Karma comes in all packages - and usually when you don't expect it.
This morning - I pulled up to my office, to see a big ol' caddy out front. I usually am the first person in the office in my downtown location, so this was a surprise to me. As I parked, I saw that it was a client from many many many years ago. She smiled and waved really big. As I got out of my car, she said "I have lots of stuff for you" - and she showed me her back seat. It was literally piled high with bags and bags of toiletries.
She was a client we saw in the Emergency Room in the early days of our agency. Back then, she was a mother of children ranging from teens to toddlers, and was kidnapped and raped at gun point on Mother's Day. (Just a side note: we've had more clients in the ER on Mother's Day than any other holiday. I know that in the world of Domestic Violence, Super Bowl Sunday is the day they see the most violence. Mother's Day and the Super Bowl? That's a tad obvious, isn't it?) We went to court with her - held her hand while testimony was given, paced the halls while the jury deliberated, and wilted with relief when he was convicted on all counts.
She says that she never forgot what we did for her during those dark days. This summer, after seeing an article about our agency, she decided to undertake a project for us. She went to her church, all people who knew about her rape, and asked them to collect toiletries for us to give to victims we see in the ER. (When someone undergoes the evidence collection process, their clothing is taken for evidence purposes. We provide those clients with a sweatsuit and toiletries so that they can clean up and feel "human" again before talking to the police.) Her church family gave us lovely scented things - full sized bottles of lotion and shampoo - the works. They were quite generous and obviously thought about what would make someone comfortable at such a time.
She's in graduate school, and a grandmother, and looked very very happy.
Friday, August 31, 2007
Thursday, August 30, 2007
The blaming game
By now, most folks who give even passing attention to the media have heard the short version of the VT report.
A few of my thoughts - because I know everyone is waiting for my take, right?
I totally agree that there should be a way for different offices to communicate without worry of privacy issues. Universities have a double layer of privacy concerns - HIPPA and the Buckley Amendment. The Buckley Amendment is a privacy act concerning educational institutions. My experience with colleges and universities is that they are primarily concerned with avoiding image issues and avoiding lawsuits. It also has been my experience that universities fear law suits from accused rather than accusers.
It also seems that there isn't a particularly good plan for dealing with the odd "scary" student. Colleges generally accept that students are in a period in their lives in which they are testing boundaries, defining themselves, and experimentation. Because of this, there is a pretty high degree of "unusual" behavior that is tolerated. (I, myself, spent much of my freshman year wandering around in homemade skirts, large scarves tied up as tops, barefooted, and with flowers in my hair. I'm not kidding.) However, this kid was setting off red flags, it would seem, with everyone.
On the other hand, I also wonder how much we will ever be able to intervene effectively without specific acts. Kicking the kid out of school because his writing was disturbing would effectively be creating "thought police." And, I suspect that a good segment of our society who will find that notion seriously disturbing too.
I don't necessarily buy that the fault lies with campus police. One, police really are designed to respond to crisis rather than necessarily anticipate it. Two, initially, the police were given information that would lead them to believe that the first shooting was by someone off campus. To send a limited police force off chasing down other leads could easily have been foolish. Three, whereas most college campuses have professionalized their campus security/public safety, most campus police forces don't really do a whole lot of responding to violence anywhere close to this type of thing. They take a few rape charges - but often those involve people who are acquainted and don't often involve violence beyond the physical assault of the rape or what was necessary to subdue a victim. They may respond to occasional fights - or some dating violence. There are some restraining orders that need to be enforced. But, most of what campus police respond to is property crimes or over indulgence of substances. Police officers are human. They have their own reaction - although usually more controlled than the average person - there has to still be some level of response to that level of violence.
I really feel that the bulk of the "blame" (beyond what must, of course, be assigned to the perp) should rest with the judge who refused to involuntarily commit him. When student mental health services finally acted to protect this guy from himself and the community from him - the judge dropped the ball. The involuntary commitment order would have entered this kid into a system where he would be forced, on some level, to talk to a therapist -- and more importantly, would have made it much harder for him to obtain his weapons. Perhaps the extra hassle would have delayed his rampage - and thus given him fewer victims. Or, maybe even, helped him handle his own mind and not go shooting in the first place.
But, that's the thing -- hindsight is always sharper. And, you can't necessarily know for a fact what crime you or anyone has actually prevented.
A few of my thoughts - because I know everyone is waiting for my take, right?
I totally agree that there should be a way for different offices to communicate without worry of privacy issues. Universities have a double layer of privacy concerns - HIPPA and the Buckley Amendment. The Buckley Amendment is a privacy act concerning educational institutions. My experience with colleges and universities is that they are primarily concerned with avoiding image issues and avoiding lawsuits. It also has been my experience that universities fear law suits from accused rather than accusers.
It also seems that there isn't a particularly good plan for dealing with the odd "scary" student. Colleges generally accept that students are in a period in their lives in which they are testing boundaries, defining themselves, and experimentation. Because of this, there is a pretty high degree of "unusual" behavior that is tolerated. (I, myself, spent much of my freshman year wandering around in homemade skirts, large scarves tied up as tops, barefooted, and with flowers in my hair. I'm not kidding.) However, this kid was setting off red flags, it would seem, with everyone.
On the other hand, I also wonder how much we will ever be able to intervene effectively without specific acts. Kicking the kid out of school because his writing was disturbing would effectively be creating "thought police." And, I suspect that a good segment of our society who will find that notion seriously disturbing too.
I don't necessarily buy that the fault lies with campus police. One, police really are designed to respond to crisis rather than necessarily anticipate it. Two, initially, the police were given information that would lead them to believe that the first shooting was by someone off campus. To send a limited police force off chasing down other leads could easily have been foolish. Three, whereas most college campuses have professionalized their campus security/public safety, most campus police forces don't really do a whole lot of responding to violence anywhere close to this type of thing. They take a few rape charges - but often those involve people who are acquainted and don't often involve violence beyond the physical assault of the rape or what was necessary to subdue a victim. They may respond to occasional fights - or some dating violence. There are some restraining orders that need to be enforced. But, most of what campus police respond to is property crimes or over indulgence of substances. Police officers are human. They have their own reaction - although usually more controlled than the average person - there has to still be some level of response to that level of violence.
I really feel that the bulk of the "blame" (beyond what must, of course, be assigned to the perp) should rest with the judge who refused to involuntarily commit him. When student mental health services finally acted to protect this guy from himself and the community from him - the judge dropped the ball. The involuntary commitment order would have entered this kid into a system where he would be forced, on some level, to talk to a therapist -- and more importantly, would have made it much harder for him to obtain his weapons. Perhaps the extra hassle would have delayed his rampage - and thus given him fewer victims. Or, maybe even, helped him handle his own mind and not go shooting in the first place.
But, that's the thing -- hindsight is always sharper. And, you can't necessarily know for a fact what crime you or anyone has actually prevented.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
From my experience
As usual, click on the title for the link to the article.
A New Jersey doctor has been charged, and may continue to be charged, with sexually abusing several of his patients. His attorney calls the claims "very questionable." He also poses the question as to why these women continued to see him if he were molesting them. Then, the article quotes a male patient who says HE was never molested and so the doctor must be incapable of such behavior, and then a male co-worker who says that the doctor ALWAYS left the exam room door open when examining patients and that the walls were so thin that if such molesting took place, everyone would have heard it. (Can we say, privacy issues?)
First of all, I have had several clients who were reporting being sexually abused by a doctor. In all of those cases, initially, the molestation came as part of "medical touching." In almost all of the cases, the clients had to wonder if the doctor really meant to touch them "there" or was it an accident? (For example, I've had a client whose doctor wanted to do a breast exam when she'd sprained her ankle. We also had a physical therapist who would masturbate patients while in rather cold, medical terms, explaining that this was a "test" for nerve functioning and response.)
