matters to the employer is how many hours an employee is willing to work. The childcare issue also explains why women are much less willing to travel for work, but, again, the extra benefit an employer can get from a male employee makes him more valuable regardless.
Perhaps the biggest thing you'd look for in an employee is how much experience they have; as important as motherhood is, it doesn't replace job experience, so a woman who takes time off to care for even a single kid will have less experience than a man who started his career at the same time she started hers. If a woman is going back to work after taking so much time off to be with the kid that she had to actually quit her former job, not only is she lagging in job experience, but, for many types of jobs, now her skills have gotten rusty, and she's thus worth less to an employer than someone, male OR female, who doesn't have that "rustiness."
All these things combine to give a man (as of the last time I saw statistics) a dollar for each for each 97¢ a woman working the exact same job gets. Surprised? Employers are so afraid of being sued for discrimination that they're oftentimes not paying MEN a fair wage for what they're actually worth; I've heard some men complain about this, and that at some workplaces ONLY women (and minorities) are being promoted, but overall, the male gender, bless them, doesn't whine much about this sort of thing.
If a woman is willing to either not have kids, or take extreme measures to have the freedom to work long hours and travel, and becomes willing to take greater risks and choose the specifics of her education and career to dovetail with what makes the most $ rather than what's the most emotionally and spiritually satisfying, she can then be assured of earning at the highest level for her career category and specific job, and of earning overall the same as a man does; but, ladies, would that few extra cents be worth it?
No no no NO, we are not not not NOT!! Oh, the first part of that claim IS correct, but adding on "for the exact same work" makes it no longer correct; the average woman does in fact earn significantly less than the average man, but that's because women on the average take lower-paying jobs than men do... yes, it really IS that simple. Most doctors and lawyers are men, the gigantic majority of engineers and computer professionals are men, and the financial industry is still heavily male. Men are bigger risk-takers in general than women, so most business owners, and salespeople for big-ticket items like cars, are men, and most workers in hazardous jobs are men. Even when a woman DOES enter a professional field, she's very likely to pick the least well-paid sub-category in that field; female doctors gravitate towards OB/GYN and pediatric, female lawyers go for feel-good work for charities and battered women, female shrinks end up counseling abused kids... all WONDERFUL careers, and undoubtedly deeply satisfying, but FAR less lucrative than the choices that men in those fields make.
If a woman wants to make the big $, she has to do exactly what a man has to do to get it; get the requisite education and training, take the risks, select the right specialties, and put in the hours... until we do, the average man will still make more than the average woman.
Some people try to argue all this, of course, and when they do the following conversation ensues:
Them: No, women ARE making less for the exact same work!!
Me: Do the men who do your job make more than you?
Them: No, but...
Me: Do the men in ANY job where you work make more than the women doing the same job?
Them: No, but...
Me: Do you know ANY woman who says that the men doing her exact same job are making more than she is?
Them: No, but...
Me: So, where exactly are these women who are making less for the exact same job than men?
Them: Uh... well... but I READ about it...
Me: No, you read about what women and men in general earn; women haven't been paid less just because they were women for DECADES, because it is ILLEGAL to do so.
Them: But... but... at some jobs, there's a salary range, right? Don't men earn more than women in those jobs?
Me: More valuable employees DO get paid at the upper edge of the range in those jobs... and the more valuable employees ARE often men.
Them: {horrified gasp} How can you say that?!!
Because it's TRUE. Why? Say you're an employer; what sorts of things would make an employee more valuable to you than other employees doing the exact same job? Education, for one, and men on the average have more education than women (although that trend is reversing, because women make up a slightly higher % of students in college, med and law schools these days, HOORAY!!). Education in an area that might actually be applicable to the job counts, too... and useless majors like Art History are still bursting with women, while impressive majors like Math are mostly "male."
What else would you, as an employer, value in an employee? How about the willingness to work long hours? The average man works significantly more hours per week than the average woman, and, although this is largely attributable to the disproportionate amount of child care women provide, all that matters to the employer is how many hours an employee is willing to work. The childcare issue also explains why women are much less willing to travel for work, but, again, the extra benefit an employer can get from a male employee makes him more valuable regardless.
