"Do your thing. Do it unapologetically. Don't be discouraged by criticism. You probably already know what they're going to say. Pay no mind to the fear of failure. It is far more valuable than success. Take ownership, take chances, and have fun. And no matter what, don't ever stop doing your thing."
I found this quote this morning while perusing Facebook and thought it was worth drawing attention to. It is so appropriate for my life right now. With the decisions I've made so far this year, focusing on positive changes that need to happen, this was what I needed to see to remind myself that I'm doing all the right things.
I'm getting healthy. I'm eating better, working out, and yes, I started taking a weight loss supplement. It's what is working for me. If I choose to cheat, that's on me, just like it's on me when I make the right decisions. I will no longer feel guilty for feeling good about myself, even if the people around me don't feel good about themselves. I will no longer let other people's negativity keep me from chasing down my own goals. I will continue to dread stepping on the scale and pulling out the tape measure, because the fear that I haven't made any progress is better motivation than the complacency that comes with knowing I have. I'm taking ownership over my weight and I feel great about that.
I officially started my new book yesterday. I'm only 1800 words in (due to some scheduling conflicts) but I started. I'm done listening to the never-ending blabber that I need to go back and finish my degree. That I need to use my massage license, because if I don't, I'm wasting my education. That I can do so much more with my life. I'm doing what I want to do with my life. And I know that some people think I'm crazy, that I'm silly and naive and will be disappointed. But I know better. This is what I want for myself. It's been a dream that I've packed up and hidden away because other people have said it was unrealistic. Well, I'm making it a reality.
I am many things. I am a wife. I am a mother. I am a child of God. I am a natural blonde. I am a lover of chocolate and a hater of mushrooms. I am also an author. It's who I am and I'm finally okay with that. More accurately, I'm okay with the fact that other people might not understand or support that.
As a Christian, I firmly believe that God has a plan and a path for each of us to follow. I also believe that it's very easy to be influenced by the things and people around us and step off that path. I believe that everything happens for a reason and because of that, I can't regret anything that has happened in the past. I don't regret my education, I don't regret the changes I've made in the past. But for the first time in a long time, I feel like the path God has laid out for me is shining bright and clear in front of me.
I'm back in church regularly. More importantly, I'm involved in church. I'm taking more time with my kids. I'm taking more time for myself. And I am finally making decisions, difficult as they may be today, that will set my family up for a better tomorrow.
I'm taking ownership of my life. I'm doing my thing. And I will no longer apologize for it.
You shouldn't either.
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
Tuesday, January 28, 2014
January 28, 2014--Nighttime fear and anxiety
I spent last night at home alone with the kids. My in-laws were out of town for some personal reasons and my husband left yesterday afternoon to go out of town for the week for work. While basically having the house to myself yesterday during the day was heaven, at night....not so much.
I have a terribly irrational fear of being alone home with the kids at night. Even more specifically, I am scared of being asleep alone with the kids at night. When there are no adults in the house, my mind starts to race with all of the different scenarios that could happen. Someone breaking into the house. Someone breaking into the house with a gun. Someone breaking through the girls' window and snatching them while I sleep. Someone breaking in and hurting the girls. Someone breaking in and hurting me and then taking the girls. And the list goes on and on and on.
I stayed up watching TV until midnight. Before laying down, I locked both doors, knobs and deadbolts and I checked all the windows to make sure they were locked. I finally laid down and stayed up reading a while longer. When I put the book down and turned the light off, my chest got tight and my heart began to race. I don't know how long I laid there debating as to whether I should go and get Daphnie and bring her to sleep in my room (Aubrey was already there). I again agonized over the fact that despite the numerous times we'd talked about it, Chaz hadn't shown me how to use the small revolver that stays within close reach in our bedroom--though out of reach of the girls. I prayed, and then prayed some more. I tried deep breathing. I tried visualizing. In the end, it took reciting lines from The Lion King (which I can recite, line for line, from beginning to end from memory) until the point of exhaustion for me to finally fall asleep.
