The Casey Anthony Verdict

Like many people I feel that Casey Anthony should just fade into the woodwork, and hope that she will do just that. Although I think the the possibility of a book deal, reality tv, movie or Lifetime movie will be too much for her to turn away from. Since I am someone who just wants her to fade away, this is going to (hopefully) be my farewell on this subject.I say hopefully because sometimes I can not respond to a post on Fb or an email or a tweet (and now a Google+ post) but sometimes my over opinionated self cannot help but respond. But I am going to try to put myself into a Casey Anthony no speak/type zone after this.

I think most of the country has an opinion on this topic and it appears that a lot of the opinion is that Casey Anthony is guilty of more than just the charges she was found guilty of. I definitely feel that she played either a direct or indirect role in the death of her daughter or at the very least a role in the cover up. Like a lot of people, I lean towards thinking she had a direct role in Casey's death. The likelihood of us knowing for sure is very slim.

I wanted to blog about the verdict. I know a lot of people are still mad at the jury (on juror is reportedly in hiding over this). But the fact is the jury had reasonable doubt. It was the job of the prosecution to make sure the jury had no reasonable doubt. The prosecution did not do their job. Was it their fault? Did they bring the case too soon? Or did the defense simply use whatever they could come up with to create reasonable doubt? These are some of the questions that I'm sure the prosecution will be pondering. The simple fact is that whatever was the catalyst for their being reasonable doubt, the jury did their job. 

Do I like the verdict? Hell no! I wanted to scream and cry at the same time when I watched the verdict being read. And I was pissed at the jury in the beginning. Then I looked at the facts. A lot if not all of the evidence was circumstantial. How can we convict someone when there is not only reasonable doubt but there is also no concrete evidence? I hope and pray that Casey Anthony never decides to have children again. There is no guarantee that the same thing will not happen again. I hope it wouldn't and I hope that if she does decide to have children again that she does so when she is mature enough to handle the responsibility. I know a lot of people feel that she should not be allowed to have children again. Well, no one has any control over that but her. She was found not guilty of the more severe charges and she paid her dues for the charges she was found guilty of. Trust me when I say I wish that woman did not walk out of that prison today. 

I wish there was justice for Caylee, and I don't think there was. As much as I don't believe that Caylee didn't get justice, I do believe the justice system worked. At least it worked the way it was supposed to. We would like to think that our justice system is infallible. Unfortunately it is not. But it is one of the best justice systems (if not the best) in the world. We can't expect perfection from anything or any person. Sometimes innocent people go to jail and sometimes guilty people go free. I'd like to think that the numbers are very small in both of those situations and that most of the people who go free are innocent and most of the people who go to jail are guilty.


My biggest hope right now is that people do not help Casey Anthony profit from this. I hope that most people won't buy any book she writes (and I mean that she writes. If your like me you love true crime books. If someone like Ann Rule were to write on the crime and trial, I may buy it) or goes to see any movie that comes out about her (goes to the theater if it is a major film or watches it on tv if it is a tv movie) or in any other way helps her profit from this. There is a part of me that hopes that she did not do this, but the biggest part of me feels she is guilty as sin. Problem is we don't convict people on feelings or intuition. We convict on evidence. Either way, in my opinion, she should not profit from the death of her daughter.


Ok, that's it from me on this topic. Remember, like with anything I write in my blog it is just my opinion.


Janet Lee Smith
07/17/2011

An Open Letter To Lt. Dan Choi

Dear Lt. Choi,

In a recent interview with Lawrence O'Donnell, you said that you feel like "a battered wife" because of the way President Obama has handled, or in your opinion not handled, the subject of equality in this great country of ours. Before I go any further, I want to say that I am a survivor of domestic violence. I have suffered physical, psychological and emotional abuse at the hands of more than one partner. So this is a topic I know a little bit about. The fact that I have been through this is why I am confused by your statement. Before I get to the specific reasons for my confusion, let me ask you a question. Have you ever been in an abusive relationship? Because if you have not, you have no idea what it feels like to be a battered person. So if you have never been battered, why sir, would you make such a statement?

Now back to my confusion. Were you and President Obama in a relationship? Because a key component of being a battered person is being in a relationship with the batterer. Let me explain this. If someone is not doing something that I want them to do or that I think they should be doing, I would in no way know how a battered women feels. Simply because there are many things that a batterer puts his/her victims through. The one people usually think of is physical violence. Has President Obama physically abuse you in some way, Mr. Choi? There are other more insidious ways that abusers control their victims. Because that is what a batterer wants, control over his/her victim. Does President Obama want to control you, Mr. Choi? One way that abusers try to control their victims is to constantly use statements such as your ugly, your stupid, no one else would want you, etc. Statements such as these are said in order to break down the battered person's very soul, their very being. Did President Obama ever make such statements to you? No, I don't mean you feeling like he implies your a second class citizen because he will not come out for marriage equality. I mean a daily beating down of your spirit with hateful words, not what you percieve the President's thoughts to be because of his lack of action. Which by the way since non of us can read minds, you have no idea what his personal thoughts are on the subject. What he feels deep inside, nto what he says to the media.

These are just a couple of the ways that abuse manifests itself into a relationship that are included on the power and control wheel of domestic violence. Just a few of the situations that a battered person goes through. I don't know you or President Obama personally, Lt. Choi, but I am willing to bet that President Obama has done none of this to you. Until President Obama does things to you that an abuser does to his victim, I respectfully ask that you refrain from comparing yourself to a batterred wife. It lessens what we who have been abused or are being abused go through. Those specific words were used simply as a ploy by you to gain sympathy for yourself. The ironic thing is that people who have truly been battered are rarely looking for sympathy.

On a seperate note, as an out and proud lesbian, I would like to recommend to you instead of using hate to fight for the rights of all of us, start using intelligent, thought provoking words. Debate people on the merits of the issue, not on hate, bitterness or gimmicks (such as "I feel like a battered wife"). People will generally respond better to rational intelligent words rather than they will to angry, bitter words. Of course not everyone will, but people who will not listen to intelligent well thouht out thoughts are people who are also not going to listen to irrational speaking. President Obama is not perfect. And like you, I have at times felt frustrated and feel he has not done enough. But then I remember one simple fact. That our President has done more for gay rights than any other President has. Under other Presidents we got laws like DADT and DOMA. Like I said, President Obama is not perfect and he has made mistakes. But is either of us perfect? Haven't we both made many mistakes in our lives? I would never say who another person should vote for. What I will say is I feel if someone does not vote for President Obama because he has not come out for marriage equality, it is a pretty poor reason not to vote for him. If someone said they wouldn't vote for him because they do not believe with his economic policies, or I won't vote for him because he has not brought out troops home quick enough, I would understand that. But to vote for him because he has not come out for marriage equality? I don't understand that. Especially when he said during his whole campaign that he was NOT for gay marriage, civil unions yes, but marriage equality, no.