Perhaps the biggest thing you'd look for in an employee is how much experience they have; as important as motherhood is, it doesn't replace job experience, so a woman who takes time off to care for even a single kid will have less experience than a man who started his career at the same time she started hers. If a woman is going back to work after taking so much time off to be with the kid that she had to actually quit her former job, not only is she lagging in job experience, but, for many types of jobs, now her skills have gotten rusty, and she's thus worth less to an employer than someone, male OR female, who doesn't have that "rustiness."
All these things combine to give a man (as of the last time I saw statistics) a dollar for each for each 97¢ a woman working the exact same job gets. Surprised? Employers are so afraid of being sued for discrimination that they're oftentimes not paying MEN a fair wage for what they're actually worth; I've heard some men complain about this, and that at some workplaces ONLY women (and minorities) are being promoted, but overall, the male gender, bless them, doesn't whine much about this sort of thing.
If a woman is willing to either not have kids, or take extreme measures to have the freedom to work long hours and travel, and becomes willing to take greater risks and choose the specifics of her education and career to dovetail with what makes the most $ rather than what's the most emotionally and spiritually satisfying, she can then be assured of earning at the highest level for her career category and specific job, and of earning overall the same as a man does; but, ladies, would that few extra cents be worth it?
Friday, November 12, 2004
A few thoughts on Veteran's Day
Everything we have, everything we are, everything we take for granted, in this country exists because of the many men and women who have fought, and all too often died, for us to be free, for us to be safe, for us to even BE a nation, and for us to be able to hold our heads up and say that we've done our best to ensure that others in the world have the same freedoms we ourselves enjoy. "Thank you" doesn't seem sufficient to cover what we owe to our veterans, but there just aren't any words to cover the depth and breadth of our debt, so I'll say it and hope that some of my feelings come across with it; to every veteran, from the bottom of my heart, thank you for this great nation, thank you for our freedom, thank you for making us strong, thank you for keeping us safe, thank you for making it possible for us to bring freedom to people in other nations, and thank you for providing me with a better life than I could even have dreamed of having without your sacrifices.
To all the military personnel whose lives are currently at risk from the evils of terrorism; regardless of our differing political views, every American wants you to come home safely to your families. Thank you for being willing to serve so that the rest of us can stay here in safety and comfort.
You probably saw this quote in a bunch of places today, but it's so perfect for the occasion that I'm going to use it too:
"It has been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest. It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who gives that protester the freedom to abuse and burn that flag." - Zell Miller
To all the military personnel whose lives are currently at risk from the evils of terrorism; regardless of our differing political views, every American wants you to come home safely to your families. Thank you for being willing to serve so that the rest of us can stay here in safety and comfort.
You probably saw this quote in a bunch of places today, but it's so perfect for the occasion that I'm going to use it too:
"It has been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest. It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who gives that protester the freedom to abuse and burn that flag." - Zell Miller
Thursday, November 11, 2004
The Food Nazis starve a 1st grader
As you may have heard on the news, some schools have adopted the policy that THEY, not the parents, get to decide what children eat during the schoolday, with the justification that they're going to alter the rate of obesity among children by doing so. As part of the implementation of this new plan, children are forbidden to bring a lunch from home; the only lunch they can have is whatever the cafeteria provides, and they have to either eat that or go hungry... there are no exceptions made, even if the lunch contains things the child in unwilling or unable to eat, even if the ENTIRE lunch will end up uneaten. How did this disgraceful policy get implemented? Were the parents all indifferent to the potential hunger of their innocent children? Are they too stupid to grasp that a hungry child won't learn anything, won't do well on tests, and may become a discipline problem, and that it's just plain WRONG to make it impossible for some kids to eat lunch?
I learned about the extreme nature of the food-control policies today when a friend called to tell me that her worthless ex-husband, who has custody of their child (and lives very far away, sadly), had belatedly informed her that their little girl was going hungry EVERY DAY at school, because there are only a few things she'll eat, and the school isn't providing those things. Can you imagine a father so despicable that he doesn't feel it necessary to take action so that his child can EAT? The girl's mother is a mental health patient under heavy medication, so when she told me about all this, she didn't have a plan of action figured out, she was just distressed and turned to me for help; as you might imagine, once I got the details of the situation from her, *I* came up with a plan, which will go into immediate effect:
With the assistance of her mother, my friend (who can't always communicate clearly) is going to systematically take on every person and agency with any control or influence on this situation until an exception is made that will allow her child to either bring a lunch from home or to be given a special meal each day at school that she can eat. If she has to go to the mayor's office, the governor's office, the media, whatever it takes, she's going to make sure that her 1st grader doesn't have to have an empty tummy every afternoon.