Just with other victims, the patients leave feeling embarrassed, and often questioning their own perceptions. We put a tremendous faith and trust in doctors - we have to for our own good. But, it's also a tremendously vulnerable position to be alone in a room with a person you may not know at all and be undressed and allowing them to touch you. Also, there is often a fine line between medically appropriate touching and creepy.
And, anything a defense attorney says to the news media should be taken with a healthy dose of skepticism -- they are, after all, paid to cast doubt on the charges and claims for their clients.
A New Jersey doctor has been charged, and may continue to be charged, with sexually abusing several of his patients. His attorney calls the claims "very questionable." He also poses the question as to why these women continued to see him if he were molesting them. Then, the article quotes a male patient who says HE was never molested and so the doctor must be incapable of such behavior, and then a male co-worker who says that the doctor ALWAYS left the exam room door open when examining patients and that the walls were so thin that if such molesting took place, everyone would have heard it. (Can we say, privacy issues?)
First of all, I have had several clients who were reporting being sexually abused by a doctor. In all of those cases, initially, the molestation came as part of "medical touching." In almost all of the cases, the clients had to wonder if the doctor really meant to touch them "there" or was it an accident? (For example, I've had a client whose doctor wanted to do a breast exam when she'd sprained her ankle. We also had a physical therapist who would masturbate patients while in rather cold, medical terms, explaining that this was a "test" for nerve functioning and response.)
Just with other victims, the patients leave feeling embarrassed, and often questioning their own perceptions. We put a tremendous faith and trust in doctors - we have to for our own good. But, it's also a tremendously vulnerable position to be alone in a room with a person you may not know at all and be undressed and allowing them to touch you. Also, there is often a fine line between medically appropriate touching and creepy.
And, anything a defense attorney says to the news media should be taken with a healthy dose of skepticism -- they are, after all, paid to cast doubt on the charges and claims for their clients.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Saved, by my job
It's happened exactly twice now.
The first time, I was buzzing down a hill on a major highway when I got tagged by the cops for going a bit over the speed limit. When the officer, who I know in passing, saw it was me - he asked "do you still work over at the rape crisis center?" When I said yes - completely ready to take my ticket and behave myself, he instead said "slow down, we don't want to lose the good ones." Whew.
And today - when a local organization who likes to arrange for "speakers" for community groups wanted me to go speak to a group of bankers - fortunately, I was busy busy busy. Legitimately.
I don't mind speaking to groups - but my experience with this organization is that they aren't so much interested in what your organization does or how they could help - but patting themselves on the backs for their golf scores. I have plenty of folks who are interested in this work, and how they can help to spin my wheels talking to the walls.
The first time, I was buzzing down a hill on a major highway when I got tagged by the cops for going a bit over the speed limit. When the officer, who I know in passing, saw it was me - he asked "do you still work over at the rape crisis center?" When I said yes - completely ready to take my ticket and behave myself, he instead said "slow down, we don't want to lose the good ones." Whew.
And today - when a local organization who likes to arrange for "speakers" for community groups wanted me to go speak to a group of bankers - fortunately, I was busy busy busy. Legitimately.
I don't mind speaking to groups - but my experience with this organization is that they aren't so much interested in what your organization does or how they could help - but patting themselves on the backs for their golf scores. I have plenty of folks who are interested in this work, and how they can help to spin my wheels talking to the walls.
Monday, August 27, 2007
WHEW!
The first day of school! This means that the vast majority of children have adult supervision today. When schools are out, and parents typically have to work - kids become even more vulnerable to creeps. I hate school holidays when parents have to work - because only parents of rather young children bother to find child care. I personally think kids need supervision until they are out of the home. Although I would have resented the hell out of it if my parents had arranged for a baby sitter when I was 15.
Summer is traditionally the busiest time for our crisis services. Teens and "tweens" find themselves bored, looking for something to do, and little supervision. People leave their windows and doors open in the heat. Single adults spend more time in social settings and drinking and meeting new people. Kids want to prove to themselves (and others) that they are actually more grown up than they are. Predators know all this - and are on the prowl.
This summer wasn't the worst summer for teens in the Emergency Room. We had several - but not the numbers that we've seen in some years. We had the busiest spring we'd ever had, so perhaps more predators were off the streets before the summer season hit.
Now, we'll have a couple of weeks with increased calls from school guidance counselors who learn of abuse that happened over the summer but went unreported until now. We also get lots more calls the last two weeks of the semester -- when kids who have kept a lid on their "secret" all these months - but realize that over christmas break or summer break that they will be trapped with their abusers and have no choice but to tell someone.
Summer is traditionally the busiest time for our crisis services. Teens and "tweens" find themselves bored, looking for something to do, and little supervision. People leave their windows and doors open in the heat. Single adults spend more time in social settings and drinking and meeting new people. Kids want to prove to themselves (and others) that they are actually more grown up than they are. Predators know all this - and are on the prowl.
This summer wasn't the worst summer for teens in the Emergency Room. We had several - but not the numbers that we've seen in some years. We had the busiest spring we'd ever had, so perhaps more predators were off the streets before the summer season hit.
Now, we'll have a couple of weeks with increased calls from school guidance counselors who learn of abuse that happened over the summer but went unreported until now. We also get lots more calls the last two weeks of the semester -- when kids who have kept a lid on their "secret" all these months - but realize that over christmas break or summer break that they will be trapped with their abusers and have no choice but to tell someone.
Friday, August 24, 2007
Friday Fun Client Stories
Years and Years ago, I would go into classrooms and do the 20 minute talk to kids ranging from 4th - 10th grades about avoiding the creeps. I always hated doing these talks because I felt like it opened and then slammed shut the door without really giving kids any actual skill or more than the most superficial of information.
I always ask if there are questions - and typically, when I spoke to younger groups of kids - I'd hear all sorts of stories about what they'd heard in the family or seen on TV. One time, while speaking to a group of 4th graders, a child raised her hand and said "Sally (while pointing) was raped by her daddy." (and, of course, Sally isn't her real name either)
I was horrified. I think I said something about being a good friend means not spilling private information about others without their permission.
After the class was over, "Sally" talked to me . . . she told me that what the child had said was true - but that social services got involved and that she and her mother were now living away from her father and that she and her mom were both much happier.
What's fun is that I recognized her story. Earlier that year, I'd gotten a call from a mother whose child had hosted a sleepover the prior weekend. One of the children at the sleepover told the other children in the group that her father was having sex with her. I took the information, and I reported the case to DSS. I was thrilled to hear that it was exactly what the child and her mother needed to make their lives safer and happier.
I always ask if there are questions - and typically, when I spoke to younger groups of kids - I'd hear all sorts of stories about what they'd heard in the family or seen on TV. One time, while speaking to a group of 4th graders, a child raised her hand and said "Sally (while pointing) was raped by her daddy." (and, of course, Sally isn't her real name either)
I was horrified. I think I said something about being a good friend means not spilling private information about others without their permission.
After the class was over, "Sally" talked to me . . . she told me that what the child had said was true - but that social services got involved and that she and her mother were now living away from her father and that she and her mom were both much happier.
What's fun is that I recognized her story. Earlier that year, I'd gotten a call from a mother whose child had hosted a sleepover the prior weekend. One of the children at the sleepover told the other children in the group that her father was having sex with her. I took the information, and I reported the case to DSS. I was thrilled to hear that it was exactly what the child and her mother needed to make their lives safer and happier.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Define "good person"
We all have discussed the Micheal Vick case amongst ourselves. Opinions have been launched. Positions changed with each new news cycle. And, now we come to the point where I can draw a line between this case and the criminals whose aftermath I deal with every day.
Stephon Maubury (spelling?) has been reported as saying that we should understand that dogfighting is a sport not dissimilar to hunting. He also says that Micheal Vick is a "good person" and "just fell into a bad situation."