I do understand that in 1996 he stated that he was for gay marriage, but by the time the Presidential election came around, he said he was against it. So if a person voted for him in 2008 knowing that he was against same-sex marriage, why would they now vote against him because he stuck to what he said during his campaign? It is not like he broke a campaign promise, he has stuck with what he said during the campaign. To now say nope, I can't vote for you again because you are still against marriage equality is akin to a woman marrying a man that she knows does not want children but she marries him anyway. Then she divorces him because he did not change his mind and decide to have children. We all knew how he felt on the subject, he was quite vocal about it. But a lot of us in the gay community still voted for him. Yes, his feelings on the subject have been "evolving" for awhile now, but would we rather take a chance on a President who is at least evolving on the subject so the possibility exists of him changing his mind or a President who has no intention on doing anything to pass a marriage equality law? Would we rather have a President who at the very least is willing to let the states make their own choice or a President who would make sure that not only did DOMA stay law, but make sure that no state could have marriage equality? Just some food for thought!

Janet Lee Smith
Out and Proud Married Lesbian in Massachusetts
Survivor of Domestic Violence

Randomness

Let me begin by saying this is going to be a "different" blog post. So don't expect my usual ranting on a specific subject.  :)

I'm a human being, therefore I make mistakes. I am also an ever evolving human being which means I am often able to look at things I have said or done and realize when I am wrong. The best part is I can then learn from those mistakes, hopefully if I have wronged someone I will be a big enough person to tell that person that I was wrong. One thing that keeps me evolving is an open-mind. We cannot evolve if our minds are closed to anything that we do not agree with or that we do not inderstand.

As humans, most of us hate change. Which is weird because change is such a big part of life. I don't know about anyone else, but I will sometimes fight change tooth and nail. Change is something else that helps us to evolve. Change is one of those things that can be good or bad. It could make us very joyful, such as becoming engaged. Or it can devastate us, such as a divorce. But no matter what situation you are in, it is all in how we react to a situation. In any sitution are you going to hold your head up and act with class and dignity? Or are you going to get down in the dirt and show zero class?

I know this is a very random post. With what will appearto be ramblings. These are just some of the things I have been thinking about.

Janet Lee Smith
06/23/2011

Tracy Morgan's Rant & Subsequent Apology

So we have a case of a hateful rant against a minority and another apology. Before I begin I would like to say that I love comedy, especially stand-up. I love a good joke. Even a good gay or lesbian joke. Yup I'm a lesbian. But a good joke is a good joke. Some of my favorite jokes have been by lesbian or gay comedian's and one reason I often find them funny is because they are so true! The truth can be funny! Like how many of you have heard jokes about lesbians and U-Haul? These jokes about lesbians and U-Hauls are funny because they are true. Every lesbian should own stock in U-Haul, seriously. What is the talk between two lesbians the day after a first date? Lesbian 1: OMG I had so much fun last night! Lesbian 2: (as she looks dreamily into lesbian 1's eyes) It was the best first date ever, I never thought I would meet someone like you! Lesbian 1: I really liked your apartment, but I think my house would be better for us to live in, you'll love it when you see it! That sounds great, I'll call U-Haul and start packing today. I can move in this weekend and we will be so happy together! I love you so much! Yes, this is true. This is what a lot of lesbians do. So I'm sure you can see how many funny jokes can come out of that. On the other hand this is not even remotely funny: "he'd stab that "nigger" to death with a knife. He also said that gays need to stop being pussies and stop whining about things as insignificant as bullying. And he added that being gay is a choice, and if they can fucking take it up the ass,then they can't take a fucking joke." How is this hate filled rant funny? Tracy, the only joke I see here is you.

Of course there was backlash from his comments. Heck with social media like Facebook and Twitter, their is usually a lot of backlash from almost anything a famous person does. Mr. Morgan responded the way people usually respond when they let their bigotry (against any minority, this is not simply about gay people, it is about discrimination) show for all the world to see. He apologized. Who could not see that coming?

His "apology" stated that what he said was not funny in any context. He didn't know this BEFORE he said it? He didn't know BEFORE he said it that it was hateful things to say? What he said was not simply jokes. They were mean, hateful comments that show how he feels about gay people. Pure and simple. You do not say things like he said unless you actually think them, unless that is how you feel deep inside of you of being. So no, an apology won't cut it. It was an apology to help save his sorry ass and his career. It was an insincere apology. He did not over night stop being homophobic. Only a homophobe would say the things he said even as a "joke". Especially there was nothing funny about what he said. Like I said I enjoy comedy. What I don't enjoy is hateful speech about ANYONE.

Someone on a Facebook post of a friend of mine mentioned bullying and that is a great point. How many gay people, especially young impressionable gay people, watched what he said? I'm willing to bet that for everyone of us who got angry and indignant there was at least one person who took what he said to heart. Who immediately felt less than. Who wondered should they even live. THAT is not comedy. Comedy can be offensive and still be comedy. George Carlin, Eddie Murphy, Chris Rock, heck even Bob Saget, the father Full House, all have done offensive material. Because offensive is in the ear of the listener. What I find offensive someone else may not, and what someone else finds offensive I may not. What he said went way beyond offensive. What he said was hate.


Like my friend Ben, I don't understand anyone who would condone or defend his actions. I simply don't get it. Ben mentioned Michael Richards from Seinfeld in a post and what happened to him. He was so ostracized for his actions at one of his standup routines that I don't think his career has ever been the same. Is it a different situation because that had to do with African Americans and this has to do with gays? Discrimination is discrimination, no matter how you cut it.I understand that Richards also insulted a heckler, so he went after an actual individual, but again, hate should never be acceptable in any form. We all have freedom of speech in this country. That is one of the many great things about this country is all of our freedoms. Men and women fight every day to help ensure that we keep all of our freedoms. But just because we can say or do something should we? A man can walk out on his wife and 10 kids and never see them again, never paying a dime to help support the kids he made. He has the freedom to do that. But does that mean he should? What he should do is pay child support to help support his children. How often does that actually happen? My point is that just because we have the freedom to do something, it does not make it right.

Janet Lee Smith

06/12/2011

Opinions and Respect

Before I get to the reason for this blog let me say the following: Memorial Day is a day to remember our fallen soldier's and a day to say thank you to them all, their families, and all of the servicemen and women who survived their service and those who are still serving their country. Our country. These brave men and women do this to keep our nation free. We all owe each and every man and woman who has ever served this country a debt of gratitude that we will never be able to fully repay. One way we can repay them in a small way is to not take for granted the freedom their sacrifice has afforded us. And make no mistake, every man and woman who serves this country makes a sacrifice. No, it is not always the ultimate sacrifice, Thank God, but they all make many sacrifice's. A man who's wife gives birth to their child while he is serving this country far away from home has made a sacrifice. A woman comes back with PTSD has made a sacrifice. Their are many types of sacrifice's and again we owe these people, these American's, far more than we will ever be able to repay fully.

This blog post was brought about by a Facebook discussion with a friend regarding people not being able to respect the other side in a discussion. During this discussion I thought about how it is Memorial Day and what the day is for. And the freedom that these men and women are fighting for. There are many ways that we are free. One of those ways is the freedom to have opinions on any number of subjects from religion to politics to sexual orientation and so much more. Yes, when it comes to freedom, this may be not be as significant as the freedom to say vote for who our public officials are, but it is still an important freedom.

So why do we continually try to cut people down because their opinion may not be our opinion? If someone does not agree with us so many people will respond with name calling or otherwise cutting that person down. Why is is that we tend to think that our opnions are the only ones that matter and any other opinion is wrong? So many people don't even want to hear an opposing opinion. Why is that? We see it all the time from important issues like politics to non-important issues such as what vampire series is better, Twight, True Blood or Vampire Diaries?