What is this country coming to, that the Food Nazis have become so powerful that, not only have they taken the real milkshakes and the super-sized fries out of fast food restaurants, they've also managed to create situations where the school lunch programs, which were intended to make sure that even poor kids get a lunch, are actually DEPRIVING kids of lunches? Anyone with half a brain knows that there's no such thing as a nutritious meal that all kids will be able to eat; kids are bursting with food allergies, and they might be lactose intolerant, vegetarian, supertasters, or just plain picky eaters... but don't they still all deserve to be able to have lunch? Unless the schools are willing to provide customized meals for any child who needs them, to guarantee that each child has a full lunch every day, it's simply not acceptable for the schools to be forbidding kids to bring food to school with them; I ardently hope that, once they're forced to make an exception for my friend's little girl, other parents will demand exceptions, too, undermining the program until it's discontinued.
I don't suppose they'll be bringing back those real milkshakes any time soon, though...
I learned about the extreme nature of the food-control policies today when a friend called to tell me that her worthless ex-husband, who has custody of their child (and lives very far away, sadly), had belatedly informed her that their little girl was going hungry EVERY DAY at school, because there are only a few things she'll eat, and the school isn't providing those things. Can you imagine a father so despicable that he doesn't feel it necessary to take action so that his child can EAT? The girl's mother is a mental health patient under heavy medication, so when she told me about all this, she didn't have a plan of action figured out, she was just distressed and turned to me for help; as you might imagine, once I got the details of the situation from her, *I* came up with a plan, which will go into immediate effect:
With the assistance of her mother, my friend (who can't always communicate clearly) is going to systematically take on every person and agency with any control or influence on this situation until an exception is made that will allow her child to either bring a lunch from home or to be given a special meal each day at school that she can eat. If she has to go to the mayor's office, the governor's office, the media, whatever it takes, she's going to make sure that her 1st grader doesn't have to have an empty tummy every afternoon.
What is this country coming to, that the Food Nazis have become so powerful that, not only have they taken the real milkshakes and the super-sized fries out of fast food restaurants, they've also managed to create situations where the school lunch programs, which were intended to make sure that even poor kids get a lunch, are actually DEPRIVING kids of lunches? Anyone with half a brain knows that there's no such thing as a nutritious meal that all kids will be able to eat; kids are bursting with food allergies, and they might be lactose intolerant, vegetarian, supertasters, or just plain picky eaters... but don't they still all deserve to be able to have lunch? Unless the schools are willing to provide customized meals for any child who needs them, to guarantee that each child has a full lunch every day, it's simply not acceptable for the schools to be forbidding kids to bring food to school with them; I ardently hope that, once they're forced to make an exception for my friend's little girl, other parents will demand exceptions, too, undermining the program until it's discontinued.
I don't suppose they'll be bringing back those real milkshakes any time soon, though...
Wednesday, November 10, 2004
20,000 hits!! :-)
Today, I was thrilled and flattered to see that, despite the extreme popularity of political blogs over the last few, pre-election months, or perhaps because of it, I've passed the 20K hits mark... pretty amazing for a blog that I never expected to have more than a handful of readers due to the length of my essays and the weirdness of my topics.
Even more amazing to me is that, although my first 10,000 hits took 7 months to get, the 2nd 10K took only 3.5 months; I don't know what to attribute that to, as I haven't changed anything on here other than adding a few doodads in the sidebar, and haven't enhanced my "marketing" beyond using the ping form on this site
http://pingomatic.com/
to alert all the major "tracking sites" when I've updated (which I highly recommend that ALL bloggers do, as it DOES bring you more traffic), neither of which could have made this big of an increase... so, I'll just be grateful for it and say "welcome" to my newer regulars. :-)
At 10K hits, my geo-tracker showed that I'd had visitors from over 60 countries; now, I'm at nearly a HUNDRED. I've become adept at finding maps online to give me a clear picture of where the more unfamiliar countries are, and in doing so have learned more geography than I had for the entire rest of my life put together. Since nearly half of my visitors are from outside the United States, I try to keep in mind what things might need some extra explanation to make sense to people without my cultural context; I hope I'm succeeding, and, if I'm not entirely, be assured that I AM trying. It's also much on my mind that people from other lands read blogs by Americans and take away a sense of what we're like; if this applies to YOU, be aware that VERY few Americans are as long-winded as I am, lol, or as interested in metaphysical topics, and that my opinions in general are RARELY representative of that of the average American... and that you probably know more about the TV shows, music and movies that are popular here than *I* do.