I'm not sure what to do about this. We live in a fairly safe neighborhood. While the cops might get called occasionally for the random domestic dispute, I don't know that I've ever heard of a break-in in the four years I've lived here. My next door neighbor knows pretty much everybody on the street and is kind of known as the unofficial law enforcement. It's not like I'm living in Chicago or New York or Los Angelos--bad things don't happen regularly here. There's not a nightly news story about a shooting on Goulding Street. But when I'm home by myself, all I see are those non-existent headlines.
I know that I'm fairly safe in my home. I have locked doors. I have a firearm. I have a long history with martial arts training. Most importantly, I know that God is watching over me and the girls. But knowing all of that doesn't stop the anxiety from hitting hardcore whenever I'm alone at night with my girls. I am terrified that something will happen to them. It's not even about me. I am so scared that I will sleep through something happening to them--which is ridiculous, because I'm a light sleeper anyway, even before the crazy maternal instinct kicks on. But there it is.
I really don't know what to do about this. I don't know if it might be considered some sort of phobia. I don't know if talking to someone about it would help, or what I could do to feel better prepared for nights like this. Part of me feels like I should just try really hard to make sure I don't end up by myself. Beyond that, all I know is it scares me, and I don't like being scared. Having a history of panic attacks, the anxiety is a trigger and the last thing I need to do is have an attack in front of the girls with no one there to bring me down.
I'm not scared by a lot of things. Ok, spiders yes, but I'd put that in a whole different category. I don't fear for my life or the life of my girls in the presence of a spider. I just jump, squeal and then kill it if I can. But this, this I'm scared of and it's beyond rational and it's not okay.
I just don't know what to do about it....
I have a terribly irrational fear of being alone home with the kids at night. Even more specifically, I am scared of being asleep alone with the kids at night. When there are no adults in the house, my mind starts to race with all of the different scenarios that could happen. Someone breaking into the house. Someone breaking into the house with a gun. Someone breaking through the girls' window and snatching them while I sleep. Someone breaking in and hurting the girls. Someone breaking in and hurting me and then taking the girls. And the list goes on and on and on.
I stayed up watching TV until midnight. Before laying down, I locked both doors, knobs and deadbolts and I checked all the windows to make sure they were locked. I finally laid down and stayed up reading a while longer. When I put the book down and turned the light off, my chest got tight and my heart began to race. I don't know how long I laid there debating as to whether I should go and get Daphnie and bring her to sleep in my room (Aubrey was already there). I again agonized over the fact that despite the numerous times we'd talked about it, Chaz hadn't shown me how to use the small revolver that stays within close reach in our bedroom--though out of reach of the girls. I prayed, and then prayed some more. I tried deep breathing. I tried visualizing. In the end, it took reciting lines from The Lion King (which I can recite, line for line, from beginning to end from memory) until the point of exhaustion for me to finally fall asleep.
I'm not sure what to do about this. We live in a fairly safe neighborhood. While the cops might get called occasionally for the random domestic dispute, I don't know that I've ever heard of a break-in in the four years I've lived here. My next door neighbor knows pretty much everybody on the street and is kind of known as the unofficial law enforcement. It's not like I'm living in Chicago or New York or Los Angelos--bad things don't happen regularly here. There's not a nightly news story about a shooting on Goulding Street. But when I'm home by myself, all I see are those non-existent headlines.
I know that I'm fairly safe in my home. I have locked doors. I have a firearm. I have a long history with martial arts training. Most importantly, I know that God is watching over me and the girls. But knowing all of that doesn't stop the anxiety from hitting hardcore whenever I'm alone at night with my girls. I am terrified that something will happen to them. It's not even about me. I am so scared that I will sleep through something happening to them--which is ridiculous, because I'm a light sleeper anyway, even before the crazy maternal instinct kicks on. But there it is.
I really don't know what to do about this. I don't know if it might be considered some sort of phobia. I don't know if talking to someone about it would help, or what I could do to feel better prepared for nights like this. Part of me feels like I should just try really hard to make sure I don't end up by myself. Beyond that, all I know is it scares me, and I don't like being scared. Having a history of panic attacks, the anxiety is a trigger and the last thing I need to do is have an attack in front of the girls with no one there to bring me down.