The main problem I see with this is the total lack of respect that is shown for "the other side". Liberals think nothing that conservatives do is right. Conservatives think nothing liberals do is right. So instead of discussing the issues, both sides name call on a regular basis. To quote Bella in Twilight (ok so I know she was not the originator of this saying) I'm Switzerland. No, I don't mean I'm not taking sides between the vamps and the wolves. I mean I am a moderate. There are parts of both sides I agree with. Which parts? That's not important here. I'm not discussing my political views, at least not this blog post.

Another area that neither side needs to be able to sit down and discuss their sides is religion. People who believe insult people who don't believe. Athiests insult those who do believe. Again, I'm Switzerland. I'll leave that for you all to figure out. It is pretty easy actually. The worst part in any of these disputes, be it politics, religion or vampires, is both sides always complain about how the other side doesn't listen or how all the other side does is insult them while they themselves do the same exact thing.

We have the freedom in this country to have any opinion we want to have and should be able to do so without being treated disrespectfully by the "other side". When will we realize that insults and disrespect get us nowhere. It solves no problems. Listening to what the other side says does not mean that you have to change your own opinion. It is simply showing them the respect that you yourself want. In order to get respect we have to give respect. So next time instead of demeaning someone because they have a different opinion than you do, sit down and say "let's discuss this. You tell me how you feel and why and I'll tell you how I feel and why." I am going to end this on something my mother always said: Opinions are like assholes, we all have one.

Now go on out there whether it be in "the real world" or on a social network and have an actual debate with someone who feels differently than you do on a subject. And if they want to resort to name calling then move onto another person. Don't feed into it, simply move on.

Have a great day everyone!

Janet Lee Smith
05/30/2011

SUBSTANCE ABUSE: DOES WHO YOU ARE MATTER?

SUBSTANCE ABUSE: DOES WHO YOU ARE MATTER?

            When you hear about a beloved celebrity who died from an overdose or some other complication of an addiction what do you think of? If you are like a lot of people, you think about how sad it is how much potential they had, things like that. Now think about how you feel if you read the paper and there is a small article on page 10 about some anonymous person dying from an overdose. What do you think then? If you are like a lot of people you think oh well, they knew what they were getting into. They should not have been living their life that way. Some people even go as far as to say they got what they deserve. I hope that I am not the only person who sees something wrong with this way of thinking. I hope that the majority of people do not base the actions of a person or whether a person’s death is their own fault on whom the person is.

            An addict is an addict is an addict, no matter what their social status, ethnicity, race, sexual orientation, job (or lack there-of), etc. is. As a society, when we look at some people with substance abuse issues, we simply think that they are “behaving badly” like we do with celebrities that we love, we are hurting that person. Everyone needs to be held accountable for their actions. Looking at a rock star who parties hard as “that is what rock stars do” or looking at a child star (or former child star) who gets high or drinks too much as “they just had too much too soon” is saying that these people are not responsible for their addictions. In fact we are almost saying that it is to be expected. However, if most people see someone on the street who is clearly drunk or high, just some random person who we don’t know, most people think that person is below them. Many people think thoughts like “what a loser”.

            Why does it matter who we are? I am a recovering addict. By the grace of my higher power, I have not gotten high in just about 9 and ½ years. Since I have a history of addiction and a history in 12 step programs, I have a lot of friends who have histories with addiction. Not one of us is a loser and there is not a celebrity addict or alcoholic who is better than us. Whether you believe in the disease concept of addiction or you believe it is hereditary, or you simply believe that people choose to abuse some type of substance, it does not change the fact that when it comes to their addiction, all addicts are the same. Whether it is Michael Jackson or a homeless person who is doing whatever they can to get high every night, they are both addicts. There are differences of course in the way they get their drugs or use those drugs. Such as MJ had a doctor and/or nurse administering his drugs and the homeless person is going to buy his drugs from a street “pharmacist”. Those things don’t change the basic fact that they were both using a substance to change their personalities or to change their mood or to make themselves feel better in some way. Addicts oftentimes have a lot of pain that they are in. A lot of times it is psychological pain. They don’t know how to deal with that pain, so they alter themselves with a drug or with alcohol.

            What prompted me to write this blog post is something a friend said about the death of Jeff Conway. A lot of people have been posting how sad they are at Mr. Conway’s death. But my friend saw a lot of posts about how he got what he deserved and other such comments. This shows me that being a celebrity does not matter. You have to be a certain type of celebrity in order for your addiction or death being related in some way to an addiction to be thought of as a horrible turn of events. I guess you have to be an A-list celebrity in order for it not to be your fault, for a person to be held accountable for their actions. So I once again want to point out that an addict is an addict is an addict. I hope that we someday get to a point in our collective way of thinking where we think that any death is sad. All deaths should be mourned. That someday we get to a point where we don’t put some people up on a pedestal and forgive everything they do, no matter what it is, while at the same time condemning other people for doing the very same thing. A point where we realize that we are all equal and no one is better than anyone else because they are famous or because they have a lot of money or for any other external factor.

Janet Lee Smith
05/30/2011

Baby, You Were Born This Way, So Live Your Life On YOUR Terms!

Baby, You Were Born This Way, So Live Your Life On YOUR Terms!

Which came first the chicken or the egg? Nature or nurture? Born gay or made a choice to be gay? Some great questions. There are very different answers to these questions, depending on who you speak to and what their own personal philosophies are. A person’s own personal experiences and morals also help them form their own opinion on these subjects. Of course the first question is kind of a silly question, one that doesn’t affect anyone’s life too much. The other two questions have been debated by many, many people over the years. My opinion on nature vs. nurture is that they both shape how our brains, our morals, our very lives are developed. In other words I don’t think either one is right or either one is wrong. Since I am a lesbian, the third question is one I have a very strong opinion on. There is very little doubt in my mind that a person is either born gay or straight.

One of the reasons I feel so strongly about that is as simple as one statement. Who would make the choice to be ostracized? Sometimes not only by people they don’t know but also by the very people who they’ve loved their whole lives, their families. If the possibility exists that your parents or your siblings may put you out of their lives, never want to see you or speak to you again, because of something you have the choice to be, would people really make that choice? If you knew that the possibility existed that you could lose a job, get violently attacked or be discriminated against in any number of ways, would a person really make the decision to live their life like that, if it was their choice? Let me say that I love my life. I would not change it at all. But all those years ago would I have made the decision to make my life more difficult just because of who I loved? I remember losing my first job because I was a lesbian. They never said that of course, even way back then they were smart enough not to say that. But I remember going from a model employee one who received excellent employee reviews, to getting a very bad review. My work never changed. I was not only there every shift but also when I got called in on my day off. The only thing that changed was they found out I was a lesbian. Someone did let me know what had truly happened. I was 17 years old and fired because of something that was as much me as my height, weight or hair color.