Curious as to how I'm doing in a broader sense, and inspired by a blog where the "owner" posted about being #1 on Google for some term or other, I went to Google to do a search for "omniverse" and see how I'm stacking up amongst the scifi and comic book sites; Google returned 12,900 URL's for "omniverse," and out of all of those, mine was... #1!! WOOHOO!!
The funny thing is, there's probably not anyone who gets more out of this blog than ME; writing it has opened and focused my mind, leading me to make astonishing spiritual progress, and gain insights into many aspects of human nature. Furthermore, it's you, the readers of my ramblings, who are truly responsible for my success, not just in terms of hits, but because knowing you're here, even if we can't communicate directly, makes it necessary for me to achieve a level of thoroughness in my analyses that wouldn't be there if I were just writing for myself; the need to be sure that I'm as clear and logical as humanly possible, so that you can see what I'm seeing, makes me a better writer... and my blog more worthy of your visits.
I don't want to get all sappy, or sappiER, I just wanted you to know how grateful I am every day when I see that the # on my counter has increased, knowing that most of those hits are from people who are coming here by choice rather than by accident; to all my readers, THANK YOU!! :-)
Even more amazing to me is that, although my first 10,000 hits took 7 months to get, the 2nd 10K took only 3.5 months; I don't know what to attribute that to, as I haven't changed anything on here other than adding a few doodads in the sidebar, and haven't enhanced my "marketing" beyond using the ping form on this site
http://pingomatic.com/
to alert all the major "tracking sites" when I've updated (which I highly recommend that ALL bloggers do, as it DOES bring you more traffic), neither of which could have made this big of an increase... so, I'll just be grateful for it and say "welcome" to my newer regulars. :-)
At 10K hits, my geo-tracker showed that I'd had visitors from over 60 countries; now, I'm at nearly a HUNDRED. I've become adept at finding maps online to give me a clear picture of where the more unfamiliar countries are, and in doing so have learned more geography than I had for the entire rest of my life put together. Since nearly half of my visitors are from outside the United States, I try to keep in mind what things might need some extra explanation to make sense to people without my cultural context; I hope I'm succeeding, and, if I'm not entirely, be assured that I AM trying. It's also much on my mind that people from other lands read blogs by Americans and take away a sense of what we're like; if this applies to YOU, be aware that VERY few Americans are as long-winded as I am, lol, or as interested in metaphysical topics, and that my opinions in general are RARELY representative of that of the average American... and that you probably know more about the TV shows, music and movies that are popular here than *I* do.
Curious as to how I'm doing in a broader sense, and inspired by a blog where the "owner" posted about being #1 on Google for some term or other, I went to Google to do a search for "omniverse" and see how I'm stacking up amongst the scifi and comic book sites; Google returned 12,900 URL's for "omniverse," and out of all of those, mine was... #1!! WOOHOO!!
The funny thing is, there's probably not anyone who gets more out of this blog than ME; writing it has opened and focused my mind, leading me to make astonishing spiritual progress, and gain insights into many aspects of human nature. Furthermore, it's you, the readers of my ramblings, who are truly responsible for my success, not just in terms of hits, but because knowing you're here, even if we can't communicate directly, makes it necessary for me to achieve a level of thoroughness in my analyses that wouldn't be there if I were just writing for myself; the need to be sure that I'm as clear and logical as humanly possible, so that you can see what I'm seeing, makes me a better writer... and my blog more worthy of your visits.
I don't want to get all sappy, or sappiER, I just wanted you to know how grateful I am every day when I see that the # on my counter has increased, knowing that most of those hits are from people who are coming here by choice rather than by accident; to all my readers, THANK YOU!! :-)
Tuesday, November 09, 2004
The dark side of Blockbuster online
I wasn't excited, at first, about these programs that allow you to maintain a list of DVD's you want to see at the company's website and let you have 3 at a time, sending you new ones as the old ones get mailed back; unless availability and mailing times worked in your favor, it'd be cheaper to just rent locally, and I'm too Puritan at heart to be willing to pay extra just not to have to go to a store to get DVD's... even my husband, as lazy as he is, thought the whole idea was silly. We converted in a hurry when we discovered that the only place we could rent season 3 of "Queer as Folk" was online, but the intention was to only be members for 1 month, during which we'd see all the episodes... or, rather, that was MY intention; my husband, once he experienced getting DVD's through the mail, got hooked, and so outright LIED when asked whether the month was almost up, and didn't reveal that he'd be billed automatically once it was so that I wouldn't demand the exact billing date and then make him cancel before we reached it (my response to this revelation is a whole other topic, one that no woman needs spelled out, and no man wants to hear, so I'll skip it).