I'm not scared by a lot of things. Ok, spiders yes, but I'd put that in a whole different category. I don't fear for my life or the life of my girls in the presence of a spider. I just jump, squeal and then kill it if I can. But this, this I'm scared of and it's beyond rational and it's not okay.
I just don't know what to do about it....
Friday, January 24, 2014
January 24, 2014: And so the journey begins
Just recently I finally and fully embraced my desire to be an author; to make writing a career, not just a hobby. And while I know that there is a lot that goes into getting my work published, right now the goal is to focus on creating said work. If I want my name out there in print, it has to be on something.
So my goal for 2014 is to finish a complete rough draft of my first book. At the same time, I'm trying to remember to jot down notes on new ideas, new thoughts that pop into my head. I've decided to try outlining, before I start writing, because I already have so many ideas for the plot, I don't want to forget them. I haven't outlined since high school, so it should be a fun exercise.
I've also gotten back into my poetry writing, which I've put on hold for quite a while. So many other things have gotten in the way over the last six months or so; I'm having to try to remember to carve out some time for me, outside of the housework and toddler watching and errand running.
One thing I've realized about myself recently though, is that my people-pleasing habits that I've been trying so hard to break have spilled over into my writing. I've noticed that when I sit down to write, I start wondering, almost immediately, if what I'm writing is going to be something people are going to like. Should I write it this way, or will that upset people? Should I do it this way, even if it's not really what I want to do, because I think it will get a better reaction from the audience? And that's when I realize that as much as I've been trying to have more self-confidence, I haven't quite got it down yet. It's headed in the right direction, but it hasn't quite reached that final destination.
I know I'm talented. I know I can write well. I've had numerous people who know about writing tell me so. Teachers, professors, mentors and peers. They all seem quite confident in my abilities. So why am I not?
The fact is, I am. I've just got to hold on to that part of myself, that believes in myself and is focused on pleasing myself, rather than what might please everyone around me. The people who truly love me and care about me are going to support me, whether they personally like what I've written or not. And as for everyone else~~who cares? There are millions upon millions of people out there who read. Some are going to love what I write, some are going to think it's so-so, and some would rather use it as toilet paper. And that's okay.
The point is, writing makes me happy. It makes me feel fulfilled. It gives me a sense of accomplishment. And I know, that sooner or later, I will get published. On some level. Will I ever write a New York Times bestseller? I don't know. I dream that I can. I hope that I can. But there are so many outlets for publication these days. One of them will work out for me.
And with that being said, I'm going to quit stalling with the blogging, and get back to my outline. Cuz Lord knows, my book's not going to write itself.
So my goal for 2014 is to finish a complete rough draft of my first book. At the same time, I'm trying to remember to jot down notes on new ideas, new thoughts that pop into my head. I've decided to try outlining, before I start writing, because I already have so many ideas for the plot, I don't want to forget them. I haven't outlined since high school, so it should be a fun exercise.
I've also gotten back into my poetry writing, which I've put on hold for quite a while. So many other things have gotten in the way over the last six months or so; I'm having to try to remember to carve out some time for me, outside of the housework and toddler watching and errand running.
One thing I've realized about myself recently though, is that my people-pleasing habits that I've been trying so hard to break have spilled over into my writing. I've noticed that when I sit down to write, I start wondering, almost immediately, if what I'm writing is going to be something people are going to like. Should I write it this way, or will that upset people? Should I do it this way, even if it's not really what I want to do, because I think it will get a better reaction from the audience? And that's when I realize that as much as I've been trying to have more self-confidence, I haven't quite got it down yet. It's headed in the right direction, but it hasn't quite reached that final destination.
I know I'm talented. I know I can write well. I've had numerous people who know about writing tell me so. Teachers, professors, mentors and peers. They all seem quite confident in my abilities. So why am I not?