The second reason I feel so strongly about sexuality not being a choice is my own experiences. I remember being 16 and a friend of the family being at my house while my mom was out. She was an older lesbian, not old, but at 24 she was older than me. I remember there had been a few weeks when I had been getting these vibes from her that I did not understand. I was a very naïve 16 year old. Now back to my house when my mom was out. I remember her asking me if she could give me a back rub and I said yes. I wasn’t that naïve that I didn’t have a clue at that point, but I was very interested. Up until that point, I had never even thought at least on a conscious level, of being with a woman. In fact, I was about as boy crazy as they came. It wasn’t long though before I was remembering different things from when I was younger. The HUGE crush I had on my health teacher in junior high (Ms. Clarkson, she was HOT!) or the crush I had on a friend who lived down the street from my older brother when I was 14 or 15 (she had a GREAT ass.). It was after awhile of thinking about these things that I realized I had always been a lesbian; I just had not consciously accepted it. In fact I did the opposite. I did everything I could to prove to everyone, including me, that I was straight. Hence the being boy crazy as hell.

So if I was a lesbian all along and did not realize it, would I have ever realized it if my first love did not show her interest in me? If we are gay but in denial about, it are we still gay? The second question is the easiest one to answer for me. Just because we are in denial about something, it still is what it is. If a drug addict is in denial about their addiction are they still an addict? Of course they are. I am not comparing being gay to being a drug addict. I am comparing the denial of both in order to show that denial does not change what is. Denial is a funny thing, our minds can easily trick us into not believing something about ourselves. That doesn’t mean it isn’t so. The first question is a lot hard to answer, because how can we know how our lives would have ended up if another path had been taken or if something had not happened in our lives? I like to think that I would have realized that I’m a lesbian. In fact, I am pretty sure I would have. What I do know is no matter how my life may have been negatively affected by being a lesbian, I would not want my life any other way. Could I live happily with a man? Yes, I can. There were times when I was happy with my ex-husband. But would I have been as happy living a life that was not what I truly wanted as I have been living as an out and proud lesbian? I don’t think so.

If you are gay, no matter what you feel the answer to this question is, live your life the way you want to live it. Don’t do what I did and get married (even after I had been in a relationship with a woman) to a member of the opposite sex just because you think that is what your family would want. You have to put yourself first. You have to live your life the way you want to live it. Making other people happy may not make YOU happy. Or at least not as happy as you could be if you live your life the way you want to. Just concentrate on living your life in an authentic, honest way. Remember, be true to yourself and also remember if you are not happy, you’re not going to make anyone else happy either.

If you have a loved one who is gay, just accept them as they are. I’m not saying you have to approve of something that you may not agree with, I am simply saying accept the person you love. They don’t all of a sudden become a different person just because you find out they prefer the same sex to the opposite sex. They are still your child, your grand-child, your sibling, your friend, whatever the relationship may be. Nothing changes about a person when you find out they are gay. In fact their being gay would not be something that would affect you at all. So please don’t let if affect your relationship.

Janet Lee Smith

06/07/2011

Sexual Assault: A Whole Different Kind Of Victim Blaming

     Blaming the victim of a sexual assault, any type of sexual assault, is unfortunately very common. When we think of victim blaming, we think of the person person doing it being anyone from a family member to friends to strangers to a member of a criminal justice system. The person we don't often think of as being someone who blames the victim is the actual victim her(or him)self. After all, why would they blame themselves? There actually are reasons why a victim would blame them self. Not valid reasons, of course. But reasons that the victim convinces them self is a good reason. 

     The biggest reason a victim would blame them self is easy. Other people blaming them. If enough people tell us often enough that we did something wrong, it is easy to believe them. Especially when it comes to something like sexual assault. When people say to us things like "you should not have been wearing that" or "you should not have been in that area alone" or any other such statement often enough, we start to believe them. Especially when the people saying that are those closest to us. One would think that people like a parent, a sibling, or a spouse/significant other would never blame their loved one for being attacked. Why would someone hurt someone that they professed to love? I guess there are as many different answers to that question as there are people who engage in victim blaming. One thing I can say for sure is it is never acceptable to blame a victim of any crime for the crime committed against them, especially not someone we love. We are supposed to support those we love in times of trouble. We are supposed to show them that we care for them and that we are there by their side as they go through troubling times. Blaming a person for a crime committed against them is not loving, caring, or supportive.

     Another reason victims sometimes blame themselves is because they feel they did not say no or did not say no firmly enough. What they forget is it is not that they did not want to say no, sometimes giving in is the lesser of two evils. But let there be no mistake, giving in is not  necessarily a yes. For instance if someone lets you know by word or deed that either you give in or you will die, giving in is the best way to go. It is not saying yes to the act, it is saying no to possibly dying. Also, if we fight an attack, there is more of a chance of greater physical harm, up,to and including death, being done to us, whether they say we are going to die or not. Fighting an attacker just spurs them on. Giving in to someone who is a parental figure, whether it be an actual parent or someone who was always like a parent is also not saying yes, this is ok, I want to have sex with you. It doesn't matter whether you are a child or an adult when it happens, giving in does not equal saying it is ok. We are taught from a very young age to obey our parent's or other adults. Especially if you are over a certain age. Obeying adults has become not as important today as it once was. But I can tell you when I was young you did not say no to adults. And if you are over a certain age, the adults from your childhood are still adults and you are still a child, at least in your head. Does this mean that no adult would fight sexual advances from their parent's? No. But just because one does not fight incest does not mean it is a consensual act or a consensual  sexual relationship, no matter the age of the victim/survivor. I prefer the word survivor myself. When we call someone a victim, we keep them in the victim role. A parent trying to have sex with their child is always wrong. No matter what the age of the person is or whether the person gives in. The parent is always at fault there.

     Of course there are also sexual acts while someone is drunk or high. Let me get one thing straight here. Someone who is intoxicated or high cannot give legal consent. But besides the legal aspect, there is the fact that if we are impaired by some substance, we don't know what we are doing. Or we think we are doing something that we want to, but in reality it is the substance that is making us think we want it. Does that mean that you definitely did not want to sleep with that person you slept with last night because you were drunk? No, not at all. But it does mean that if you did not want to do it, then you didn't want to do it. It means that the alcohol or drugs you did does not mean that it was your fault if someone assaulted you.

     There are many ways of saying no that don't require you saying the word. If you are resistant at all or if any of your actions indicate that it is not what you want, then it should not happen. Just because you may not feel you can say the word no, for whatever reason, a person can tell if someone wants to have sex with them. Simply giving in does not mean a person is saying yes. And if a person cannot read a person when they are saying no in a non-verbal way that they do not want to have sex, then that person should not be engaging in sexual relations. My wish is that some day everybody will be able to say no, that there will be no reason that someone feels they should just give in. But until that day comes, my wish is that people who are sexually assaulted, either blatantly or in a more manipulating way, will realize that it is not their fault.

Marriage Equality

     This blog post is titled Marriage Equality and not Gay Marriage Rights for a reason. If you know me or have read stuff I have written or posted on Facebook or Twitter you know how I feel about the term "gay marriage", for those of you who do not know why I prefer marriage equality vs. gay marriage, let me explain. One reason is we are not looking for different rights than our heterosexual counterparts already have, so why should it have a special name? Do we say heterosexual marriage? No. We simply say marriage. So why should it be called gay marriage? Another reason is we don't want to be separate we want to be equal. Civil unions are not acceptable because they are not equal, so why would we call marriage anything other than simply marriage? Marriage equality says it much better, in my opinion. It says exactly what I want. Marriage and Equality. The words gay marriage imply difference. I don't want difference. I want the same.