It was bad enough when I figured out that the month HAD to be up, but at least we had a long list of movies, and had been having pretty fast turnaround through the mail... but then, the DVD's stopped coming. After a couple of weeks with no DVD's, weeks that we'd PAID FOR, I finally succeeded in getting my husband to log into his account to see what was up, and, guess what, their system claimed they never got back ANY of the previous 3 DVD's we'd sent back... or DID we send them back?
The plot thickens; dropping the DVD's off at the post office was my husband's job. This shouldn't be cause for concern, except he's legendary for forgetting things and otherwise screwing up. This STILL shouldn't be cause for concern, since I of course follow up and verify with him that he DID in fact mail them out, except one of his little games is to SAY he's done something, when in fact he has NOT, in order to prevent me from keeping after him about it... and this would STILL not be cause for concern if he actually was keeping track and making sure he got those things done, but he DOESN'T, which leaves me having to deal with getting constantly blindsided when things I thought he already handled turn into disasters because they never got done.
In other words, we don't KNOW if he mailed the DVD's or not, as it's been too long for him to remember whether he actually did it or just lied about it and then forgot. We started out assuming, with what was undoubtedly excessive charitableness, that he HAD mailed them, and he called Blockbuster to have them check and see if what the website showed was in error... and they claimed they never got them. Since there's a limit as to how many packages one can expect the post office to lose within a couple of weeks, that means that either they're screwed up... or, that the DVD's never got mailed.
My husband did a "search" for the DVD's, and that word is in quotes because he can't find anything in all his mess unless it jumps out and bites him on the ankle, and most of the time he's allegedly searching he's actually screwing around on the computer; as you'd expect, he did NOT turn up the DVD's.
He's going to call Blockbuster again and try to get them to make a more intensive effort to see if the DVD's got credited to someone else's account or some such thing, and we'll have to keep looking around here... but the likelihood is that we're going to have to PAY for all 3 DVD's, and you can bet they charge full retail price for 'em. And all because my husband HAD to be a smart guy and play games to hold onto the online DVD account beyond the point when we actually NEEDED it.
Note to my husband, who reads my blog; unless you want your name to appear in the newspaper along with the phrase "found with a DVD player shoved into an unmentionable bodily cavity," you had better get this handled, and FAST.
It was bad enough when I figured out that the month HAD to be up, but at least we had a long list of movies, and had been having pretty fast turnaround through the mail... but then, the DVD's stopped coming. After a couple of weeks with no DVD's, weeks that we'd PAID FOR, I finally succeeded in getting my husband to log into his account to see what was up, and, guess what, their system claimed they never got back ANY of the previous 3 DVD's we'd sent back... or DID we send them back?
The plot thickens; dropping the DVD's off at the post office was my husband's job. This shouldn't be cause for concern, except he's legendary for forgetting things and otherwise screwing up. This STILL shouldn't be cause for concern, since I of course follow up and verify with him that he DID in fact mail them out, except one of his little games is to SAY he's done something, when in fact he has NOT, in order to prevent me from keeping after him about it... and this would STILL not be cause for concern if he actually was keeping track and making sure he got those things done, but he DOESN'T, which leaves me having to deal with getting constantly blindsided when things I thought he already handled turn into disasters because they never got done.
In other words, we don't KNOW if he mailed the DVD's or not, as it's been too long for him to remember whether he actually did it or just lied about it and then forgot. We started out assuming, with what was undoubtedly excessive charitableness, that he HAD mailed them, and he called Blockbuster to have them check and see if what the website showed was in error... and they claimed they never got them. Since there's a limit as to how many packages one can expect the post office to lose within a couple of weeks, that means that either they're screwed up... or, that the DVD's never got mailed.
My husband did a "search" for the DVD's, and that word is in quotes because he can't find anything in all his mess unless it jumps out and bites him on the ankle, and most of the time he's allegedly searching he's actually screwing around on the computer; as you'd expect, he did NOT turn up the DVD's.
