 |
| Source:wearewhatfeministslooklike.tumblr.com |
One thing I know for certain is that you cannot please everyone; even more true in this age of social media. Attack is the modus operandi of bloggers, pundits, Facebookers, and even those who were once on your side. If you know me well you can vouch for my veracity; when I spout off about something it is not idle conversation. I have a conviction, an objection, a cause that nine times out of ten is based on personal experience. I don’t select areas for protest that I know little about, I stick within my realm of knowledge and my well-rounded nomadic life has provided me with an abundance of enlightenment.
I advocate for victims of domestic violence because I am a survivor. As a former multi-gun owner who has pointed a gun at another human being in self-defense, I disapprove of the NRA and support stricter gun laws, undoubtedly my least popular soapbox because Americans do love their guns. I protest the destruction of the rainforest because I’ve been there, love it, and understand the critical role it plays in the survival of our planet. Along this same environmental vein, I oppose The Serengeti Highway because I detest corporate rapists who do not respect our world which includes all wildlife. I thank all the valiant warriors who fight for Unci Maka and our water; on this issue I am on the sidelines admiring your bravery and cheering for you. Currently, I am a caregiver for my mother and father who have dementia and Alzheimer’s and the treatment of these incurable insidious diseases will no doubt be what I will take issue with next. I am too mired in its devastation right now to be of any use.
The first cause I ever became involved with was women's rights in the early 1980s. I had recently escaped an abusive relationship, entered college, gave birth to a son ten months after studying for the final 101 Biology exam with my lab partner who—surprise—was the baby daddy. We married five months after our son was born.
At the University of Wyoming, I was a volunteer for the Women’s Studies Department, fortunate to be involved in the tail-end of what was known as “second wave” feminism. I planned meetings, typed up agendas, made signs, researched, and recruited other volunteers to further this cause. Second wave feminists focused on the workplace, equal pay, reproductive rights, and domestic violence issues. The feminists were responsible for the nationwide establishment of rape crisis centers and battered women's shelters. They were instrumental in changing custody and divorce law. This era celebrated the first annual Domestic Violence Awareness Week and held the first National Women of Color conference.
The 1980s feminists wanted to believe that equal pay for equal work would be common by 1990. It wasn’t, and in 2015, it still isn’t. And that’s all Patricia Arquette was trying to say in her brief speech during the Academy Awards. I knew exactly what she meant. I didn’t dissect her words looking for fault, misconstrue her good intent, or attack her on twitter, in fact, I thanked her on twitter. I understand she was speaking for all women. She wasn’t maliciously singling out women who never had children, or excluding women of color or lesbians. She wasn't saying that minority groups owed her anything, she was asking for these groups to join her in her fight. Does it matter that she is paid more money per movie than most women will make in a lifetime? I don’t think so. She works in an industry that pays well, but pays women less than men across the board. I could never be an actress and do what she does. I can’t even speak comfortably in front of a small group of people. She had just won an Oscar and instead of making that moment all about her (which it was) she chose to speak up for a cause that she believes in. "It's our time to have wage equality once and for all and equal rights for women."
At the University of Wyoming, I was a volunteer for the Women’s Studies Department, fortunate to be involved in the tail-end of what was known as “second wave” feminism. I planned meetings, typed up agendas, made signs, researched, and recruited other volunteers to further this cause. Second wave feminists focused on the workplace, equal pay, reproductive rights, and domestic violence issues. The feminists were responsible for the nationwide establishment of rape crisis centers and battered women's shelters. They were instrumental in changing custody and divorce law. This era celebrated the first annual Domestic Violence Awareness Week and held the first National Women of Color conference.
The 1980s feminists wanted to believe that equal pay for equal work would be common by 1990. It wasn’t, and in 2015, it still isn’t. And that’s all Patricia Arquette was trying to say in her brief speech during the Academy Awards. I knew exactly what she meant. I didn’t dissect her words looking for fault, misconstrue her good intent, or attack her on twitter, in fact, I thanked her on twitter. I understand she was speaking for all women. She wasn’t maliciously singling out women who never had children, or excluding women of color or lesbians. She wasn't saying that minority groups owed her anything, she was asking for these groups to join her in her fight. Does it matter that she is paid more money per movie than most women will make in a lifetime? I don’t think so. She works in an industry that pays well, but pays women less than men across the board. I could never be an actress and do what she does. I can’t even speak comfortably in front of a small group of people. She had just won an Oscar and instead of making that moment all about her (which it was) she chose to speak up for a cause that she believes in. "It's our time to have wage equality once and for all and equal rights for women."
I was sadly surprised by the backlash from other women. Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig's blog in the New Republic was particularly scathing, and I think, completely off the mark. I often lament that young women today take so much for granted. They are scarcely aware of the blood, sweat, and tears shed by the women who fought for decades so women today can get that promotion, file their restraining order, enjoy corporate paid daycare, and participate in sports. Arquette’s simple speech was about all of that. It was about realizing that gender inequality still exists.
And I got it.
And I got it.
3 comments:
According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year -- one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds.
Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.)
In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first -- disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference.
In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn't be called "newsworthy" by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to.
In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare -- well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love.
In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or more attackers -- and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm -- martial arts, pepper spray, or stun guns -- gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.)
In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occured in places away from the defender's home.
Source: "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995
http://gunclock.com/
I appreciate your citation of facts and understand what your stance is on gun rights. To mention only a few gun control vs gun rights articles/studies I have read part of Kleck's book "Point Blank", his research at Florida State University on gun control policy, Mother Jones "10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Down" and also Nick Leghorn's "Debunking Mother Jones" on The Truth About Guns.com. Using all the data I have read over the years, and as a former multi-gun owner,I have formulated my own opinion which is I believe we need stricter gun control laws in the US. I have never heard a gun control advocate say that they want guns completely outlawed. We want to see tighter background check requirements; the banning of assault weapons and large capacity magazines; policies to make schools safer; and increasing access to mental services. This is rational to me. Why isn't it to NRA and gun rights advocates?
Marvin Wolfgang, the late Director of the Sellin Center for Studies in Criminology and Criminal Law at the University of Pennsylvania, considered by many to be the foremost criminologist in the country, wrote in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995:
"I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police ... What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. ["Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, published in that same issue of The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology] The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator. ...I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence. The National Crime Victim Survey does not directly contravene this latest survey, nor do the Mauser and Hart Studies. ... the methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it. ... The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well."
So this data has been peer-reviewed by a top criminologist in this country who was prejudiced in advance against its results, and even he found the scientific evidence overwhelmingly convincing.
http://www.GunClock.com
Post a Comment