First of all - dog fighting isn't like hunting (not that I personally do hunt) in that the animals in question are not taken out of their natural environment and forced to fight each other or die. Also, in hunting - yes, animals are killed - but swiftly and with the goal being with as little trauma as possible. In dog fighting - both dogs sustain injuries of varying degrees of seriousness - and medical assistance may be withheld in order to keep from alerting the authorities.
Second - pleading guilty to a felony pretty much negates being a "good person." I understand there are those who would plead "love the sinner, hate the sin." But it doesn't mean you allow Vick to dog sit for you while you're on vacation. The other thing is that this sort of multi-state, sophisticated enterprise means there were a series of deliberate decisions and actions which further negate the whole "good person" label.
Lastly, one does not accidentally "fall into" bankrolling a criminal enterprise like this one. This is not a product of being clueless or peer pressure. He was the bank. The buck stopped and started with him. This was no back yard, one time thing. People traveled far and wide to participate. A house and corporation was created for the sole purpose of criminal activity. This was jumping feet first, eyes open.
And, that is exactly the point to responding to all criminals. They make the deliberate decision to participate in activities they know to be legally or ethically or morally wrong. Minimizing or patting them on the hand and saying "there there, you're still a good person" isn't helping them see the error of their ways or correct it.
Stephon Maubury (spelling?) has been reported as saying that we should understand that dogfighting is a sport not dissimilar to hunting. He also says that Micheal Vick is a "good person" and "just fell into a bad situation."
First of all - dog fighting isn't like hunting (not that I personally do hunt) in that the animals in question are not taken out of their natural environment and forced to fight each other or die. Also, in hunting - yes, animals are killed - but swiftly and with the goal being with as little trauma as possible. In dog fighting - both dogs sustain injuries of varying degrees of seriousness - and medical assistance may be withheld in order to keep from alerting the authorities.
Second - pleading guilty to a felony pretty much negates being a "good person." I understand there are those who would plead "love the sinner, hate the sin." But it doesn't mean you allow Vick to dog sit for you while you're on vacation. The other thing is that this sort of multi-state, sophisticated enterprise means there were a series of deliberate decisions and actions which further negate the whole "good person" label.
Lastly, one does not accidentally "fall into" bankrolling a criminal enterprise like this one. This is not a product of being clueless or peer pressure. He was the bank. The buck stopped and started with him. This was no back yard, one time thing. People traveled far and wide to participate. A house and corporation was created for the sole purpose of criminal activity. This was jumping feet first, eyes open.
And, that is exactly the point to responding to all criminals. They make the deliberate decision to participate in activities they know to be legally or ethically or morally wrong. Minimizing or patting them on the hand and saying "there there, you're still a good person" isn't helping them see the error of their ways or correct it.
I'm the Dork
One of the buzz phrases in my office is to call each other out for being a dork. It started when I demonstrated the "play in one act." (it's from some children's program - you fan a bit of paper and hold it under your nose to be the evil villain, on top of your head to be the damsel in distress, and under your chin to be the hero) Anyway, when I was done with my bit of silliness, the coworker just looked at me and said "you're a dork." It's become one of our favorites.
Well, today I am the dork, for real.
We have been struggling for the past two months with our pager company. They have closed the local office and now want all customer service issues routed through a call center. The problem is that although the folks who answer the phones in the call center are perfectly pleasant - once the problem or solution leaves their hands - it's forever lost. The tech folks and engineer folks seem to have absolutely no concern for customer service issues.
Today, the local customer service rep came by our office and we now have totally working pagers with our original number and everything. I was over the moon. I did little happy dances to the pagers through out the day. My co-worker was giddy when she told our answering service that ONCE again we have working pagers. The joy ended when I walked in the house this evening and realized I'd left my pager on my desk. Even the people at our answering service laughed at me.
Well, today I am the dork, for real.
We have been struggling for the past two months with our pager company. They have closed the local office and now want all customer service issues routed through a call center. The problem is that although the folks who answer the phones in the call center are perfectly pleasant - once the problem or solution leaves their hands - it's forever lost. The tech folks and engineer folks seem to have absolutely no concern for customer service issues.
Today, the local customer service rep came by our office and we now have totally working pagers with our original number and everything. I was over the moon. I did little happy dances to the pagers through out the day. My co-worker was giddy when she told our answering service that ONCE again we have working pagers. The joy ended when I walked in the house this evening and realized I'd left my pager on my desk. Even the people at our answering service laughed at me.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
My sick, sad sense of humor
One of my favorite games to play with (on) my husband is to come up with some completely nonsensical phrase and ask him if he knows (wink wink) what it means . . . as if it's something perverted. Given the fact that I spend my days talking about sex more than the average person, he ALWAYS assumes that I know all sorts of strange and bizarro terms and acts.
Heee Heee -- I love it when he clamps his hands over his ears and hums loudly, just in case I decide to tell him what the phrase means.
Call it an occupational hazard.
Heee Heee -- I love it when he clamps his hands over his ears and hums loudly, just in case I decide to tell him what the phrase means.
Call it an occupational hazard.
Ephiany
This morning, I realized that I am, indeed, a cranky old woman.
I was with a teen aged victim in the ER. I had gone through my risky behavior and safer sex lectures. The nurse asked "how much weed did you smoke?" and the kid smiled real big like it was a clever trick. And the first thought in my mind was something like "wipe that smile off your face, you think this is funny?"
And, this from one who is known to be a hysterical gigglier. Sigh. Adulthood is just one more thing I gotta get over.
I was with a teen aged victim in the ER. I had gone through my risky behavior and safer sex lectures. The nurse asked "how much weed did you smoke?" and the kid smiled real big like it was a clever trick. And the first thought in my mind was something like "wipe that smile off your face, you think this is funny?"
And, this from one who is known to be a hysterical gigglier. Sigh. Adulthood is just one more thing I gotta get over.
Monday, August 20, 2007
A good Man (and woman)
So, building on yesterday's post, what makes for a good man? (or woman?)
First - violence is never even a consideration for winning arguments or solving problems. That's a given. For both men and women.
Second - a person who truly loves you wants what is best for you - whether it is the most comfortable or convenient thing for them. For example: if you want to take a class for work or personal reasons, a person who loves you will take on extra responsibilities so you can be away for those hours - or will make sure you have dinner waiting for you when you get home.
Third - a person who is mature enough to be in a real relationship is able to listen to the other person's needs and wants - and change when change is needed. For example: I am more social than my husband and thus like to have guests over any ol' time. My husband is more routine oriented and having a change in the routine is something he needs to plan for -- so, I've learned that we are less spontaneous about bringing people home - and he is more willing to let me entertain more on weekends.
Fourth - it's important for couples to ban together rather than against each other. Life is hard enough - and there always seems to be something unexpected lurking in the back ground you could really live without. But, if you take it out on each other too, you are destroying the natural support you have when times are hard. It is really important that while weathering lifes' weirdnesses, you realize that you have to make decisions so that you as a couple survives. (and not in some totally co-dependent, controlling way - but in a way where both members of the couple are strengthened.)
I'll think of more from time to time -- but that's it for today.
First - violence is never even a consideration for winning arguments or solving problems. That's a given. For both men and women.
Second - a person who truly loves you wants what is best for you - whether it is the most comfortable or convenient thing for them. For example: if you want to take a class for work or personal reasons, a person who loves you will take on extra responsibilities so you can be away for those hours - or will make sure you have dinner waiting for you when you get home.
Third - a person who is mature enough to be in a real relationship is able to listen to the other person's needs and wants - and change when change is needed. For example: I am more social than my husband and thus like to have guests over any ol' time. My husband is more routine oriented and having a change in the routine is something he needs to plan for -- so, I've learned that we are less spontaneous about bringing people home - and he is more willing to let me entertain more on weekends.