He's going to call Blockbuster again and try to get them to make a more intensive effort to see if the DVD's got credited to someone else's account or some such thing, and we'll have to keep looking around here... but the likelihood is that we're going to have to PAY for all 3 DVD's, and you can bet they charge full retail price for 'em. And all because my husband HAD to be a smart guy and play games to hold onto the online DVD account beyond the point when we actually NEEDED it.
Note to my husband, who reads my blog; unless you want your name to appear in the newspaper along with the phrase "found with a DVD player shoved into an unmentionable bodily cavity," you had better get this handled, and FAST.
Monday, November 08, 2004
Understanding battered women
It never ceases to amaze me how easily people brush aside the grim reality suffered by the victims of partner abuse with the convenient analysis "well, she COULD have called the cops, or run away, so she deserves whatever she got." Then, if the woman finally rises up and smites her abuser, people scream in outrage... outrage that was notably missing when SHE was the one being "smote." If you know anyone who's so dense that they STILL don't grasp what the life of a battered woman is like, and how she can be driven to commit violence, or even murder, against her abuser, here's what you can tell them:
Early on in the pattern of abuse, some women DO try to get help; the police in many areas STILL don't want to interfere with domestic disputes, though, and friends and family too often either tell her that it's no big deal (typical in poor communities), that she must be exaggerating (typical when he's successful in the business world and/or a charmer), or to just leave... and if she doesn't leave, they feel sure that things really AREN'T that bad, and there goes any possibility of support. Sadly, most women are so ashamed of what has happened that they DON'T tell anyone in the early days, and if they love the man they stay with him despite the abuse, especially if they have kids and/or he's the only wage earner... hoping, with the foolishness that so often accompanies love, that this is just a phase he's going through.
If fear of being "found out" doesn't totally cut the woman off from everyone in her life other than the abuser, he intimidates her into giving them all up; now, she has no source of affection or even human contact, no one to talk to, and, she feels sure, no one who will help her. He usually maintains total control over all the $, knowing that she can't go anywhere without a way to pay. He may even forbid her to use the phone or leave the house without his permission in extreme cases. This doesn't all happen at once, of course, it happens gradually, and as each increment of control occurs, it's always easier, SAFER, to go along with it than to get a beating and then have to give in anyways... and the woman eventually ends up as little better than a prisoner, with no freedom of action, and her entire life centered on appeasing the "warden."
When things get THAT bad, why does she still not take action? Even if she hasn't been explicitly threatened, her terror, her shame, her intimidation, her exhaustion, her isolation, her depression, her pain, and the nonstop, crushing stress of the situation paralyze her; she CAN'T act, she can't leave, she can't call for help, she can't do anything but take it and take it.
Usually, of course, there ARE threats; the abuser tells the victim that if she tries to leave, he'll find her and kill her, and she BELIEVES that... and, objectively, it IS probably true The abuser will also threaten to kill the victim if she tries to get help, and she believes THAT, too; again, the danger IS probably real The victim also knows from painful experience that she can't fight back; the abuser is MUCH bigger, stronger, and meaner, so it's not as if she can beat HIM up and take off. So what can the victim do that, in HER mind, she sees as NOT leading to her death at the hands of the abuser?
If she can get a gun, which is the only weapon she can use on him when he's still far enough away from her to not be able to grab her, she may shoot him. She might try to poison him if she can figure out how to get him to eat or drink something with poison in it. If neither of these things is viable, what she's left with is to attack the abuser when he's asleep (or passed out), which is the ONLY time he's vulnerable; she may kill him, or try to (it's HARD to kill someone if you don't have a gun), or she may just intend to injure him badly enough that he can't come after her... she may even cut his penis off, as has happened several times.
In her mind, she's defending herself, protecting herself from more beatings, and possibly even saving her life; it's hard to see it otherwise, but some people DO think that, as long as she wasn't being abused at the instant of her attack, it's NOT self defense. To MY way of thinking, the idea that it's only self-defense if you're being attacked at that moment does NOT apply when the attacker is stronger and has the victim under his control, whether in a partner relationship or a parent/child one; the victim knows that, if they try to fight back during a beating, not only do they have no chance of ending it, but that it will become more severe, possibly to the point of their DEATH, so they don't DARE fight back while being attacked... and, if they can't strike back at any other time, either, that would mean that they in effect would NEVER be allowed to act in their own defense.