     Although the tide is turning regarding this subject and more and more people at least don't want to fight marriage equality and a lot of heterosexual people now fighting the fight right alongside us, there are still a lot of people who don't want to see gay people able to get married. The main argument is that gay people getting married will ruin the institution of marriage. I don't get this. And no one who feels this way has ever explained to me exactly how my marriage is going to ruin the institution of marriage. I say my marriage because I live in Massachusetts and we have had the legal right to marry since 2004. My wife and I have been married since August of 2007. We have been together since June of 2001. Guess what? Gays have been able to get married in Mass since 2004 and the state is still around! No major problems were created, the sky didn't fall. There hasn't even been a lot of real publicity around it in the state since in awhile. Some people rejoiced, some people fought it, some people didn't really care one way or the other. But no matter how people felt, it was only a matter of time before life simply went on as usual in the state.

     Ok, back to my marriage and how it can affect marriage in general. As we all know the divorce rate has been over 50% I believe since around the 70's, possibly the 80's. So the institution of marriage has not been exactly stable for many years. So if gays and lesbians marry and get divorced, the divorce rate will remain stable. BUT, if we get married and stay married, the divorce rate will go down. I say that simply because if the marriage rate increases and the divorce rate increases, nothing will happen to the divorce rate.  However, if the amount of people who get married goes up yet less of those people get divorced, the divorce rate will go down. Simple math. There has been a long and hard fight for marriage equality, and it is slowly being won. At least on the state level. Even on the federal level, things are turning around. But for gay people over the age of 25, marriage was not always a possibility. It still isn't for the majority of gay people. It is for that reason that I feel the homosexual community takes marriage very seriously. Does that mean that no gay people will get married just for the heck of it? Only to be divorced and marrying someone else within a couple of years? No, it doesn't. But I think for the majority of gay people, we understand all too well how important the right to marry is, and take it very seriously.

      A marriage is a marriage. No matter what two people are in the marriage. Just like people are people no matter what their sexual orientation is. The only difference is that we love members of the same sex. Our relationships are not only about the sex, but so many people in society still think that it is all about sex. Yes, we are sexually attracted to members of the same sex, but it is so much more than that. When heterosexual people get into a relationship or get married, is it simply about sex? Do heterosexual people spend every moment of every day having sex? No, of course not. Neither do gay people. Our relationships are the same exact relationships as heterosexual people have. Therefore any marriage that we have will be the same exact marriage as heterosexual people have. One thing that is needed is for people to stop thinking about sex when thinking about homosexuals. When thinking about heterosexual people and their relationships or their marriages, people don't think wow! they are having sex! People are so concerned with all the sex that we have and how we are all supposed to go from relationship to relationship to think we can actually have a regular every day marriage. So many people think that none of us ever have long term relationships, either we are not capable of it or simply choose not to have them, so how could we ever have long lasting marriages? Well, I am here to tell you that gay people can have long term relationships. My wife and I have been together for 10 years in three months. We have been married for 3 and a half years. I don't know about anyone else, but I would consider 10 years a long term relationship. Other than my brothers I don't know a lot of heterosexual couples who have been together as long as Shanna and I have. But I do know several gay couples who have not only been together as long as Shanna and I,  but who have been together for 15, 20 and more years. I consider Shanna and I a good example of an every day, ordinary marriage. I don't at all understand how us being married can hurt the institution of marriage.

     Not all gay people want to get married, of course. But most gay people at least want to be able to. Why wouldn't we want to be able to? Being denied the ability to marry is being denied one of the most basic rights afforded to the heterosexual community. It is discrimination, pure and simple. It is saying that gay people are not equal to heterosexual people. It is saying we are second class citizens. It is saying "they" are better than "we" are. This is 2011 and this country has dealt with discrimination for many, many years. I wonder why we are still allowing it to go on. Haven't we learned anything from the history of our country? Why do people still have to fight for basic civil rights? Why are some American's treated like they are better than other American's? The good news is that women are no longer treated as the property of first their fathers, then their husbands, then their sons if their husbands die. Women and African American's have the right to vote. We can no longer own another human being. And no one in the country is counted as 3/5's of a human being for the purpose of the census. Everyone can go to the same school and use the same public restrooms.  Interracial couples can marry. These are all positive things. They also say to me that it is only a matter of time before marriage equality is a reality in the whole country, not just certain states. The fact that even a few of the states have made marriage equality a reality makes me happy. I have realized I was a lesbian since I was 16 years old. I am 45 years old now. So I spent a great many years thinking I would never be able to marry another woman. Today I am married, even though it is not recognized federally, my state does recognize it. That is a positive sign. 

     Some things take time. And they say that anything worth having is worth waiting for. I do have to say that marriage equality is worth anything it takes. This goes for all civil rights. All American's being treated equally is worth the fight. Marriage equality is just the latest fight for civil rights. I think I will see marriage equality on the federal level in my lifetime. This is something for years I never thought I would ever see. What I don't think I will see in my lifetime is a day when everyone (and I mean everyone) never thinks of the markers of identity of anyone else. A day when things like race, sexual orientation, gender, social class, weight, age, etc will no longer matter. A day when what matters is what is inside a person. A persons character. I have to believe that day will come. I just don't see it coming in my lifetime. Hopefully the children being born today will grow up in a world like that. One way to assure that is for the adults raising children and all the other adults around them to start seeing only what is inside a person. If a parent is bigoted in any way, that is what children will learn.  After all, children learn by example. Hopefully children who hear prejudiced ideas in their home will learn someplace else that hate is not a way to live life. Especially hate for something as basic as race, age, sexual orientation or anything else like that.

Janet Lee Smith

02/26/2011

Charlie Sheen & Addiction

Where to begin on this topic? The man? Addiction and it's effect on an addict, his life, and his loved ones? The people who enable Charlie? Martin Sheen comparing his son's addiction to cancer? Tough love? This will more than likely be a very long blog post. Hopefully people will bear with me and read it all, if it is interesting enough, of course. Right now I want to go back to some of my FB postings and find some of what I think are my best points of the day. I'm going to try to resist that urge.

Let me go from the first topic I listed above and go from there. The man. Charlie Sheen. Boy, his life is out of control. Or at least it appears that way. He has been giving radio interviews since he finished his at-home rehab. Let me start there, who has rehab at home? Yes people can try to detox and begin recovery from home. But if you say you are going to rehab, in my opinion that should be an inpatient rehab. Not your home. If you want to do it at home, call it something else. An actual rehab needs some things. Like structure. Like 24 hour staff (and I don't mean housekeeping). Like a nurse to help with detox. Like group therapy. The residential living in a rehab is also very important. Being able to relate to other addicts going through the same things you are. 

I actually feel for Charlie. He is an addict in the throes of addiction. I wish he would see his life for what it is, see what his addiction is doing to him. Last night on Twitter a soap actress said that due to her years of going to alanon and going on talk shows with her father who is a substance abuse counselor qualifies her to say that Charlie has either reached his bottom or is nearing reaching his bottom. First of all, she has no experience working with addicts. Second of all, no one can decide where a person's bottom is, except the addict in question. What exactly has Charlie Sheen lost to make it his bottom? He may be at his bottom, I don't know, because everyone's bottom is different. Everyone's bottom is different. That is why this actress cannot say that CS has reached his bottom. I know a lot of addicts. Some don't reach a bottom at all, they just realize their life is out of control. Some lose everyone they love. Some have gone to jail, some once or twice, some lots of times. Some overdose several times. Some become homeless. Only Charlie Sheen can decide when he is done and when he is ready to stop. We cannot make that decision for him.