Fourth - it's important for couples to ban together rather than against each other. Life is hard enough - and there always seems to be something unexpected lurking in the back ground you could really live without. But, if you take it out on each other too, you are destroying the natural support you have when times are hard. It is really important that while weathering lifes' weirdnesses, you realize that you have to make decisions so that you as a couple survives. (and not in some totally co-dependent, controlling way - but in a way where both members of the couple are strengthened.)
I'll think of more from time to time -- but that's it for today.
Sunday, August 19, 2007
The best advice I've ever given
Many years ago, one of the treats of my job was that a medical practice would send their summer med students to me to be schooled on the evidence kit (please people, don't call it a rape kit - it always makes me think of a "how to" kind of thing) and treatment of sexual violence victims.
One young med student confided that she was getting married soon. I asked how she was feeling with the wedding so close, and she couldn't help but tell me that she was terrified. But, not for the usual reasons. A few years before, she'd been raped by someone she thought she knew better. A little part of her knew that deep down, one of the reasons she was marrying was because she wanted the safety and protection of a husband - as if it would create a magic barrier between her and men who were on the prowl. She was smart enough to worry that her marriage was doomed because she wasn't going into it for ONLY reasons of love and wanting babies etc.
I told her that the reason you get married doesn't have to be the reason you stay married. Then I blathered on about making the decision to grow together as a couple - whatever life throws your way - and respecting each other and your marriage.
I ran into her a few years later, when she was a full fledged doctor. She thanked me for my advice and said that she, indeed, was staying married for entirely different reasons than she got married.
I think of those words a lot. Recently, a friend told me that one of the reasons she knew her husband was "the one" was because, at a time in her life she most needed it - he took care of her. Another friend says that her husband treats her like "an educated china doll" -- meaning that she feels adored by him - but also that he respects her mind too. The other day, my husband noted that it was the anniversary of the day I left my job and apartment in another town to move to this little rural community to be with him. He kissed me sweetly and said "thank you . . . . it's been fun." I don't know if he's ever been sweeter.
So, what does this post have to do with being a crisis worker? Well - it seems to surprise many, but my work with women who have been so grievously harmed by mostly men has made me appreciate a good man that much more. I think I know more about what makes a good man - and a good relationship than most folks - since I've seen so much of what it looks like when it goes wrong.
One young med student confided that she was getting married soon. I asked how she was feeling with the wedding so close, and she couldn't help but tell me that she was terrified. But, not for the usual reasons. A few years before, she'd been raped by someone she thought she knew better. A little part of her knew that deep down, one of the reasons she was marrying was because she wanted the safety and protection of a husband - as if it would create a magic barrier between her and men who were on the prowl. She was smart enough to worry that her marriage was doomed because she wasn't going into it for ONLY reasons of love and wanting babies etc.
I told her that the reason you get married doesn't have to be the reason you stay married. Then I blathered on about making the decision to grow together as a couple - whatever life throws your way - and respecting each other and your marriage.
I ran into her a few years later, when she was a full fledged doctor. She thanked me for my advice and said that she, indeed, was staying married for entirely different reasons than she got married.
I think of those words a lot. Recently, a friend told me that one of the reasons she knew her husband was "the one" was because, at a time in her life she most needed it - he took care of her. Another friend says that her husband treats her like "an educated china doll" -- meaning that she feels adored by him - but also that he respects her mind too. The other day, my husband noted that it was the anniversary of the day I left my job and apartment in another town to move to this little rural community to be with him. He kissed me sweetly and said "thank you . . . . it's been fun." I don't know if he's ever been sweeter.
So, what does this post have to do with being a crisis worker? Well - it seems to surprise many, but my work with women who have been so grievously harmed by mostly men has made me appreciate a good man that much more. I think I know more about what makes a good man - and a good relationship than most folks - since I've seen so much of what it looks like when it goes wrong.
Friday, August 17, 2007
Friday Fun Client Stories
From time to time, we are able to scrape together enough survivors to host a support group. Being that we are in a rural community - that is pretty spread out - and there is high poverty, lots of single parent households, and a seeming preference for medications over counseling, it's difficult to pull off a successful support group. I find if we have a couple of women who have done the AA or NA thing, it's much more successful.
That being said, we have had a few really good groups. We do a combination of written and art projects to give women a variety of ways to express themselves and explore their histories and feelings. One memorable group loved that we had several years ago laughed at me because I routinely would make them all go outside to appreciate the beauty of the sunset.
Another thing we would do at each meeting was go around the room and everyone needed to say one good thing that happened to them or they had done in the previous week. The fun thing to observe was that at the beginning of the group sessions, the women pretty much all would mention good events that they had nothing to do with . . . the ex actually paid his child support on time, the landlord fixed the sink that had been malfunctioning for weeks, and the like. By the end of our sessions, the women were commenting more and more about good things they had done themselves.
So, the fun story today is about a woman from that group. I seem to remember her as an older woman - but it could have also have been because she'd had a pretty hard life - including a run in a federal prison. She had been molested by a local doctor who molested quite a few of his patients. He eventually pleaded guilty to the charges and surrendered his medical license. The molestation and subsequent trial brought up issues from her childhood, past abusive relationships, and her current abusive relationship.
After the trial - which ended when the doctor's wife heard the testimony of several patients (she also worked in the same clinic and knew these patients) and demanded that he take a plea, this woman agreed to attend our group. She actually did really well in the group.
A couple years after the group ended, I ran into this woman in the parking lot of the local grocery store - and she ran up to me and the first things out her mouth were "oh, let me tell you all the good things that have happened . . . "
I knew that even if she didn't get anything else out of our group - she did learn to act on her own behalf to make good things happen, to not let the bad things define her, and to appreciate what was around her.
That being said, we have had a few really good groups. We do a combination of written and art projects to give women a variety of ways to express themselves and explore their histories and feelings. One memorable group loved that we had several years ago laughed at me because I routinely would make them all go outside to appreciate the beauty of the sunset.
Another thing we would do at each meeting was go around the room and everyone needed to say one good thing that happened to them or they had done in the previous week. The fun thing to observe was that at the beginning of the group sessions, the women pretty much all would mention good events that they had nothing to do with . . . the ex actually paid his child support on time, the landlord fixed the sink that had been malfunctioning for weeks, and the like. By the end of our sessions, the women were commenting more and more about good things they had done themselves.
So, the fun story today is about a woman from that group. I seem to remember her as an older woman - but it could have also have been because she'd had a pretty hard life - including a run in a federal prison. She had been molested by a local doctor who molested quite a few of his patients. He eventually pleaded guilty to the charges and surrendered his medical license. The molestation and subsequent trial brought up issues from her childhood, past abusive relationships, and her current abusive relationship.
After the trial - which ended when the doctor's wife heard the testimony of several patients (she also worked in the same clinic and knew these patients) and demanded that he take a plea, this woman agreed to attend our group. She actually did really well in the group.
A couple years after the group ended, I ran into this woman in the parking lot of the local grocery store - and she ran up to me and the first things out her mouth were "oh, let me tell you all the good things that have happened . . . "
I knew that even if she didn't get anything else out of our group - she did learn to act on her own behalf to make good things happen, to not let the bad things define her, and to appreciate what was around her.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Hitting the wall
I've been doing this job more than 15 and less than 20 years. In that time, I've seen some horrible stuff. I've seen the best and worst that humanity can offer up. And, most of the time I can find a way to draw on my own personality and strength to weather it. Other times, a whine or a drink puts me back on the path. But every once in a while, I hit the wall. It all piles up and I just need to blow.
I hit a wall today. I was actually rendered incoherent. Those who know me in person will understand what a huge event that would be.
Several years ago, the wall was some moron who tried to make it sound like my agency was total crap and my job and thus life were also total crap because there were water stains on our ceiling. If I'd been able to find my board president that night, I would have quit then. Enough of that crap.
