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
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
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
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
Saturday, January 15, 2011
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
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
Violent Speech Causes Violent Actions
Sarah Palin is getting a lot of bad press over the Arizona shootings. In my opinion it is deserved. But not only Sarah should get blame here, anyone who uses violent speak or images in politics should be blamed. Sarah has done an awful lot of that. I will explain why I feel that way here.
Do I think that Sarah Palin wanted any type of violence, much less a shooting where people, including a nine year old were killed? No, not for a second. Do I think that most people reading her comments would have resorted to violence? Again my answer is a resounding no. But the problem with any group is the people on the fringe. The people who for whatever reason will take anything they hear or read literally.
The problem is not just Sarah Palin, the Tea Party or the right. The problem lies in the fact that this kind of rhetoric is used by all sides. I read on a friends FB page today that someone said that Sarah Palin should be shot. Really? How could that person think that is an acceptable thing to say? It is also very unproductive. If we want to start solving problems we need open and honest discussion. Talk of violence or hate have no place in politics or anywhere else for that matter.
I also want to talk about the people involved in this tragedy and all tragedys such as this one. Whenever something like this happens the focus is always on the famous victim(s). When the hospital spokesman spoke today he said now on to who everyone is wondering about. I can’t speak for anyone else, but all of the victims involved in this tragedy. For instance I am very concerned that a nine year old will never graduate from high scool or college, go on a first date, get married, have children. Her parents will never get to beam at her as she walks across a stage to get her diploma, her dad will never be able to walk her down the aisle and her mom will never get to help her pick out a wedding gown. What I’m trying to say is there was more than one victim here. Several lives were lost. Several people were injured, some critically. And many family members lives have been forever altered. I pray for them all.
The perpetrator of this crime was a mentally ill man. Something that a lot of people evidentally knew about. He lived with his parents, why didn’t they try to do something to get him help? Mental illness is a huge issue here, at least as big as the issue of violent rhetoric. Mentally ill people need help, and they don't always realize they are mentally ill or if they do, they don't want to get the help they need. More important than new gun laws, are new laws to allow people who have a mentally ill person in their lives who refuse to get help get them the help they need. We also need more help for mentally ill people. Insurance is huge. It is not acceptable for mentally ill people (and I mean seriously mentall ill people who are dangerous) to have to go without the help they need because they do not have insurance. How many tragedies could have been avoided if the perpetrators had the help they needed? I'm not saying that everyone who does something like this is mentally ill, but I am willing to bet a large amount are. The investigation is still in its early stages, so I am sure more will come out about the shooter. Hopefully we will find out people did at least try to get him help. The sad part to me is that his sentence may be served in a padded cell because of his mental illness. The professional, psych part of me knows that if he is indeed declared mentally ill, he should be in a psych ward, but most of me wants him to spend his life in jail or get the death sentence.
Janet Lee Smith
01/10/11
Do I think that Sarah Palin wanted any type of violence, much less a shooting where people, including a nine year old were killed? No, not for a second. Do I think that most people reading her comments would have resorted to violence? Again my answer is a resounding no. But the problem with any group is the people on the fringe. The people who for whatever reason will take anything they hear or read literally.
The problem is not just Sarah Palin, the Tea Party or the right. The problem lies in the fact that this kind of rhetoric is used by all sides. I read on a friends FB page today that someone said that Sarah Palin should be shot. Really? How could that person think that is an acceptable thing to say? It is also very unproductive. If we want to start solving problems we need open and honest discussion. Talk of violence or hate have no place in politics or anywhere else for that matter.
I also want to talk about the people involved in this tragedy and all tragedys such as this one. Whenever something like this happens the focus is always on the famous victim(s). When the hospital spokesman spoke today he said now on to who everyone is wondering about. I can’t speak for anyone else, but all of the victims involved in this tragedy. For instance I am very concerned that a nine year old will never graduate from high scool or college, go on a first date, get married, have children. Her parents will never get to beam at her as she walks across a stage to get her diploma, her dad will never be able to walk her down the aisle and her mom will never get to help her pick out a wedding gown. What I’m trying to say is there was more than one victim here. Several lives were lost. Several people were injured, some critically. And many family members lives have been forever altered. I pray for them all.
