Crisis

There’s one reason that stands out to me as to why I’ve lasted as long as I have with the job that I do. I have what I would consider a somewhat admirable ability to remain relatively okay and keep it mostly together in a serious crisis. Only when it’s serious though. Put me in front of something seemingly small and it’s usually enough to derail me. I’ve done a lot of thinking as to why this is (because really…it’s pretty backwards) and I’m grateful that my P was able to put it in words for me that I agree with. It’s a product of growing up in a household where crisis was sort of routine. You eventually learn to cope with it in somewhat of a stride because if you don’t you end up crashing every single time someone gets hit, or hurt, or abused. Sometimes as a result, it’s the seemingly small stuff that can tend to cause abnormal anxiety and distress (which needless to say, can be incredibly frustrating on a daily basis).

This is not to say that I don’t cry if, for example, a family member ends up in the hospital; but truth be told the malfunction of being used to crisis seems to allow a grace period of getting through it without breaking down. This is good in its own way, but also bad. What it really means is that the breaking down doesn’t come until later…sort of like a rubber band that has been stretched for days and is finally allowed to give way.

I’m still on the fence as to whether this is good in the long run or not. Is it better to just initially break down and get it over with? Or is it better to hold it all together in crisis mode only to end up completely drained and in tears when things calm down?

Leaps of logic and what should have been done

Today I illegally perused blogs while at work on my lunch break. I say illegal because technically it wasn’t work related and they’re (the infamous ‘they’) cracking down lately. I came across an entry in a popular feminist blog (Feministing) detailing a messy little situation that the Supreme Court is ruling on. Bottom line really, is that they must decipher and clarify what is said to be a poorly written law. 

As a result of the alleged poorly written law the current ruling could allow those who have been convicted of misdemeanor DV crimes to own guns:

Congress in 1996 sought to strengthen the laws against domestic violence. Before, only persons convicted of violent felonies in such situations lost their rights to own a gun. Going a step further, lawmakers adopted an amendment to take away gun rights for those who had a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” on their records.

Problem with that?

But last year, the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia cast doubt on the law’s reach. Its judges decided the federal gun ban did not cover misdemeanor convictions involving assault or battery at home. Instead, it said the federal ban applied only to those convicted under a state’s domestic violence law. 

Not good. Most states don’t have specific misdemeanor laws re: DV. No misdemeanor laws + upholding the constitution = violent wife/husband (because yes, there are women that beat mean…statistically not as high, but it happens) beaters could have guns with which to do more harm.

Instead of focusing on these small facts, the website I read chose to verbally nail the judge in the case to a cross for doing his job. Choosing instead to paint him as a sexist a-hole who doesn’t care about women.

In this case the judge ruled per the law.

Justice Antonin Scalia was unswayed by that argument. “People are governed by the law that is passed, not by the law that Congress intended to pass,” he said…But during Monday’s argument, Scalia said possessing a gun was “lawful conduct,” and a wife-beating charge lodged against a West Virginia man was “not that serious an offense.” The government lawyer shot back that the defendant “hit his wife all around the face until it swelled out, kicked her all around her body, kicked her in the ribs. . . . “

“Then he should have been charged with a felony,” Scalia interjected, “but he wasn’t.” (emphasis mine)

The bottom line for the blog? Judge thinks DV is not serious and does not matter. Judge is dismissive towards DV. Reality? Judge does his job and rules on the law alone. Did he write it? No. Did the U.S. tell him he could just make decisions willy-nilly based on his emotions? No. By saying it’s “not that serious an offense” I might guess that he was talking strictly about the actual charge; the state decided it wasn’t that serious an offense.

This I think, is what is irksome about how some of us demonstrate feminism. Leaps of logic based on emotion. It sort of makes the whole thing look bad.

Prior to getting married…

Make sure you’re ready to take the phrase “I don’t want to” out of your vernacular according to Phyllis Schlafly.

According to the “home-making”-psuedo-politician, women having happily participated in nuptial vows can not, by the very nature of the contract, be sexually assaulted by their husbands.

By getting married, the woman has consented to sex, and I don’t think you can call it rape.

Really? I suppose we should go one step further and theorize that when you get married it’s not up to you anymore whether you have kids or not as well.

The logic behind this astounds me. Not to mention the inner hackles that get upset when reminded that there really are people out there fighting for ideas like this.

I especially enjoy her ‘educated opinion’ on women with both children and a career…”While Schlafly said she has no problem with women raising a family and pursuing a professional career, she said they can’t be done at the same time.”

I wonder what her family thinks about all the idealist traveling she does for her ’career’? 
 

Okay, so I realize…

That the artist singing the song doesn’t probably know either about some of these things (and not that I know personally about all of them either); but despite my distaste of popular culture, I really like this song:

"Dear Mr. President,
Come take a walk with me.
Let’s pretend we’re just two people and
You’re not better than me.
I’d like to ask you some questions if we can speak honestly.

What do you feel when you see all the homeless on the street?
Who do you pray for at night before you go to sleep?
What do you feel when you look in the mirror?
Are you proud?

How do you sleep while the rest of us cry?
How do you dream when a mother has no chance to say goodbye?
How do you walk with your head held high?
Can you even look me in the eye
And tell me why?

Dear Mr. President,
Were you a lonely boy?
Are you a lonely boy?
How can you say
No child is left behind?
We’re not dumb and we’re not blind.
They’re all sitting in your cells
While you pave the road to hell.

What kind of father would take his own daughter’s rights away?
And what kind of father might hate his own daughter if she were gay?
I can only imagine what the first lady has to say
You’ve come a long way from whiskey and cocaine.

How do you sleep while the rest of us cry?
How do you dream when a mother has no chance to say goodbye?
How do you walk with your head held high?
Can you even look me in the eye?

Let me tell you ’bout hard work
Minimum wage with a baby on the way
Let me tell you ’bout hard work
Rebuilding your house after the bombs took them away
Let me tell you ’bout hard work
Building a bed out of a cardboard box
Let me tell you ’bout hard work
Hard work
Hard work
You don’t know nothing ’bout hard work
Hard work
Hard work

How do you sleep at night?
How do you walk with your head held high?
Dear Mr. President,
You’d never take a walk with me.
Would you?"

Artist: Pink

Composer: Billy Mann

You should listen to it here…(because it also has the Indigo Girls…and I heart them a whole lot)

Holiday?

If I hear the Monster Mash one more time today on the radio I will actually poke my eyes out with whatever is handy…most likely a pen.