More recently, the wall was our office flooding twice in the same week and the landlord or maintenance guy being totally unavailable to help me stop it or clean it up.
As you can see, the pattern is that it's never the actual job - you know, the helping people who have been shot, maimed, terrorized, or ultimately shamed that do it. It's always some fairly petty and stupid thing.
Today, it was our pagers. For the past couple of months we have been struggling with our pager company to actually provide us with the service we pay for. We have been using the same pagers with the same numbers for the ENTIRE time our agency has operated. The company we originally contracted with has changed hands more times than I can remember - but we have always dutifully paid our monthly bill and used this service. Only rarely have we ever exchanged or broken a pager. I thought we were the dream clients.
In June, we missed three crisis calls because the pagers were spotty in working. At first, we made sure it wasn't our answering service. Then, we turned to the pager company. First, we discovered that they closed their local offices and operate out of a neighboring state. Nice of them to tell us. But, they happily offered to send us new pagers to replace the sad, old ones. We got the new pagers - got them activated - and a week later, they didn't work again. They sent us yet another set of pagers - explaining that the frequency we've been using for the past many many years was shut down. The newer pagers NEVER worked. Finally, after many hours on the phone explaining the chain of events and trying to find a solution, they sent us a single pager on a whole new number with a different frequency to try. LO! it worked. So, we said send on the rest we pay for. 10 days later, we called to see why we had not gotten them -- and it was because they never sent them.
Today, having still not received promised pagers - which are crucial to the operation of our 24 hour crisis response - I called my answering service to see if they offer pagers too. They put me on with some guy who told me that my pager company may not have an office - but they do have a local rep who was really good and could probably solve my problems. He promised to put me in touch with her within 24 hours.
The fact that I've spoken to countless customer service people IN ANOTHER STATE - had multiple different stories told - total lies told to me - and they could have actually put me in touch with someone locally in the first place left me standing at my desk and saying things like
"ghhowoehnrro" and "hhnssoowleoobe"
I emailed the vice president of their company about this problem - and the moron never emailed me (or called me back). Every time I tell them I expect a credit on my account they act as if I said nothing at all. Every time they promise a call back we never get it. AND THEY HAD A LOCAL REP WHO COULD HAVE HELPED US ALL ALONG.
I still am tempted to find a new pager company because this crap is unacceptable. Or, maybe I'll go to the media. That usually renders results. ggggggggrrrrrrrrrr
I hit a wall today. I was actually rendered incoherent. Those who know me in person will understand what a huge event that would be.
Several years ago, the wall was some moron who tried to make it sound like my agency was total crap and my job and thus life were also total crap because there were water stains on our ceiling. If I'd been able to find my board president that night, I would have quit then. Enough of that crap.
More recently, the wall was our office flooding twice in the same week and the landlord or maintenance guy being totally unavailable to help me stop it or clean it up.
As you can see, the pattern is that it's never the actual job - you know, the helping people who have been shot, maimed, terrorized, or ultimately shamed that do it. It's always some fairly petty and stupid thing.
Today, it was our pagers. For the past couple of months we have been struggling with our pager company to actually provide us with the service we pay for. We have been using the same pagers with the same numbers for the ENTIRE time our agency has operated. The company we originally contracted with has changed hands more times than I can remember - but we have always dutifully paid our monthly bill and used this service. Only rarely have we ever exchanged or broken a pager. I thought we were the dream clients.
In June, we missed three crisis calls because the pagers were spotty in working. At first, we made sure it wasn't our answering service. Then, we turned to the pager company. First, we discovered that they closed their local offices and operate out of a neighboring state. Nice of them to tell us. But, they happily offered to send us new pagers to replace the sad, old ones. We got the new pagers - got them activated - and a week later, they didn't work again. They sent us yet another set of pagers - explaining that the frequency we've been using for the past many many years was shut down. The newer pagers NEVER worked. Finally, after many hours on the phone explaining the chain of events and trying to find a solution, they sent us a single pager on a whole new number with a different frequency to try. LO! it worked. So, we said send on the rest we pay for. 10 days later, we called to see why we had not gotten them -- and it was because they never sent them.
Today, having still not received promised pagers - which are crucial to the operation of our 24 hour crisis response - I called my answering service to see if they offer pagers too. They put me on with some guy who told me that my pager company may not have an office - but they do have a local rep who was really good and could probably solve my problems. He promised to put me in touch with her within 24 hours.
The fact that I've spoken to countless customer service people IN ANOTHER STATE - had multiple different stories told - total lies told to me - and they could have actually put me in touch with someone locally in the first place left me standing at my desk and saying things like
"ghhowoehnrro" and "hhnssoowleoobe"
I emailed the vice president of their company about this problem - and the moron never emailed me (or called me back). Every time I tell them I expect a credit on my account they act as if I said nothing at all. Every time they promise a call back we never get it. AND THEY HAD A LOCAL REP WHO COULD HAVE HELPED US ALL ALONG.
I still am tempted to find a new pager company because this crap is unacceptable. Or, maybe I'll go to the media. That usually renders results. ggggggggrrrrrrrrrr
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
When non-profits go wrong
In any population, you are going to have people who will go above and beyond for their jobs and people who will do the absolute minimum to keep their jobs and still others who will engage in unethical or immoral or criminal activities.
Unfortunately, when this sort of thing happens in a non-profit organization, everyone has an opinion, other non-profits are guilty by association, and it's tremendously difficult to live down. Scandal has rocked an organization close to mine. The director made some very poor decisions from which she and her family profited, illegally. She jumped from the ship before the depth of her actions were fully understood. Now, her agency is left to clean up the mess.
The local newspaper has run several front page articles. Local organizations are pondering their options for future funding. Everyone seems to have an opinion. And, tomorrow, the person who was elevated to the position of "interim director" is going to be forced to attend a very public event with people who donate lots of money to organizations like ours, and unfortunately will have to hold her head up while people undoubtedly will be whispering.
And, me? I have to work even harder to demonstrate that my organization is not guilty by association.
Unfortunately, when this sort of thing happens in a non-profit organization, everyone has an opinion, other non-profits are guilty by association, and it's tremendously difficult to live down. Scandal has rocked an organization close to mine. The director made some very poor decisions from which she and her family profited, illegally. She jumped from the ship before the depth of her actions were fully understood. Now, her agency is left to clean up the mess.
The local newspaper has run several front page articles. Local organizations are pondering their options for future funding. Everyone seems to have an opinion. And, tomorrow, the person who was elevated to the position of "interim director" is going to be forced to attend a very public event with people who donate lots of money to organizations like ours, and unfortunately will have to hold her head up while people undoubtedly will be whispering.
And, me? I have to work even harder to demonstrate that my organization is not guilty by association.
Update: LA's pedo blogger
Darn it. I wrote out a post - and it was eaten by the internet monsters.
If you read my post titled "low tech solution to a high tech problem" -- or if you follow this sort of thing in the media - you know that LA has a blogger who likes to muse about his sexualized ideas about little girls as well as post pictures he takes of children around LA and places other creepy guys can find groups of children. Although he's pushed the boundaries of good taste and citizenship, he hasn't ACTUALLY committed a crime - yet.
A judge issued a restraining order banning him from coming within 30 feet of children or posting pictures of children without express permission from their parents. Folks who know say that it pretty much guaranteed that he would get arrested because it is impossible to stay that far away from all children. You can't even make a middle of the night run to the store for oreos without some parent bringing their child in the store.