Charlie's life. We already know this is affecting his life. At the very least he has been "laid off" from his job. IMO there is a good chance we will be hearing he has lost his job and either Two and a Half Men will be canceled or it will go on without it's star.  Charlie has lost more then one marriage due to his addiction. He appears to be at least somewhat mentally unstable right now. Not uncommon. Co-occuring disorders are very common. Sometimes the mental illness comes first sometimes the mental illness comes as a result of the addiction. But whichever comes first, mental illness and substance abuse often go hand in hand. Not always, but a lot of times. I think anyone can look at Charlie's life, or what we know of his life, and know he is out of control and is going down an increasingly slippery path. Will he fall completely or will he realize he has a problem (really realize it, not come to an epiphany due to a media relations nightmare) and reach out to people who can help him and turn his life around? I'm hoping for him, his family, especially his children, that he finally comes to an actual realization that he has to make changes. 

I want to now address Martin Sheen's statement comparing Charlie's addiction to cancer. I am going to get this from what I put on FB.  The two are not the same, imo, at all. Addiction you can control and put a stop to. No it is not easy, it is one of the hardest things a person will ever do in their lives. But when someone has cancer, they don't have control over it. They have to hope that treatment will work, they cannot stop it. Charlie can stop his addiction. Again, not easily, but he can do it. He does not want to. Does Mr. Sheen think that people who have cancer don't want it to go away and would not do everything in their power to make it go away? That is why people put poison into the body to stop cancer, because they will do anything to stop it. And recovering addicts will do anything to make sure their disease stays arrested, but Charlie is not there yet. As someone who lost both her parents to cancer, I find Martin Sheen's comments insulting. 

Martin Sheen needs to love his son, without a doubt. But at some point that love needs to turn to tough love. Which part of that is saying I won't sit around and watch you kill yourself any longer, so I am out of here until you get your act straightened out. One of the hardest things a parent has to do, but it is a very needed step when helping a child. I have talked to parents who had to make this decision and struggled with it, but at some point they finally said I'm done. I have seen parents with 18 years old daughter who  told them that they could not go home to live after leaving treatment. They did it hoping that their child would go into further treatment, but in some cases they knew their child was going to end up on the street because they were not going into further treatment, but they stood their ground. We cannot enable addicts. It does not help them, it only hurts them. People need to start walking away from him until he makes the decision to get himself well. Which is something he can do, while it is something that someone with cancer cannot do.

Charlie has some difficult decisions to make. He has two roads he can follow. If he makes the decision to get clean, he has a long, hard road ahead of him. But that road will get easier. He will learn that life can be good without partying, without getting high or drunk. As hard as the road of recovery can be, if he chooses to stay on the path that he is on, it will be a much harder road. Not only will it be a much harder road, it is a road which will get harder as time goes on. Unlike what would happen if he choose recovery. If he chooses recovery it may not be easy in the beginning, but his life will improve, ten fold. The important thing to remember is only he can make that decision. Hopefully the media will decide to stay out of it, but as we all know as long as he is making them money that is not going to happen. 

Janet Lee Smith

02/25/2011

I am an American. I am a woman. I am an adult.

I am an American. I am a woman. I am an adult. No one has the right to tell me what to do. I make my own choices. I can choose what to do with MY body. I can choose who I want to marry. I can go anywhere I want to go, without being treated like a 5 year old who is told I should only go where I am told is safe for me. And if I go anyplace that certain people in society feel is unsafe and I am attacked, I WILL NOT be blamed for it!

I am a woman. A strong, independent woman. I can be like a "little girl" who likes feeling safe in my wife's arms or I can be like a tigress who will rip your heart out of your chest if you hurt me or someone I love. I will not let anyone bully me, I will always stand up for myself. I can be the sweetest person you ever met or I can be a bitch on wheels. I am and always will be whatever I choose to be. I will always do what I choose to do. I am a woman, not a possession.

I am also an American which means I deserve the same rights as every other American. I am a lesbian. That does not make me any less of an American than any heterosexual American. We are all equal, or should be equal. When will some parts of society start to realize this? More importantly, when will politicians who we ALL pay their salaries, start to work for us ALL? Start to treat us ALL equally? It is time we started firing them, sending them on their merry way, if they are unable to represent us all.

One more thing, just to make sure there is no misunderstanding here: SEPARATE is NOT EQUAL!!! Civil Unions will NEVER be ENOUGH! Unless a law is made saying that no marriage is legal and that only civil unions are legal, for EVERYONE. Everyone deserves the same rights and privileges in this country. Not separate rights and privileges, but THE SAME!

Janet Lee Smith 
02/18/11

Father's Rights

This blog post has the possibility of pissing off some women. Oh well. If it does, I am forever saying something that pisses someone off. It's like I always tell my wife when she gives me a hard time over something I say: If it is not true you wouldn't give me a hard time. Same theory here, if what I am about to say makes you angry, perhaps you should look at yourself. Before I go any further I want to say that this does not apply to all mothers. I actually hope it applies to very few mothers. But one thing I know for sure is although I do not know how many women do what I am going to talk about, I know that some do. I also know it should never happen.


I am a woman, of course. Maybe that is how I know how vindictive some woman can be. Maybe it is because I have had my share of vindictive moments. Not something I'm proud of, but I have said things that should have never come out of my mouth, just because I wanted to get even with someone who had hurt me. That isn't even a woman thing, it is a human thing. A human response to being hurt. What this blog post talks about goes beyond using words to get even. Something that unfortunately hurts innocent bystanders: making one parent pay for something they did to the other parent by using their children.


Children are always innocent bystanders in the break-up of a relationship. Children simply want to maintain a relationship with both parents. Some parents would do anything to get even with the other parent for something they did wrong. Usually cheating and/or leaving the other parent for another person. Sometimes simply for ending the relationship, with no other person involved. They simply do not want to be in the relationship any longer. So they use the child/children as a pawn. 


You left me, so you will see the children only when I am there. You cheated on me, so you will never see your children. Oftentimes the only thing that "offending" parent did was leave the relationship or cheat. Or in some other way hurt the parent making the decisions. Deciding that it is within their rights to say if and when the other parent sees their children. The parent making these decisions is often the mother. Not always, but generally. 


Some mother's seem to think they have that right, simply because they are the child's mother. The problem with that thinking is a woman has no extra right to a child because she is the mother. Father's have the same rights as a mother. They have the same rights as the mother to see the child and to have custody of the child. I'm not sure if it is the fact that historically the courts in this country have given custody to mother's that causes this thinking or if it is something else. But whatever causes this thinking, mother's simply do not have greater right to children than father's do. Luckily courts do realize this now, and a father receiving custody of a child is not a rare occurrence. In my opinion, if both parent's are good parent's and both want custody, they should have shared custody. 


Don't get me wrong, there are men who do not deserve custody and there are men who should have no more than supervised visits. There are also women who these situations apply to. A persons gender alone does not make them suitable parents. One thing I am sure of is that no child should be used as a pawn for either parent to get even for injustices against them, real or imagined. A parents main concern should be their child's welfare, not getting even with another person. If a person puts their own needs in front of the needs of their children, it makes me wonder how competent they are to ever put their child's needs above their own.