The perpetrator of this crime was a mentally ill man. Something that a lot of people evidentally knew about. He lived with his parents, why didn’t they try to do something to get him help? Mental illness is a huge issue here, at least as big as the issue of violent rhetoric. Mentally ill people need help, and they don't always realize they are mentally ill or if they do, they don't want to get the help they need. More important than new gun laws, are new laws to allow people who have a mentally ill person in their lives who refuse to get help get them the help they need. We also need more help for mentally ill people. Insurance is huge. It is not acceptable for mentally ill people (and I mean seriously mentall ill people who are dangerous) to have to go without the help they need because they do not have insurance. How many tragedies could have been avoided if the perpetrators had the help they needed? I'm not saying that everyone who does something like this is mentally ill, but I am willing to bet a large amount are. The investigation is still in its early stages, so I am sure more will come out about the shooter. Hopefully we will find out people did at least try to get him help. The sad part to me is that his sentence may be served in a padded cell because of his mental illness. The professional, psych part of me knows that if he is indeed declared mentally ill, he should be in a psych ward, but most of me wants him to spend his life in jail or get the death sentence.
Janet Lee Smith
01/10/11
Huck Finn and Censorship.
I want to begin this by saying I dispise the “N” word. It would not be a part of today’s vocabulary at all, by anyone, in my opinion. There are a few words I feel that way about. Such as the “C” word. I know it is politically incorrect to use these words, but that is not why I do not like them. In fact, over the past couple of years I have become more and more un-pc. I just feel they are rude and offensive and have the capability of causing harm.
Does this mean I feel that a classic book such as Huck Finn should be re-written because of the “N” word? No I don’t. First of all it is censorship. If we are going to take the word out of a classic wrote of literature, then shouldn’t the word also be taken out of any other piece of art? Such as rap songs. If we are going to censor Mark Twain, I certainly hope we are going to censor 50 cent. Let’s look at that. What would 50 cent (or any other rapper or singer in general) were told they had to re-write a song because it had offensive words in it? The singer would be yelling “it’s racism!” or “You can’t censor people in the U.S.” or “I am an artist, this is what I do!”. So let me get this straight, it is apparently ok to censor one of the greatest writers of the history of the United States, yet censoring a currently performing singer or actor or other kind of artist would be wrong. Our laws apply to the country as a whole. If we are going to say a word should not be used in a classic book, it also should not be used in any song, sung by any artist. Period.
Let’s look at Huck Finn. This is a book that was written in a time period when unfortunately the “N” word was used. Not only used, but used in a derogatory manner. Life was different then. But when reading a time period book would we rather have it whitewashed or read what actually went on during that time? What other books can we go through and change because they have words or actions that are not acceptable today? I mean is anyone re-writing Alex Haley’s Roots? Because if we are going to re-write books, we need to re-write them all. Anything pertaining to words we do not like, slaves, whippings, hanging, the Holocaust, Stonewall, the word faggot, dyke, anything at all offensive, needs to be removed from books. No matter that they are classics and are written about a certain time period. Nope, re-write them all. In fact, I insist that every book using the words faggot or dyke be removed from every book ever written! They are offensive to gays and lesbians! Does anyone else realize how ridiculous that sounds? If you are going to write a book about the glbt community from the 40′s all the way into the 90′s (and beyond) they are going to include offensive words. Those were words that were used for many years. If we are going to show an accurate portrayal of any subject during any time period, we need to use the language used during that time period.
Hopefully some day no words will be said in a derogatory manner. That will never mean we should ever re-write classical books or try to re-write the history of the United States. By chaning things such as Huck Finn, it is trying to change our history, make white American’s nicer than what we were. Come on people, that wasn’t the case. White people OWNED African American’s, they called them n******, we cannot change that. And it definitely will not be wiped out by taking a word out of a book. We need to own our history. We need to remember our history. Or else we will repeat our history!