Well, he's been arrested. But, he really was just asking for the attention, it would seem. He was arrested on the UCLA campus, outside a building that houses a day care, with a camera. He was then issued a restraining order banning him from campus (which is an appropriate measure for college campuses - especially in the wake of the VT shooting - he had no legitimate reason for being on campus, and posed a threat to members of the campus community). A short time later, police saw him doing a live news interview from a parking lot on campus. He was arrested again, and now has a decent bond. (there is an article from NYT linked to the title of this post)
It would seem that he wanted to get arrested. But, why? is he planning on making some big point about thought police and over a zealous legal system? Is there a better internet hook up in jail? Was living in his car getting to be too hard? Or is he gearing up for some law suit that will set him up for life?
But, if you were on a jury - who would you want to be sympathetic to - the creepy guy who just skirted the law but made a whole lot of parents anxious and possibly led other more creepy guys to find new access to children? Or the parent whose child was featured on this guy's web site with his creepy commentary?
I think it would be pretty easy to see what this guy is doing as a form of domestic terrorism.
If you read my post titled "low tech solution to a high tech problem" -- or if you follow this sort of thing in the media - you know that LA has a blogger who likes to muse about his sexualized ideas about little girls as well as post pictures he takes of children around LA and places other creepy guys can find groups of children. Although he's pushed the boundaries of good taste and citizenship, he hasn't ACTUALLY committed a crime - yet.
A judge issued a restraining order banning him from coming within 30 feet of children or posting pictures of children without express permission from their parents. Folks who know say that it pretty much guaranteed that he would get arrested because it is impossible to stay that far away from all children. You can't even make a middle of the night run to the store for oreos without some parent bringing their child in the store.
Well, he's been arrested. But, he really was just asking for the attention, it would seem. He was arrested on the UCLA campus, outside a building that houses a day care, with a camera. He was then issued a restraining order banning him from campus (which is an appropriate measure for college campuses - especially in the wake of the VT shooting - he had no legitimate reason for being on campus, and posed a threat to members of the campus community). A short time later, police saw him doing a live news interview from a parking lot on campus. He was arrested again, and now has a decent bond. (there is an article from NYT linked to the title of this post)
It would seem that he wanted to get arrested. But, why? is he planning on making some big point about thought police and over a zealous legal system? Is there a better internet hook up in jail? Was living in his car getting to be too hard? Or is he gearing up for some law suit that will set him up for life?
But, if you were on a jury - who would you want to be sympathetic to - the creepy guy who just skirted the law but made a whole lot of parents anxious and possibly led other more creepy guys to find new access to children? Or the parent whose child was featured on this guy's web site with his creepy commentary?
I think it would be pretty easy to see what this guy is doing as a form of domestic terrorism.
Monday, August 13, 2007
Sexual Assault at the underwear party
As always, I've linked an article to the title.
Last week, I followed with minor interest the story of a report of a sexual assault at the Playboy mansion during their annual "Midsummers Night's Dream" party - or as I usually call it "the underwear party."
Now there is report that the investigation has been dropped and no charges will result. The article points out that the "victim" was a 22 year old woman who was unconscious due to imbibing and the "perp" was a 17 year old boy. The article quotes a spokesperson as saying that the woman recalls having intercourse and pushing away the 17 year old. But, due to lack of corroboration and in accordance with the reporter's wishes, the case will not be pursued further.
I have several questions. One, I would think that given the number of young celebs in rehab these days, that the media savvy folks at Playboy would be more aware of issues of people drinking (or using other substances) at their party to the point of being unconscious. Second, I would hope that the media savvy folks at Playboy would be more concerned about underage folks at this sort of party. It seems that there is a tremendous liability for Playboy in this situation.
Secondly, I've seen lots of victims who were unsure as to what exactly happened because of being intoxicated. It doesn't mean that no rape happened. Also, in many states, specifically taking sexual advantage of someone who is this intoxicated is against the law.
But, more to the point, I have to wonder what else is behind the case being dropped? Is this fall out from the Duke case? Will intoxicated reporters of sexual violence forever be expected to meet an unreasonable standard? Or, was the reporter in this case more concerned about not becoming an object of the runaway media? Studies show that one of the primary reasons victims do not report rape is because they fear becoming publicly known as a rape victim - and further victimized by an unsympathetic public.
Last week, I followed with minor interest the story of a report of a sexual assault at the Playboy mansion during their annual "Midsummers Night's Dream" party - or as I usually call it "the underwear party."
Now there is report that the investigation has been dropped and no charges will result. The article points out that the "victim" was a 22 year old woman who was unconscious due to imbibing and the "perp" was a 17 year old boy. The article quotes a spokesperson as saying that the woman recalls having intercourse and pushing away the 17 year old. But, due to lack of corroboration and in accordance with the reporter's wishes, the case will not be pursued further.
I have several questions. One, I would think that given the number of young celebs in rehab these days, that the media savvy folks at Playboy would be more aware of issues of people drinking (or using other substances) at their party to the point of being unconscious. Second, I would hope that the media savvy folks at Playboy would be more concerned about underage folks at this sort of party. It seems that there is a tremendous liability for Playboy in this situation.
Secondly, I've seen lots of victims who were unsure as to what exactly happened because of being intoxicated. It doesn't mean that no rape happened. Also, in many states, specifically taking sexual advantage of someone who is this intoxicated is against the law.
But, more to the point, I have to wonder what else is behind the case being dropped? Is this fall out from the Duke case? Will intoxicated reporters of sexual violence forever be expected to meet an unreasonable standard? Or, was the reporter in this case more concerned about not becoming an object of the runaway media? Studies show that one of the primary reasons victims do not report rape is because they fear becoming publicly known as a rape victim - and further victimized by an unsympathetic public.
Saturday, August 11, 2007
Trinket
My husband surprised me with one of these pendants. It is a representation of the dome of the Hall of Remembrance at the US Holocaust Museum in Washington DC. The Hall is one of our favorite places in the Museum. The sacredness of the space draws us.
The card inside the box urged people to wear the pendant in remembrance of all victims of hate and violence. Which, given the work I do, is just perfect.
I think it is all to easy for people to deny how easily we can slip into inhumanity.
". . . darkness has a hunger that's insatiable, and lightness has a call that's hard to hear . . . " (indigo girls)
Friday, August 10, 2007
Friday Fun Client Stories: The laughing matter
Lots of folks labor under the idea that when we serve a victim in the ER, that it is a tense and sorrowful experience. Lots of folks assume that victims cry and are very upset. In fact, most women focus in on the details of cooperating with law enforcement and medical personnel. They may cry a bit, but most of the time, women keep their emotional reaction under control until they have a private moment to let go. But, every victim reacts in a way that is true to their personality and situation.
Today, I was reminded of the laughing moments. We were assisting a woman who was assaulted, nearly killed, and sexually abused by a boyfriend. She reacted in the ways that are totally appropriate for the betrayal of trust she'd experienced. She cried some. She expressed anger. She expressed regret. And, when the doctor was doing the pelvic exam, she expressed the hope that she wouldn't pee all over the doctor.
I like those moments when the victim is able to express the range of emotions - including seeing the ridiculousness of the situation. And, that she trusts that we won't judge her for laughing too.
Today, I was reminded of the laughing moments. We were assisting a woman who was assaulted, nearly killed, and sexually abused by a boyfriend. She reacted in the ways that are totally appropriate for the betrayal of trust she'd experienced. She cried some. She expressed anger. She expressed regret. And, when the doctor was doing the pelvic exam, she expressed the hope that she wouldn't pee all over the doctor.
I like those moments when the victim is able to express the range of emotions - including seeing the ridiculousness of the situation. And, that she trusts that we won't judge her for laughing too.
Thursday, August 9, 2007
A good Steak.
Generations ago, girls were not encouraged to eat red meat because it was feared that much like lions or tigers or the family pet - once they got a taste of meat, they would become overwhelmed by their passions and lusts and soon, eating meat would turn into promiscuity. (I don't make this stuff up people - I just report it.)
Eventually, people got over it. Girls were given diets that were nutritious and fostered healthy growth. Girls are encouraged to play sports. And learn and get educations and everything now.