If someone is abusing you, and you KNOW that you can't get away, because they'll hunt you down and kill you if you try, and you KNOW you can't call for help, because they'll kill you if you do, and you KNOW that another beating is just around the corner, possibly the beating that ends your life, what are you supposed to do... just resign yourself to taking that beating, and keep taking the beatings until the abuser either gets bored with you or kills you? Or... do you ACT?
When abused women (and children) rise up from victimhood and attack, or even kill, their abusers, with guns, with poison, or while they're asleep, we need to see that for what it is; the last flicker of the instinct for self-preservation lashing out to end the situation in a way OTHER than with their own death... in other words, as self defense.
Our legal system has GOT to come up with some sort of help for battered women other than restraining orders, which are just pieces of paper and don't deter a man who's intending to KILL someone, and a willingness to prosecute a man AFTER he's beaten the woman into a coma, or to death; I'd be willing to pay a little extra in taxes to fund something along the lines of the witness protection program that would put a battered woman and her kids out of the abuser's reach forever... would you?
Early on in the pattern of abuse, some women DO try to get help; the police in many areas STILL don't want to interfere with domestic disputes, though, and friends and family too often either tell her that it's no big deal (typical in poor communities), that she must be exaggerating (typical when he's successful in the business world and/or a charmer), or to just leave... and if she doesn't leave, they feel sure that things really AREN'T that bad, and there goes any possibility of support. Sadly, most women are so ashamed of what has happened that they DON'T tell anyone in the early days, and if they love the man they stay with him despite the abuse, especially if they have kids and/or he's the only wage earner... hoping, with the foolishness that so often accompanies love, that this is just a phase he's going through.
If fear of being "found out" doesn't totally cut the woman off from everyone in her life other than the abuser, he intimidates her into giving them all up; now, she has no source of affection or even human contact, no one to talk to, and, she feels sure, no one who will help her. He usually maintains total control over all the $, knowing that she can't go anywhere without a way to pay. He may even forbid her to use the phone or leave the house without his permission in extreme cases. This doesn't all happen at once, of course, it happens gradually, and as each increment of control occurs, it's always easier, SAFER, to go along with it than to get a beating and then have to give in anyways... and the woman eventually ends up as little better than a prisoner, with no freedom of action, and her entire life centered on appeasing the "warden."
When things get THAT bad, why does she still not take action? Even if she hasn't been explicitly threatened, her terror, her shame, her intimidation, her exhaustion, her isolation, her depression, her pain, and the nonstop, crushing stress of the situation paralyze her; she CAN'T act, she can't leave, she can't call for help, she can't do anything but take it and take it.
Usually, of course, there ARE threats; the abuser tells the victim that if she tries to leave, he'll find her and kill her, and she BELIEVES that... and, objectively, it IS probably true The abuser will also threaten to kill the victim if she tries to get help, and she believes THAT, too; again, the danger IS probably real The victim also knows from painful experience that she can't fight back; the abuser is MUCH bigger, stronger, and meaner, so it's not as if she can beat HIM up and take off. So what can the victim do that, in HER mind, she sees as NOT leading to her death at the hands of the abuser?
If she can get a gun, which is the only weapon she can use on him when he's still far enough away from her to not be able to grab her, she may shoot him. She might try to poison him if she can figure out how to get him to eat or drink something with poison in it. If neither of these things is viable, what she's left with is to attack the abuser when he's asleep (or passed out), which is the ONLY time he's vulnerable; she may kill him, or try to (it's HARD to kill someone if you don't have a gun), or she may just intend to injure him badly enough that he can't come after her... she may even cut his penis off, as has happened several times.
In her mind, she's defending herself, protecting herself from more beatings, and possibly even saving her life; it's hard to see it otherwise, but some people DO think that, as long as she wasn't being abused at the instant of her attack, it's NOT self defense. To MY way of thinking, the idea that it's only self-defense if you're being attacked at that moment does NOT apply when the attacker is stronger and has the victim under his control, whether in a partner relationship or a parent/child one; the victim knows that, if they try to fight back during a beating, not only do they have no chance of ending it, but that it will become more severe, possibly to the point of their DEATH, so they don't DARE fight back while being attacked... and, if they can't strike back at any other time, either, that would mean that they in effect would NEVER be allowed to act in their own defense.