Of course the parent can take it to court and fight for visitation, joint custody or sole custody. The problem is that courts are backlogged and it takes time to get a court date. A child should not have to wait for a court date to be able to spend time with both their parent's. Two people who were once in love should be able to set up arrangements for them both to spend time with their children. It is not only the adult thing to do, it is the right thing to do for the child/children. After all, the well being of the child should be what is of utmost importance to any parent's ending a relationship. This is never easy on a child, and parents should want to make it as easy as possible. 


I know it is hard when someone cheats on you or when someone unexpectedly ends a relationship. Sometimes it is devastating. But a persons response should never be to use another human being, especially their child, to get even. Especially a child. When a child is not allowed to see one of their parent's, they are the one being hurt. Yes, it may hurt the other parent, but the person hurt the most is the person who both parent's should be doing everything to protect and take care of. Keeping a child away from their other parent, unless that parent is a danger to the child, is not taking good care of that child. It is emotionally and mentally hurting that child. And in the long run it may hurt you, because at some point that child is going to be old enough to understand what you did. When they do, it may be you who loses your relationship with your child.


As always, these are my opinions. But the fact that actions like I have discussed here can emotionally or mentally damage a child is not only my opinion, it is a psychological fact.


Janet Lee Smith
02/16/2011

Assault & Blaming The Victim

A sexual assault on a woman. Unfortunately, this is not an uncommon story. This time it was a CBS correspondent reporting from Egypt on the problems going on there right now. Problems I am not going to discuss now, because they will take away from what this blog is about. This was an attack on a woman who was trying to get the story of these people out to the rest of the world. The same people who attacked her are people she was telling the story of. First I want to commend Ms. Logan on her decision to make her attack public knowledge. That is something that a person who has been sexually assaulted never has to do, and often times do not do. It is a very personal, private matter and to go public about it is not an easy thing to do. 

This blog post was inspired by other comments on other blogs and websites. One person even posted on their Twitter "sometimes we have to find humor in the small things", while as a general rule, I think humor can help people get through a lot, a sexual assault is neither a "small thing" nor is it in anyway humorous. This person also posted on their Twitter that Ms. Logan "had to outdo Anderson" by getting raped. Yes, that was her plan, outdoing Cooper Anderson. On a blog someone posted on Feb. 3rd: "OMG if I were her captors and there were no sanctions for doing so? I would totally rape her". That blog has since been updated to say "Super funny joke deleted in the light of sad news that Lara Logan was raped in Egypt. Can I just say, however, that I soooo totally called this?" First of all, the supposed "joke" was not funny at all, even if Ms. Logan had not subsequently been raped, and it should never have been said. Second of all, taking credit for "calling" a sexual assault? Really? What kind of person posts this stuff?


This blog post is not about what other bloggers are posting, though. It may have been inspired by other people and other blogs, but it is about blaming the victim. In the case of a sexual assault, the victim is often blamed. She was wearing provocative clothing or she said yes up until that point, how could she expect him to stop or as some people are saying in this case, she should not have been there. These comments or any comments like them all do the same thing. They blame the survivor. Yes survivor. Because if a person is attacked and they are continually called a victim, that is what they will continually be thought of. Ms. Logan was a victim, she is now a survivor. At some point we have to take back our control. It is at that point we are no longer a victim. My first marriage was abusive. I allowed myself to be a victim for many years after the marriage ended. Until I realized that I survived the situation and came out a stronger woman. I am a survivor and will never be a victim again. Once I realized I was a survivor was also when I stopped being in relationships where I was in someway abused, whether it be physically, emotionally, or mentally. Like all survivors of abuse I am now in control of my own life. 

Back to the subject at hand. There is nothing that gives one human being the right to abuse another. Nothing at all. Not what they are wearing. Not where they are. Not when they say no. Or any other reason that people find to blame the victim. Myself, as strong as I think I am, I could not be in another country where there was a lot of unrest reporting on the situation. Not because I don't think I would belong there, but because I think I would be too afraid to be there. But I have every right not only to be there, but to be there without being attacked. I have every right to be anywhere I choose, any time I choose. So does every women. When we blame the victim we are taking the focus off of where it needs to be. First of all, we need to think about the what the woman went through and what she may need to get through it. Second of all we need to think about the perpetrator and the fact that he (or she) needs to face consequences for their actions. 

One of my most fervent wishes is that when we think about the victim or survivor of any crime, we don't think of what the person was doing or wearing or where they were, or find any way at all to blame the victim. We simply think of the person as a victim of a crime and do whatever we can to help get that person through the tough times. Help them to become a true survivor, not just a person who survived the crime, but a person who overcame the crime in every way. A person who got through the pain, physical, mental and emotional pain, and came out the other side. Let's simply be kind, compassionate human beings who want to help our fellow citizens, instead of making their life more difficult.


Janet Lee Smith
2/16/2011

I Am Full Of Contradictions

I always say life is not black and white. I am living proof of that. I have so many contradicting likes, thoughts, beliefs, opinions, etc. You cannot look at me and know much about me and I enjoy that. You look at me and see a middle aged (44) woman. But I am me. I defy stereotypes. I like classic rock and 80's music, but I also like rap and hip hop music. I am a lesbian, but I still enjoy looking at attractive men (as long as they have clothes on lol), I am a liberal who has realized that on some topics she is more moderate. I am agnostic, which means I am ambivalent toward religion yet some days I believe very much. I am a feminist but I also like to feel protected and taken care of, while all the time knowing that I am very capable of taking care of myself, should I need to. And I spent many years of my life having to do just that. I am a femme lesbian but I can swing a hammer and use a cordless screwdriver as well as any butch or man can. 

At any given moment I can be professional, responsible, adult, childish, silly, bitchy, evil, sweet, innocent and any number of other adjectives that are very different from each other. I can change my mind at the drop of a dime and do. I can be laughing one minute and crying the next. I am very loyal, but piss me off and I will have no problem putting you out of my life. I have been hurt a lot in life, and have my defenses up except with very few people. Those people are my wife, our family, and some very important friends. 

Most of the time I love myself and everything about me. Other times my stomach is too fat, my ass is too big, my legs are too fat, my lips are too thin, my forehead is too high and I hate my hair  and if your a woman who is reading this you understand all of that because more than likely you feel the same things on any given day. I am also usually a very strong woman. But sometimes I have no strength left. It is those times when I need someone else to be strong. I am very strong willed, very opinionated, very outspoken, and as much as I hate it sometimes very judgmental. Although I have worked on that a lot over the last few years. I have a lot of energy most days and can get everything I need to done. Other days I either have no energy or simply want to be lazy. 

I am me. Like most women I am a complex creature. But that also means that like most women there is no one like me. I am unique, an original, and I love to defy all everyone assumes by looking at me. Because you cannot possibly know me by looking at me. You cannot possibly know any woman by looking at them. God may have made women from man but that is because he wanted to be close enough to perfection as possible, and men did not fit that bill.  :)  Only kidding there, well, sort of! 