Janet Lee Smith
01/10/11
Does this mean I feel that a classic book such as Huck Finn should be re-written because of the “N” word? No I don’t. First of all it is censorship. If we are going to take the word out of a classic wrote of literature, then shouldn’t the word also be taken out of any other piece of art? Such as rap songs. If we are going to censor Mark Twain, I certainly hope we are going to censor 50 cent. Let’s look at that. What would 50 cent (or any other rapper or singer in general) were told they had to re-write a song because it had offensive words in it? The singer would be yelling “it’s racism!” or “You can’t censor people in the U.S.” or “I am an artist, this is what I do!”. So let me get this straight, it is apparently ok to censor one of the greatest writers of the history of the United States, yet censoring a currently performing singer or actor or other kind of artist would be wrong. Our laws apply to the country as a whole. If we are going to say a word should not be used in a classic book, it also should not be used in any song, sung by any artist. Period.
Let’s look at Huck Finn. This is a book that was written in a time period when unfortunately the “N” word was used. Not only used, but used in a derogatory manner. Life was different then. But when reading a time period book would we rather have it whitewashed or read what actually went on during that time? What other books can we go through and change because they have words or actions that are not acceptable today? I mean is anyone re-writing Alex Haley’s Roots? Because if we are going to re-write books, we need to re-write them all. Anything pertaining to words we do not like, slaves, whippings, hanging, the Holocaust, Stonewall, the word faggot, dyke, anything at all offensive, needs to be removed from books. No matter that they are classics and are written about a certain time period. Nope, re-write them all. In fact, I insist that every book using the words faggot or dyke be removed from every book ever written! They are offensive to gays and lesbians! Does anyone else realize how ridiculous that sounds? If you are going to write a book about the glbt community from the 40′s all the way into the 90′s (and beyond) they are going to include offensive words. Those were words that were used for many years. If we are going to show an accurate portrayal of any subject during any time period, we need to use the language used during that time period.
Hopefully some day no words will be said in a derogatory manner. That will never mean we should ever re-write classical books or try to re-write the history of the United States. By chaning things such as Huck Finn, it is trying to change our history, make white American’s nicer than what we were. Come on people, that wasn’t the case. White people OWNED African American’s, they called them n******, we cannot change that. And it definitely will not be wiped out by taking a word out of a book. We need to own our history. We need to remember our history. Or else we will repeat our history!
Janet Lee Smith
01/10/11
My Life and Marriage Equality. What a combo! :)
(disclaimer: the first couple of chapters are about me, Shanna, and our life. Then I get to the good stuff, gay marriage)
Hi everyone!
Let me begin by saying Happy New Year! I hope the new year began great for everyone. I don’t know about anyone else, but I am planning on this year being my best year EVER!! My first order of business is FINDING A JOB!! I have been looking real hard, especially the last two months. Of course the last month or so was not a particularly great time to look for a job. A lot of people are not quitting jobs in the holiday season, so there are not a lot of people hiring. Or employers simply want to wait until after the holidays. The Wednesday before Christmas I went for an interview at a long term substance abuse treatment center for women as a substance abuse counselor, and I have the experience in residential living, one in a domestic violence shelter and one as a clinician in a different womens substance abuse treatment center plus with my BA I minored in WMS. They were looking specifically for people with experience working in the substance abuse field and also working with/training in womens issues. They are also looking for someone who is licensed in R.I. or can become licensed. I am not currently licensed, but I can become licensed. I would have to become licensed in Mass first, since that is where I live. So the problem is that they could interview someone that is already licensed. They told me they will be calling anyone they want to do a second interview with. They were hoping to finish the last of the first interviews last week. So hopefully I will be hearing from them regarding a second interview.
In the meantime, I have been sending resumes since Friday to every human service agency I can find in Mass or RI that has job openings that I am qualified for. Even sent out a couple of blind resumes, hoping that they have positions open. Hopefully with all the resumes I have sent out, something will come along. I have been sending resumes all over Mass, from Cape Cod to Boston and beyond. And have sent them to several different cities in RI. Since I don’t drive, commuting will be fun.
I am going to also go to the NB career center on Wednesday. All I can do is keep looking. I am feeling really positive tonight, I am not sure why. Not that I am not usually positive, I am. But tonight (this morning, really) I am feeling extra positive. Positivity is always a great feeling!