Well, it appears there is something of a revival of the whole "not letting girls have meat" issue. However, it's been cleverly disguised as a health concern. The logic is that girls should not be allowed to have beef or milk because of bovine growth hormone. The thought is that bovine growth hormone in the beef and milk makes girls go into puberty early and that is bad.
Now, I understand that as generations have past, the age at which girls hit puberty has gone down for the population as a whole. We do see more and more girls having periods at 9 or 10. Or do we? Could it be that there were cases of girls hitting puberty that young in the past and we hid it? After all, the fact that so many topics are up for public discussion now means we know stuff about people we didn't before. And, I know that there is some science to the chemicals we put in our food. I remember when they reissued the red m&ms with better red coloring. I know that I feel the effects of specific foods I eat. I'm not wholeheartedly dismissing the notion that bovine growth hormone in the milk and meat isn't doing something. But why only girls? Wouldn't it follow that bovine growth hormone would also have some effects on boys? or adults?
On a related note, apparently, eating red meat is now a dating strategy for women. No longer do well educated, self-reliant women want to cast themselves as dainty and in need of being taken care of on the first date. Now, women are ordering rib eye steaks as a way of communicating to men that they are "real women."
So much meaning wrapped up in a steak.
Eventually, people got over it. Girls were given diets that were nutritious and fostered healthy growth. Girls are encouraged to play sports. And learn and get educations and everything now.
Well, it appears there is something of a revival of the whole "not letting girls have meat" issue. However, it's been cleverly disguised as a health concern. The logic is that girls should not be allowed to have beef or milk because of bovine growth hormone. The thought is that bovine growth hormone in the beef and milk makes girls go into puberty early and that is bad.
Now, I understand that as generations have past, the age at which girls hit puberty has gone down for the population as a whole. We do see more and more girls having periods at 9 or 10. Or do we? Could it be that there were cases of girls hitting puberty that young in the past and we hid it? After all, the fact that so many topics are up for public discussion now means we know stuff about people we didn't before. And, I know that there is some science to the chemicals we put in our food. I remember when they reissued the red m&ms with better red coloring. I know that I feel the effects of specific foods I eat. I'm not wholeheartedly dismissing the notion that bovine growth hormone in the milk and meat isn't doing something. But why only girls? Wouldn't it follow that bovine growth hormone would also have some effects on boys? or adults?
On a related note, apparently, eating red meat is now a dating strategy for women. No longer do well educated, self-reliant women want to cast themselves as dainty and in need of being taken care of on the first date. Now, women are ordering rib eye steaks as a way of communicating to men that they are "real women."
So much meaning wrapped up in a steak.
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
The Line
As usual, click on the title for the article link.
There is a plan in Australia to radically approach the issue of child sexual abuse with in aboriginal communities. The plan calls for seizing control of a portion of the territory and forcing people getting government assistance to spend a portion of the assistance on essentials like food. All of this is designed to curb alcoholism and child sexual abuse.
Since I don't know anything about Australian culture, I'm forced to respond to this based on the experiences and knowledge I do have. I understand that native groups in the USA have similar problems with poverty, substance abuse, crime, and child abuse. I also understand that there is a universal need to have governments address issues of public safety and crime, the world over.
In the USA, we already have a system in which public assistance recipients must spend a portion of their assistance on food - it's called food stamps and WIC. In fact, in the USA, many folks can't help but eyeball the food purchases of food stamp recipients for quality.
But, how much can you legislate good behavior? Does a largely outside government force have the right to walk in to a community and impose their values? How much does it matter if we agree or disagree with those values? Would we see forced participation in any particular religion more difficult than forced sobriety? How much authority does a democratic government really have to "take over"?
There is a plan in Australia to radically approach the issue of child sexual abuse with in aboriginal communities. The plan calls for seizing control of a portion of the territory and forcing people getting government assistance to spend a portion of the assistance on essentials like food. All of this is designed to curb alcoholism and child sexual abuse.
Since I don't know anything about Australian culture, I'm forced to respond to this based on the experiences and knowledge I do have. I understand that native groups in the USA have similar problems with poverty, substance abuse, crime, and child abuse. I also understand that there is a universal need to have governments address issues of public safety and crime, the world over.
In the USA, we already have a system in which public assistance recipients must spend a portion of their assistance on food - it's called food stamps and WIC. In fact, in the USA, many folks can't help but eyeball the food purchases of food stamp recipients for quality.
But, how much can you legislate good behavior? Does a largely outside government force have the right to walk in to a community and impose their values? How much does it matter if we agree or disagree with those values? Would we see forced participation in any particular religion more difficult than forced sobriety? How much authority does a democratic government really have to "take over"?
Social Change comes in many forms
A big motivator for me doing this work is a commitment to social change. I would love to retire from this job because the service is no longer needed because women, children, and men can live without fear or threat of sexual violence. However, because sexual violence is so ingrained in all aspects of our culture and no strata of society is immune, I realize that achieving my goals for creating a world without sexual violence also means creating a world that also doesn't have violent or property crimes and equality of opportunity for all.
It would be easy to be bogged down with every issue that crops up. Over time, more out of self preservation than anything, I've learned to fight my battles. I believe that little actions can result in bigger impacts. I believe in the power if peer influence. For example: I bring my own water bottle with me to the office each day. I have my own water filter at home, and each night I fill a bottle and pop it in the frig to take with me in the morning. Some days I make a half juice/half water mix - other days straight water. I do this because I a) think single use bottled water is wasteful and b) I don't see the point of spending money on throw away bottles when it's much cheaper to filter my own.
I've never commented to co-workers about their water habits - but have noticed that they have started feeling constrained by the bottles they buy and throw away. So, as the "group leader" today I put a filter pitcher in the frig in the office for all to use. I'm hoping to see less trash being generated in my office, and I hope to encourage more water (over soda) drinking in the office.
Other issues I feel my agency (or me personally) can lead the way on include gender equality, reproductive freedom, pay equity and living wages, gay marriage and adoption, personal responsibility, and personal advocacy. There are more.
I also appreciate when my friends influence me. I have a friend who has raised my awareness and understanding of AIDS. Another friend has helped me understand more about wisely using resources. Lots of my friends are involved in parenting issues or health care issues.
So, today, do something that is good for the world - and be a good example to others, eh?
It would be easy to be bogged down with every issue that crops up. Over time, more out of self preservation than anything, I've learned to fight my battles. I believe that little actions can result in bigger impacts. I believe in the power if peer influence. For example: I bring my own water bottle with me to the office each day. I have my own water filter at home, and each night I fill a bottle and pop it in the frig to take with me in the morning. Some days I make a half juice/half water mix - other days straight water. I do this because I a) think single use bottled water is wasteful and b) I don't see the point of spending money on throw away bottles when it's much cheaper to filter my own.
I've never commented to co-workers about their water habits - but have noticed that they have started feeling constrained by the bottles they buy and throw away. So, as the "group leader" today I put a filter pitcher in the frig in the office for all to use. I'm hoping to see less trash being generated in my office, and I hope to encourage more water (over soda) drinking in the office.
Other issues I feel my agency (or me personally) can lead the way on include gender equality, reproductive freedom, pay equity and living wages, gay marriage and adoption, personal responsibility, and personal advocacy. There are more.
I also appreciate when my friends influence me. I have a friend who has raised my awareness and understanding of AIDS. Another friend has helped me understand more about wisely using resources. Lots of my friends are involved in parenting issues or health care issues.
So, today, do something that is good for the world - and be a good example to others, eh?
Monday, August 6, 2007
A low tech solution to a high tech problem
As always, the link is in the title.
I think I've commented (honestly, I don't remember - but I know this is a topic of conversation around the water cooler in my office as well as others around the country) about the self-proclaimed pedophile in CA who has a web site in which he talks about his thoughts about little children - and he posts pictures of children he's observed in public - and he posts lists of events or places other pedophiles can find children. OOOH CREEPY.