If someone is abusing you, and you KNOW that you can't get away, because they'll hunt you down and kill you if you try, and you KNOW you can't call for help, because they'll kill you if you do, and you KNOW that another beating is just around the corner, possibly the beating that ends your life, what are you supposed to do... just resign yourself to taking that beating, and keep taking the beatings until the abuser either gets bored with you or kills you? Or... do you ACT?
When abused women (and children) rise up from victimhood and attack, or even kill, their abusers, with guns, with poison, or while they're asleep, we need to see that for what it is; the last flicker of the instinct for self-preservation lashing out to end the situation in a way OTHER than with their own death... in other words, as self defense.
Our legal system has GOT to come up with some sort of help for battered women other than restraining orders, which are just pieces of paper and don't deter a man who's intending to KILL someone, and a willingness to prosecute a man AFTER he's beaten the woman into a coma, or to death; I'd be willing to pay a little extra in taxes to fund something along the lines of the witness protection program that would put a battered woman and her kids out of the abuser's reach forever... would you?
Sunday, November 07, 2004
How much can we love?
Some people say they love the entire human race, 6.1 billion people, only an infinitesimal % of whom they'll ever meet.
In some cultures, ancestors are worshipped, and people typically love relatives that not only did they never meet, but who are DEAD.
It's common for the family and friends of a pregnant woman to love the fetus, even though they've never seen it, even at the point when it's just a little blob of cells... even though they might not believe in general that a fetus at that stage is a human life yet (I myself am pro-choice, but I have to admit that that's some convoluted thinking there).
Most of the human race believes in, and loves, a deity or deities of some sort, which they have never seen, and whose very nature they can only guess at.
(If there's anything that truly separates us from the animals, it's probably our ability to love the unknown and the unseen.)
We love our pets, even those that don't love us back, like snakes and such, as if they were our children; given that some people have literally dozens of pets, it's clear that we can love a large # of animals.
What about people? How many friends can we love at a time? Some of us have hundreds of friends that we've accumulated throughout our lives, all of whom we feel love for, so our horizons seem pretty wide in this area.
What about the deeper, more intimate love we feel for family? It's standard in plenty of cultures around the world to keep in pretty close touch with a couple of hundred relatives, and generally to love them all; in our culture, we tend to keep in limited contact with most of our family, but we STILL love them.
How about the intense love we feel for our closest relatives? There are families that have a double-digit # of kids, and the parents will tell you that they love each one of those kids more than their own lives. The brothers and sisters love each other no matter how many of them there are. Grandparents whose grandkids # in the triple digits still love them all as much as grandparents that are far less blessed love their grandkids.
So here's my question; since it's obviously natural for us to love a large # of people, and to feel even our most powerful love for many people if there happen to be many available... why does American culture believe that it's impossible or evil to love more than one person in a romantic way?
In some cultures, ancestors are worshipped, and people typically love relatives that not only did they never meet, but who are DEAD.
It's common for the family and friends of a pregnant woman to love the fetus, even though they've never seen it, even at the point when it's just a little blob of cells... even though they might not believe in general that a fetus at that stage is a human life yet (I myself am pro-choice, but I have to admit that that's some convoluted thinking there).
Most of the human race believes in, and loves, a deity or deities of some sort, which they have never seen, and whose very nature they can only guess at.
(If there's anything that truly separates us from the animals, it's probably our ability to love the unknown and the unseen.)
We love our pets, even those that don't love us back, like snakes and such, as if they were our children; given that some people have literally dozens of pets, it's clear that we can love a large # of animals.
What about people? How many friends can we love at a time? Some of us have hundreds of friends that we've accumulated throughout our lives, all of whom we feel love for, so our horizons seem pretty wide in this area.
What about the deeper, more intimate love we feel for family? It's standard in plenty of cultures around the world to keep in pretty close touch with a couple of hundred relatives, and generally to love them all; in our culture, we tend to keep in limited contact with most of our family, but we STILL love them.
How about the intense love we feel for our closest relatives? There are families that have a double-digit # of kids, and the parents will tell you that they love each one of those kids more than their own lives. The brothers and sisters love each other no matter how many of them there are. Grandparents whose grandkids # in the triple digits still love them all as much as grandparents that are far less blessed love their grandkids.
So here's my question; since it's obviously natural for us to love a large # of people, and to feel even our most powerful love for many people if there happen to be many available... why does American culture believe that it's impossible or evil to love more than one person in a romantic way?