One of the reasons that I am so intent on finding a job A.S.A.P. is because Shanna and I are moving next month. We are going to apply for an apartment complex in our city, and you have to have a certain income. Unemployment is not going to cut it. We really want one of those apartments. If we don’t get one for any reason, we will look elsewhere, but that is what we really want. So our finger’s are crossed. There are a lot of reasons why we decided to move and this is the perfect time to do it. We plan on moving by February 28th, hopefully even by the middle of February. We shall see how it goes. We already have a lot packed, we are pretty much living with the bare essentials. lol We have gotten rid of a lot of stuff and are planning on starting with a lot of new stuff, including new furniture. We really needed new furniture, so now would be the perfect time. It is just kind of nerve wracking trying to make sure everything gets done. Once I find a job things will be a lot less stressful. Shanna and I are both really looking forward to this new chapter in our lives.
DADT was repealed, which is a very important step in my opinion to equality. Our President also stated that his feelings towards marriage equality are evolving. Some polls are showing that a good portion of America is ready for marriage equality. I believe this needs to be done at the federal level, just like the issue of interracial marriage had to be decided at the federal level. This will take it out of the states hands and those states that have made anti-gay marriage laws will have to get rid of their discriminatory ideas and make everyone equal. That is what this is all about. All American’s deserve to be treated equally. What would happen if someone said to heterosexual folks Hey, sorry, but you can’t get married. A person does not know what it feels like to be discriminated against until they are themselves discriminated against. Can any heterosexual person know what it feels like to know that your own country, not any country, but the U.S. of A does not think you are equal to your the majority of people in the country? Because that is what is being said when people say we do not deserve to have marriage rights. My wife and I are lucky. We live in Massachusetts so we are legally married, at least in our state. But our country still does not think we are good enough to be married.
A lot of people who are against marriage equality say that homosexual’s being married will ruin the institution of marriage. I guess they are not aware of the divorce rate among heterosexual people. I hate to say this, but straight people have already ruined the institution of marriage. How can we possibly make it worse than what it is? My wife and I have been together 10 years this year. On June 15th, actually. We have been married for four years this year. On August 18th. We don’t drink, we don’t do drugs, we don’t go out clubbing. We are homebodies. We do everything that any other couple does. The only difference is that we are two woman. People are focused on sex and not the commitment that two gay people can share. Personally, I don’t care about any one elses sex life. Gay, straight, bi, trans, I simply don’t care to know about anyone’s sex life. So why do people care about my sex life? Let’s get one thing straight. The problem that people have with gay people is sex. Pure and simple. Anyone saying differently is lying. Possibly even lying to themselves, but lying nonetheless. Why don’t we just leave sex out of it and think about the fact that love is love. People should be able to find love with whomever they choose, as long as both people are adults.
The funniest excuse I have heard against marriage equality is “if we let gay people get married, where will it stop? Next people will be wanting to marry their animals.” As a human being I find it very amusing that people would be concerned about such a thing. Animals? Really? I love our dog to death, but I would never want to marry him. As someone with a degree in Psychology, I worry about people with thoughts like that. Those are some scary people, in my opinion. The fact that anyone would even come up with such a sick idea is alarming. What makes a person think that way? At the very least it is a tremendous amount of hate and at the very most some severe mental illness. It’s a fact that there are some very sick people (hopefully very few) who enjoy sex with animals, but does anyone really think they would admit to that? Better yet that they would ask for marital rights? That thinking is simply ludicrous.
The problem is that if people have any kind of hate in their heart (and make no mistake, homophobia is a form of hate, just as racism is) will come up with any excuse to further their agenda. Do we gay people have an agenda? Hell Yes!! We want to be treated EQUALLY. What is so wrong with that? Will we do anything to further it or go to any length to further our agenda? I hope we would not go to the lengths of some people who are against marriage equality. I know I wouldn’t. Why should we have to? We only want what is right: simply what everyone else has. We don’t want extra rights. We only want the same rights. We want the rights we deserve. Either no one can get married or everyone can, real simple. Because there is not one single heterosexual couple better than Shanna and I. Nor are we better than any heterosexual couple. We are equal to any heterosexual couple.
Ok, that’s it for me tonight! Wait one more thing…My fave reason that I have heard for gay marriage: “Why shouldn’t they (gays) be allowed to be as miserable as the rest of us (straights)?” LOVE THAT! lol
Have a great night (day) everyone!
Hugs and kisses!