The problem is that he hasn't yet crossed over, that we know of, that line between creepy to the 10th degree and against the law. Parents groups are rallying. Questions are being asked. People are organizing. Now a judge has issued a really interesting restraining order forbidding him to come within 30 feet of a child, or posting photos (even non-pornographic) of children without parental permission.
Some lawyerly types are saying that this amounts to house arrest or expulsion from the state. I'm thinking that this is an adequate remedy for a situation that didn't have an obvious legal answer. And, I do think that communities have the right to respond to the situations that they face that are unique.
Also, I think that this is further evidence that our legal system is becoming more sensitive to the issues of terror and fear as violent crime. With stalking laws, and harassment laws, we are beginning to reflect that the emotional/mental impact of crime/bad behavior is a form of violence and victimization. I think this shows growth as a species.
And, this guy was on his way to Chicago when he got the restraining order. Just a heads up.
I think I've commented (honestly, I don't remember - but I know this is a topic of conversation around the water cooler in my office as well as others around the country) about the self-proclaimed pedophile in CA who has a web site in which he talks about his thoughts about little children - and he posts pictures of children he's observed in public - and he posts lists of events or places other pedophiles can find children. OOOH CREEPY.
The problem is that he hasn't yet crossed over, that we know of, that line between creepy to the 10th degree and against the law. Parents groups are rallying. Questions are being asked. People are organizing. Now a judge has issued a really interesting restraining order forbidding him to come within 30 feet of a child, or posting photos (even non-pornographic) of children without parental permission.
Some lawyerly types are saying that this amounts to house arrest or expulsion from the state. I'm thinking that this is an adequate remedy for a situation that didn't have an obvious legal answer. And, I do think that communities have the right to respond to the situations that they face that are unique.
Also, I think that this is further evidence that our legal system is becoming more sensitive to the issues of terror and fear as violent crime. With stalking laws, and harassment laws, we are beginning to reflect that the emotional/mental impact of crime/bad behavior is a form of violence and victimization. I think this shows growth as a species.
And, this guy was on his way to Chicago when he got the restraining order. Just a heads up.
Thursday, August 2, 2007
Boys will be boys? And Fun Friday Story
Today, a co-worker was telling me about a controversy over kids who have taken the "sports" thing of smacking each other on the arse to a whole new level and are now smacking each other on the arse in the halls and other inappropriate times and places.
Now, my understanding is that the butt smack in football is more an expression of congratulations between equals. A butt smack conveys "good job" and "dude" and "there is no I in team" and all that good stuff about team sports. It is generally given and received as a good gesture and again, between equals. I assume that the butt smacking in the halls and in class is much more about touching each other - or hurting each other - or freaking out the old people.
I think this is a great "teaching moment" for the teachers/coaches/other responsible adults. I think you explain why they can't do this in the halls, etc - establish a rule and sanctions for breaking the rule. I don't think having the little monsters charged with sex offenses is necessarily the most appropriate way to model or teach appropriate behaviors. I actually am disturbed by how often adults think the appropriate way to deal with misbehavior of young kids is to have them brought up on criminal charges.
But, this reminds me of a story - and since I'm taking a bit of "me" time tomorrow and not going to be able to post a fun Friday client story, I thought I'd leave y'all with this one.
Years ago, I had a friend who worked in a similar agency in another community. She was somewhat older than me at the time, and I thought of her as something of a mentor. She had two little boys. She and her husband were committed to rearing their children in a non-violent home. They didn't allow toy weapons of any type, the regulated television/movies/videos for violent content, and they modeled the behavior they wanted their children to adopt.
One night, while entertaining company - one of her little boys (I think he was pre-school aged at the time) ran into the living room where they were enjoying coffee and conversation. He was naked, and he grabbed his penis and said "pa-pow, pa-pow, pa-pow! I shot you all, I shot you all dead" and ran out of the room. My friend was utterly mortified. She couldn't even begin to understand or explain where that behavior came from, other than to say that little boys can make guns out of everything.
Now, my understanding is that the butt smack in football is more an expression of congratulations between equals. A butt smack conveys "good job" and "dude" and "there is no I in team" and all that good stuff about team sports. It is generally given and received as a good gesture and again, between equals. I assume that the butt smacking in the halls and in class is much more about touching each other - or hurting each other - or freaking out the old people.
I think this is a great "teaching moment" for the teachers/coaches/other responsible adults. I think you explain why they can't do this in the halls, etc - establish a rule and sanctions for breaking the rule. I don't think having the little monsters charged with sex offenses is necessarily the most appropriate way to model or teach appropriate behaviors. I actually am disturbed by how often adults think the appropriate way to deal with misbehavior of young kids is to have them brought up on criminal charges.
But, this reminds me of a story - and since I'm taking a bit of "me" time tomorrow and not going to be able to post a fun Friday client story, I thought I'd leave y'all with this one.
Years ago, I had a friend who worked in a similar agency in another community. She was somewhat older than me at the time, and I thought of her as something of a mentor. She had two little boys. She and her husband were committed to rearing their children in a non-violent home. They didn't allow toy weapons of any type, the regulated television/movies/videos for violent content, and they modeled the behavior they wanted their children to adopt.
One night, while entertaining company - one of her little boys (I think he was pre-school aged at the time) ran into the living room where they were enjoying coffee and conversation. He was naked, and he grabbed his penis and said "pa-pow, pa-pow, pa-pow! I shot you all, I shot you all dead" and ran out of the room. My friend was utterly mortified. She couldn't even begin to understand or explain where that behavior came from, other than to say that little boys can make guns out of everything.
I'm not surprised . . . but I'm not sure I like the tone
As always, click on the title for the article link.
In the NY Times today, is an article about how girls sold or forced into prostitution in the third world have become a huge AIDS risk. They cite that it is particularly common for girls who are forced into prostitution before the age of 15 are a higher risk still. They explain that in some of these countries, men will pay more to have sex with a virgin because they believe that a) the young age of the girl means she's disease free or b) having sex with a virgin child will "cure" AIDS.
These girls, once they escape or are too old to continue working, go home to find they are shunned by their communities. Often, this means that in order to support themselves and/or their children borne from the prostitution, they must continue to prostitute themselves which adds to the AIDS risk.
They also point out that the folks who are concerned about human trafficking are not concerned about the AIDS issue as well.
Clearly, the two issues should be jointly addressed. As well as the issue of being forced to bear children as a result of the forced prostitution. As well as the fact that these women and young girls are being robbed of their humanity.
But, I chafe at the tone of the article - it's as if they are blaming the girls themselves for spreading AIDS - not the criminals who kidnap, trick, steal, or buy the girls, nor the criminals who infect them in the first place.
In the NY Times today, is an article about how girls sold or forced into prostitution in the third world have become a huge AIDS risk. They cite that it is particularly common for girls who are forced into prostitution before the age of 15 are a higher risk still. They explain that in some of these countries, men will pay more to have sex with a virgin because they believe that a) the young age of the girl means she's disease free or b) having sex with a virgin child will "cure" AIDS.
These girls, once they escape or are too old to continue working, go home to find they are shunned by their communities. Often, this means that in order to support themselves and/or their children borne from the prostitution, they must continue to prostitute themselves which adds to the AIDS risk.
They also point out that the folks who are concerned about human trafficking are not concerned about the AIDS issue as well.
Clearly, the two issues should be jointly addressed. As well as the issue of being forced to bear children as a result of the forced prostitution. As well as the fact that these women and young girls are being robbed of their humanity.
But, I chafe at the tone of the article - it's as if they are blaming the girls themselves for spreading AIDS - not the criminals who kidnap, trick, steal, or buy the girls, nor the criminals who infect them in the first place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