Hugs,
Janet

Domestic Violence & Reasons Used For Not Leaving

When we think of domestic violence victims, we often conjure up images of the victim being female, the abuser being male, and those involved being poor. Sometimes these are true scenerios. But just as often they are not. Women are not always the victims. Men are also victims of abuse. Men are not always the abusers. Whether the victim is a man or a woman, the abuser can be a woman. Domestic violence happens in the homes of gay people also. Finally, abuse happens just as often in middle or upper class households. Victims can be anyone, waitresses, students, actresses, doctors, politicians, factory workers, anyone at all. Abusers can also be all of the above, any type of person, rich, poor, professional, blue coller worker, etc.

One of the differences in these type of individuals is whether they stay in the situation or not. Take men for instance. Men oftentimes have a hard time admitting to being abused by a woman. They feel it would make them look less masculine. So they oftentimes stay in the situation and don't say anything. Women of a higher social class have a problem admitting to being abused. For a couple of reasons. First because of the stereotype of abused people. They can't possibly be abused because they are rich, or important. People like them don't have things like domestic violence in their households. Problem is, people like them do have those problems and they know it. They just won't admit it. They also don't want to lose their social standing or have to stop living the life style they are living. What people don't realize is there is something more important than male pride, social standing or lifestyle. That is their lives. Domestic violence homicide rates are very high.

I want to point out that all victims of domestic violence feel they have a lot to lose if they leave the situation. Not just people of a certain social class. Just because a woman does not have social standing or a lot of money does not mean it is easy to leave. If the man is the sole provider, a woman may wonder how she will support herself. If there are children involved, the abuser may say something likehe will never let her take the kids or he will take the kids and never come back. They may also have no where to go. One of the characteristics of an abuser is they use mental and emotional abuse to make sure victims have no one but them to turn to. They make sure their victim puts everyone else out of their lives. Even if a woman can still turn to family and friends, they may feel that is not an option. They may think they pushed their family and friends too far and they cannot turn to them. Abusers want, and usually achieve , complete control over their victims. This control helps to keep the victim under their thumb. Helps to keep them in the relationship.

As a survivor of domestic violence, I am very grateful that my family and friends were there when I needed them. My fervant hope is that everyone who knows someone whoe they suspect is in an abusive relationship keeps in touch with them. Don't let them push you away. Victims need to know that they can call on someone at any time. There are always shelters they can go to, which is a good thing. Shelters work very hard to help victims become survivors. Domestic violence is a huge problem in this country. Unfortunately, that may never change. What we need to do is have more education on this subject. And it needs to start at a young age. High school girls are finding themselves in abusive relationships at an alarming rate. We need to fight to get education into schools at least at the middle school stage. Parent's need to start talking to their children about this topic. The sad fact is that a large number of people die from this every year. We need to educate on how to prevent an abusive relationship, on the signs of an abusive relationship and how to get out of an abusive relationship. We also need to let people know that there is no good reason for not getting out of an abusive relationship.

Janet Lee Smith
1/18/11

Pro-Choice and Pro-Abortion: Are They The Same Thing?

Can a person be pro-choice but anti-abortion? I used to think no. Even though that is exactly how I felt. I have always been anti-abortion, but have always been pro-choice. I just thought that was wrong. So I never voiced my thoughts. That ended one day when the professor in my Third Wave Feminist class put into words what I never did. Soneone else felt the same way I did! Not only someone else, but someone much more educated on Women's Studies than I was.

This made me think about the subject a little more. If pro-choice is about a women's right to choose, shouldn't she have a right to be against abortion as well as be for another women's right to have an abortion? I finally realized they were not the same thing at all. Pro-choice was not pro-abortion. I will always defend a women's right to choose, ALWAYS. Which means I will never judge a woman for choosing abortion, even if I do not agree with her reasons. It is her choice which means her reason does not make a difference to me.

The right of a woman to choose what she does with her body is enough for me to believe in abortion being legal. But there are more pressing reasons than that. What if a woman is told that she will die if she brings a baby to term and tried to give birth. Shouldn't a woman be able to decided whether she is going to live or die? Or what if a woman is raped? There certainly are woman who are raped, get pregnant, and have that child. But should a woman be forced to do that? What of the case of incest? A girl being molested by a family member ends up pregnant. Should she be forced to have a relative's baby? Should she be forced to raise a baby that is say her child but also her sister? In the last two cases I know abortion is an option. But why should a woman, or a child, be forced to go through a pregnancy and give birth under these circumstances? What are the chances of a person working through the trauma they went through while waiting to give birth to the child that resulted from that trauma?

The question I posed in the title of this post was are pro-choice and pro-abortion the same thing. Very simeple answer: no. Just because a person believes a woman should have the right to do what she wants with her body does not neam that person believes in abortion. We should be able to seperate choice from the act itself. Unfortunately, some people believe that because they are against abortion and choice that everyone should fall in line with that thinking. No one has the right to make decisions for another human being based on their own moral beliefs. After all being for or against abortion is a moral issue. What works for me may not work for someone else, so who am I to decide what someone else should do? No one should have control over the life and body of another human being. Which is why I hope that abortion never becomes illegal, no matter what I would do. Everyone else should not have to do what I or anyone else would do.

Janet Lee Smith
01/18/11

Religion and it's Role In Our Lives and The Government

I am not going to focus on my religious beliefs here. Partly because they are conflicted, at best. I go between believing and wanting proof. I classify myself as an agnostic. Which simply means I want proof. Ok, that's all I am going to say on my personal beliefs.

My question today is how much should organized religion get involved in their members lives? I started wondering this when I read that the pope has asked that members of the church name their children more Christian names. This is of course the latest in a long line of edicts from the leadership of the catholic church. They have been involved in members lives on a great many topics. From birth control to marriage to divorce to sexuality and now baby names.

Of course the Catholic church is not the only church to do this. The Quaran and the Muslim faith have strong opinions on a lot of issues such as the role of women and how women should act. The church of Scientology has plenty to say about how their members should act and how they should live their lives. All religions think they should be able to set mandates for their members lives.

My dad grew up Catholic, my mom Episcopalian. My dad was divorced. My mom and dad wanted to get married in the Catholic church. They were told no, because of my dads divorce. Of course a church has the right to marry who they choose. But since my dad was also kicked out of the church shows that at least at that time the church not only told their members how they should live their lives but also got rid of them if they did not go along with the plan.

Again I ask how far should religion get involved in people's lives? More importantly, since this country has a seperation of church and state, how involved should organized religion be involved in the political process? Should religion play any role at all when the government is deciding any issue? For instance religion comes up a lot when it comes to abortion and gay marriage. Of course some private citizens are going to base their opinions on their religion. That is fine, they have the right to do so. But when are politicians are voting on an issue, in my opinion, religion should not come up at all. Like I said, we have a seperation of church and state. If a person does not want the government to get involved in what their church does, then a church should not get involved in what the government does. And if they do? Well, if religion is to be part of our governemt, they need to pay taxes. You can't have one part of a situation, yet say no to the rest. Either religion is a part of our government or it isn't. And if it is, it needs to go by all the rules that any business goes by. But that is not how our forefathers set up this country. Religion has nothing to do with the government and government has nothing to do with religion. It is time this to become a reality instead of just a principle that this country is based on that is not followed. Or like I said, get rid of the theory and make all religious entities follow the rules of every one else.

Janet Lee Smith
01/15/10