Janet Lee Smith
Note: Thanks to my good friend Ben I changed this piece to what I wanted it to say in the first place, marriage equality, not gay marriage. I was conflicted when I wrote it because I do not feel calling it gay marriage is productive. I feel it separates us from our heterosexual counterparts, which is not what we want to do.
Hi everyone!
Let me begin by saying Happy New Year! I hope the new year began great for everyone. I don’t know about anyone else, but I am planning on this year being my best year EVER!! My first order of business is FINDING A JOB!! I have been looking real hard, especially the last two months. Of course the last month or so was not a particularly great time to look for a job. A lot of people are not quitting jobs in the holiday season, so there are not a lot of people hiring. Or employers simply want to wait until after the holidays. The Wednesday before Christmas I went for an interview at a long term substance abuse treatment center for women as a substance abuse counselor, and I have the experience in residential living, one in a domestic violence shelter and one as a clinician in a different womens substance abuse treatment center plus with my BA I minored in WMS. They were looking specifically for people with experience working in the substance abuse field and also working with/training in womens issues. They are also looking for someone who is licensed in R.I. or can become licensed. I am not currently licensed, but I can become licensed. I would have to become licensed in Mass first, since that is where I live. So the problem is that they could interview someone that is already licensed. They told me they will be calling anyone they want to do a second interview with. They were hoping to finish the last of the first interviews last week. So hopefully I will be hearing from them regarding a second interview.
In the meantime, I have been sending resumes since Friday to every human service agency I can find in Mass or RI that has job openings that I am qualified for. Even sent out a couple of blind resumes, hoping that they have positions open. Hopefully with all the resumes I have sent out, something will come along. I have been sending resumes all over Mass, from Cape Cod to Boston and beyond. And have sent them to several different cities in RI. Since I don’t drive, commuting will be fun.
I am going to also go to the NB career center on Wednesday. All I can do is keep looking. I am feeling really positive tonight, I am not sure why. Not that I am not usually positive, I am. But tonight (this morning, really) I am feeling extra positive. Positivity is always a great feeling!One of the reasons that I am so intent on finding a job A.S.A.P. is because Shanna and I are moving next month. We are going to apply for an apartment complex in our city, and you have to have a certain income. Unemployment is not going to cut it. We really want one of those apartments. If we don’t get one for any reason, we will look elsewhere, but that is what we really want. So our finger’s are crossed.
There are a lot of reasons why we decided to move and this is the perfect time to do it. We plan on moving by February 28th, hopefully even by the middle of February. We shall see how it goes. We already have a lot packed, we are pretty much living with the bare essentials. lol We have gotten rid of a lot of stuff and are planning on starting with a lot of new stuff, including new furniture. We really needed new furniture, so now would be the perfect time. It is just kind of nerve wracking trying to make sure everything gets done. Once I find a job things will be a lot less stressful. Shanna and I are both really looking forward to this new chapter in our lives.DADT was repealed, which is a very important step in my opinion to equality. Our President also stated that his feelings towards marriage equality are evolving. Some polls are showing that a good portion of America is ready for marriage equality. I believe this needs to be done at the federal level, just like the issue of interracial marriage had to be decided at the federal level. This will take it out of the states hands and those states that have made anti-gay marriage laws will have to get rid of their discriminatory ideas and make everyone equal. That is what this is all about. All American’s deserve to be treated equally. What would happen if someone said to heterosexual folks Hey, sorry, but you can’t get married. A person does not know what it feels like to be discriminated against until they are themselves discriminated against. Can any heterosexual person know what it feels like to know that your own country, not any country, but the U.S. of A does not think you are equal to your the majority of people in the country? Because that is what is being said when people say we do not deserve to have marriage rights. My wife and I are lucky. We live in Massachusetts so we are legally married, at least in our state. But our country still does not think we are good enough to be married.
A lot of people who are against marriage equality say that homosexual’s being married will ruin the institution of marriage. I guess they are not aware of the divorce rate among heterosexual people. I hate to say this, but straight people have already ruined the institution of marriage. How can we possibly make it worse than what it is? My wife and I have been together 10 years this year. On June 15th, actually. We have been married for four years this year. On August 18th. We don’t drink, we don’t do drugs, we don’t go out clubbing. We are homebodies. We do everything that any other couple does. The only difference is that we are two woman. People are focused on sex and not the commitment that two gay people can share. Personally, I don’t care about any one elses sex life. Gay, straight, bi, trans, I simply don’t care to know about anyone’s sex life. So why do people care about my sex life? Let’s get one thing straight. The problem that people have with gay people is sex. Pure and simple. Anyone saying differently is lying. Possibly even lying to themselves, but lying nonetheless. Why don’t we just leave sex out of it and think about the fact that love is love. People should be able to find love with whomever they choose, as long as both people are adults.
The funniest excuse I have heard against marriage equality is “if we let gay people get married, where will it stop? Next people will be wanting to marry their animals.” As a human being I find it very amusing that people would be concerned about such a thing. Animals? Really? I love our dog to death, but I would never want to marry him. As someone with a degree in Psychology, I worry about people with thoughts like that. Those are some scary people, in my opinion. The fact that anyone would even come up with such a sick idea is alarming. What makes a person think that way? At the very least it is a tremendous amount of hate and at the very most some severe mental illness. It’s a fact that there are some very sick people (hopefully very few) who enjoy sex with animals, but does anyone really think they would admit to that? Better yet that they would ask for marital rights? That thinking is simply ludicrous.
The problem is that if people have any kind of hate in their heart (and make no mistake, homophobia is a form of hate, just as racism is) will come up with any excuse to further their agenda. Do we gay people have an agenda? Hell Yes!! We want to be treated EQUALLY. What is so wrong with that? Will we do anything to further it or go to any length to further our agenda? I hope we would not go to the lengths of some people who are against marriage equality. I know I wouldn’t. Why should we have to? We only want what is right: simply what everyone else has. We don’t want extra rights. We only want the same rights. We want the rights we deserve. Either no one can get married or everyone can, real simple. Because there is not one single heterosexual couple better than Shanna and I. Nor are we better than any heterosexual couple. We are equal to any heterosexual couple.
Ok, that’s it for me tonight! Wait one more thing…My fave reason that I have heard for gay marriage: “Why shouldn’t they (gays) be allowed to be as miserable as the rest of us (straights)?” LOVE THAT! lol
Have a great night (day) everyone!
Hugs and kisses!
Janet Lee Smith
Note: Thanks to my good friend Ben I changed this piece to what I wanted it to say in the first place, marriage equality, not gay marriage. I was conflicted when I wrote it because I do not feel calling it gay marriage is productive. I feel it separates us from our heterosexual counterparts, which is not what we want to do.
FaceBook and Cartoon Character Profile Pics And Other Controversies.
Hi everyone! I am sure a lot of you did not think it would be long until I wrote something that might be considered controversial. Well, you were right, of course! Here goes!
Over the last week or so many of you, if not all of you, probably saw a Facebook post on your wall telling you to change your profile pic to that of a cartoon character. The reason that most of us saw was basically to increase knowledge of child abuse/child abuse prevention. I’ll get to the in a second. Let me first talk about how all of a sudden someone is reporting that the people who started this was a child pedophilia group. As is usually the case in a situation like this, no one seems to know exactly who is making this claim. But to be fair, no one really knows where the claim that it was about child abuse came about either.
My question is what did the pedophilia group plan to have accomplished, if they were truly behind this? Did they think it would show them who the children were on Facebook? My friend Ben posted a good question regarding this on one of my Facebook status’. He asked “how would they know they were children?” That is what I want to know. Unless this pedophile group already knew who children are, how would a cartoon picture point out all the children on Facebook to them? Especially since I know a hell of a lot of adults, me included, who changed their profile pictures to cartoon characters. Pedophiles, by definition are not trying to find out who adults are. So what was their master plan here? Someone please inform me, because even though I have tried to figure it out and checked out a couple of websites, I cannot see how changing profile pictures to cartoon characters would further the agenda of a pedophilia group. By the way, did any of you think about pedophilia at all while this was all happening?
Let me now talk about the fact that it was all supposed to be about child abuse awareness/prevention. The National Child Abuse Prevention month is April. So is it possible that it was not a group affiliated with child abuse that started this? Yes, of course. A lot of events like this occur during the awareness month for the issue at hand. Even if this was April, that would still be possible. Let me ask you all a question, though. When you read the post asking you to change your picture, did you at all think about child abuse and the prevention of it? You did? Doesn’t that mean that what was supposedly supposed to happen actually happened? No matter what person or group started it? Isn’t people thinking about child abuse prevention a GOOD thing?
Every time someone or some group starts something like this, it turns into a Facebook conspiracy. The bra color one, you know the one where women were supposed to put just the color of their bra on their status? The one that was supposed to make people think about breast cancer? And confuse all men by making this only known to women? Yes, that one. Guess what? It had nothing to do with breast cancer!! But didn’t the “controversy” surrounding it all get people talking about breast cancer? So once again, it worked. Personally, not only did I think about breat cancer, but it also made me feel kind of “dirty” (you know as in dirty old woman dirty?) putting the color of the bra I was wearing on FB. In fact, I did it every time I wore a different color bra. Sorry, I digress.
Another fun one for me, which was also one that men were not supposed to know about, was to put as your status message where you put your purse when you get home and begin it by saying “I like it…”. For instance, if you put your purse on the table, you would put “I like it on the table”. I hate to confess this, but this also brought out the dirty old lady in me.
The good thing about making controversies about some of these things is it really does get people talking about what they were supposed to talk about anyway. Sometimes, such as with the cartoon character profile pictures and child abuse, the simple act alone made people think about it. No controversy needed there. The bra color one may have needed the controversy, maybe not. The purse one, let’s face it, was just all in good fun. What did we gain by all of these things? Hopefully some knowledge, hopefully we all put some good thought into some important topics, and hopefully some good discussion. What did we lose by all of these things? Changing a profile picture would include finding a picture if you did not already have one, a quick Yahoo or Google image search would accomplish that, and uploading the picture to you Facebook account, maybe a minute, maybe more, maybe less, depending on your connection speed. Putting your bra color on your status message? That could vary on how many bra colors your wear and how often you change the colors. I would say no more than a minute’s worth of typing, probably a lot less. Now for typing out where you leave your purse, after you type I like it. Again, I would venture to say no more than a minute, and probably a lot less.
Another friend, Aaron, commented on the same Facebook status that Ben asked his question. Aaron said: Why some people try to wreck something, I shall never know. That is something I will never understand. In the great scheme of life, not one of the things I discussed here are that big of a deal. In fact, for a lot of people, they were fun! So why do people decide to make such simple things into such controversies? Don’t take life so seriously, have more fun, and let your inner child come out and play sometimes. Also, please don’t change your profile picture until you are ready to, Not because of some controversy that someone who was bored tried to create.
~Janet Lee Smith~
Over the last week or so many of you, if not all of you, probably saw a Facebook post on your wall telling you to change your profile pic to that of a cartoon character. The reason that most of us saw was basically to increase knowledge of child abuse/child abuse prevention. I’ll get to the in a second. Let me first talk about how all of a sudden someone is reporting that the people who started this was a child pedophilia group. As is usually the case in a situation like this, no one seems to know exactly who is making this claim. But to be fair, no one really knows where the claim that it was about child abuse came about either.
My question is what did the pedophilia group plan to have accomplished, if they were truly behind this? Did they think it would show them who the children were on Facebook? My friend Ben posted a good question regarding this on one of my Facebook status’. He asked “how would they know they were children?” That is what I want to know. Unless this pedophile group already knew who children are, how would a cartoon picture point out all the children on Facebook to them? Especially since I know a hell of a lot of adults, me included, who changed their profile pictures to cartoon characters. Pedophiles, by definition are not trying to find out who adults are. So what was their master plan here? Someone please inform me, because even though I have tried to figure it out and checked out a couple of websites, I cannot see how changing profile pictures to cartoon characters would further the agenda of a pedophilia group. By the way, did any of you think about pedophilia at all while this was all happening?
Let me now talk about the fact that it was all supposed to be about child abuse awareness/prevention. The National Child Abuse Prevention month is April. So is it possible that it was not a group affiliated with child abuse that started this? Yes, of course. A lot of events like this occur during the awareness month for the issue at hand. Even if this was April, that would still be possible. Let me ask you all a question, though. When you read the post asking you to change your picture, did you at all think about child abuse and the prevention of it? You did? Doesn’t that mean that what was supposedly supposed to happen actually happened? No matter what person or group started it? Isn’t people thinking about child abuse prevention a GOOD thing?
Every time someone or some group starts something like this, it turns into a Facebook conspiracy. The bra color one, you know the one where women were supposed to put just the color of their bra on their status? The one that was supposed to make people think about breast cancer? And confuse all men by making this only known to women? Yes, that one. Guess what? It had nothing to do with breast cancer!! But didn’t the “controversy” surrounding it all get people talking about breast cancer? So once again, it worked. Personally, not only did I think about breat cancer, but it also made me feel kind of “dirty” (you know as in dirty old woman dirty?) putting the color of the bra I was wearing on FB. In fact, I did it every time I wore a different color bra. Sorry, I digress.
Another fun one for me, which was also one that men were not supposed to know about, was to put as your status message where you put your purse when you get home and begin it by saying “I like it…”. For instance, if you put your purse on the table, you would put “I like it on the table”. I hate to confess this, but this also brought out the dirty old lady in me.
The good thing about making controversies about some of these things is it really does get people talking about what they were supposed to talk about anyway. Sometimes, such as with the cartoon character profile pictures and child abuse, the simple act alone made people think about it. No controversy needed there. The bra color one may have needed the controversy, maybe not. The purse one, let’s face it, was just all in good fun. What did we gain by all of these things? Hopefully some knowledge, hopefully we all put some good thought into some important topics, and hopefully some good discussion. What did we lose by all of these things? Changing a profile picture would include finding a picture if you did not already have one, a quick Yahoo or Google image search would accomplish that, and uploading the picture to you Facebook account, maybe a minute, maybe more, maybe less, depending on your connection speed. Putting your bra color on your status message? That could vary on how many bra colors your wear and how often you change the colors. I would say no more than a minute’s worth of typing, probably a lot less. Now for typing out where you leave your purse, after you type I like it. Again, I would venture to say no more than a minute, and probably a lot less.
Another friend, Aaron, commented on the same Facebook status that Ben asked his question. Aaron said: Why some people try to wreck something, I shall never know. That is something I will never understand. In the great scheme of life, not one of the things I discussed here are that big of a deal. In fact, for a lot of people, they were fun! So why do people decide to make such simple things into such controversies? Don’t take life so seriously, have more fun, and let your inner child come out and play sometimes. Also, please don’t change your profile picture until you are ready to, Not because of some controversy that someone who was bored tried to create.
~Janet Lee Smith~
Welcome Everyone!
I wanted to take a second to welome everyone to my blog! I also wanted to say that I am a very opinionated, outspoken women. If you cannot handle that, perhaps this is the wrong blog for you. But if you can, I welcome all comments, whether they agree with me or not. I always love a good discussion. At this point until sometime in February we are without internet at home, other than our phones. So I go to the library every day that I can (like today) but only have an hour a day. That does not elave me a lot of time to do everything I need to do, so until we have internet at home, their may not be a lot of blog posts. I am going to try and write some out at home, then type them up here. So there will be some. Once we have internet at home, there will be more posts. So please bear with me.
Right now I am going to copy and paste my posts from my blog at WordPress. I am moving over to here because WordPress keeps taking away and bringing back my posts. So whe I post a link, it is no good in no time at all. Since I want people to read my blog, that is not working for me.
You can also find me at FB and Twitter. My email address to find me on FB is ShannasWifeJanet@aol.com or you can look under Janet Smith. My Twitter name is: shannaswifejan. If you send me a friend request on FB, please state that you read my blog. I don't approve friend requests there a lot.
Ok, time to move my posts over here!
Janet Lee Smith
Right now I am going to copy and paste my posts from my blog at WordPress. I am moving over to here because WordPress keeps taking away and bringing back my posts. So whe I post a link, it is no good in no time at all. Since I want people to read my blog, that is not working for me.
You can also find me at FB and Twitter. My email address to find me on FB is ShannasWifeJanet@aol.com or you can look under Janet Smith. My Twitter name is: shannaswifejan. If you send me a friend request on FB, please state that you read my blog. I don't approve friend requests there a lot.
Ok, time to move my posts over here!
Janet Lee Smith
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)