The fact is, I am. I've just got to hold on to that part of myself, that believes in myself and is focused on pleasing myself, rather than what might please everyone around me. The people who truly love me and care about me are going to support me, whether they personally like what I've written or not. And as for everyone else~~who cares? There are millions upon millions of people out there who read. Some are going to love what I write, some are going to think it's so-so, and some would rather use it as toilet paper. And that's okay.
The point is, writing makes me happy. It makes me feel fulfilled. It gives me a sense of accomplishment. And I know, that sooner or later, I will get published. On some level. Will I ever write a New York Times bestseller? I don't know. I dream that I can. I hope that I can. But there are so many outlets for publication these days. One of them will work out for me.
And with that being said, I'm going to quit stalling with the blogging, and get back to my outline. Cuz Lord knows, my book's not going to write itself.
Thursday, December 5, 2013
December 15, 2013: I didn't realize being humanistic meant forgetting about the humans to argue about God...
Okay...so, I haven't blogged in forever, for a number of reasons that I will not take the time to expound upon right now. Suffice it to say, it's been a crazy and stressful couple of months and I've been a bit tuned out to the rest of the world. But tonight, I saw something that I felt the need to comment on. So here goes.
While browsing through my FB feed, I came upon this short article, posted by the Being Mommy FB page. It gives a very brief summary of a public school's inability to fight legal action threatened against them for participating in a charity drive. Being that it was so short, I did a bit more research on the story. More information can be found here or here. Basically, the students of a public school were collecting items to make "shoeboxes" for Operation Christmas Child, a drive funded by Samaritan's Purse, an openly Christian organization. This was the third year in a row they were involved with this specific drive.
They were forced to abandon their project when they were threatened with legal action by the American Humanist Association for being unconstitutional. They were told that because the drive they were participating in was funded by a Christian organization and they are a public charter school, that they are violating the church vs. state issues involved in the constitution, or more specifically: 42 U.S.C.A 1983. Being a small school, they didn't have the resources and funds to enter into a legal battle and so they did indeed abandon the drive, informing students and their families that they had been faced with legal action and to please donate their gathered items to another charity.
Here's my issue (and it's not about whether the school is being constitutional or unconstitutional):
The attack on this school came from the American Humanist Association. According to their website, "The AHA strives to bring about a progressive society where being "good without a god" is an accepted way to live life." More importantly, according to the website, Humanism is defined as "a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism and other supernatural beliefs, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity."
Now, I completely understand that a huge part of their philosophy is that no sort of god is necessary to lead what's considered a good, moral and ethical life. They're against God, gods, deities, any sort of supernatural beings, any sort of outside non-worldly help. Got it. That's fine. It is completely up to each individual to decide if they want to believe or not believe in anything. So I understand that their issue with Operation Christmas Child is that it's run by Samaritan's Purse which is a Christian charity.
HOWEVER....
Humanism "affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity." The greater good of humanity. Can someone please explain to me how preventing boxes filled with toys, clothes and hygienic necessities from reaching their intended recipients in third world countries aspires to the greater good with humanity? Their (the AHA's) argument is that "the purpose and effect of Operation Christmas Child is to induce impoverished children to convert to Christianity” and “the boxes of toys are essentially a bribe, expressly used to pressure desperately poor children living in developing countries to convert to Christianity.”
In contrast to this, school officials stated that there were no religious materials included in the boxes and that the project was non-religious, strictly voluntary and not tied to any graded assignments.
It just seems slightly ironic to me that a group that claims to be "humanistic," a group that claims to "aspire to the greater good of humanity" will let their aversion to organized religion be a large enough obstacle to keep them from focusing on humanity. This is a group that preaches tolerance, that is, for everything except religion. So, basically, in order to save poor children from being bribed with Christianity, we're also going to deprive them of not only things that may be wanted, but also things that are desperately needed. Call me crazy, but that just doesn't sound real humanistic to me. It sounds more like they're on the exact opposite end of the spectrum as the WBC. WBC deals out intolerance under the guise of saving us from ourselves in the name of God. The AHA seems to deal out intolerance under the guise of saving us from God/gods/deities/etc. Either way, I think they're both missing their marks. By a lot.
I might suggest to the AHA that in lieu of not allowing those packages to reach their intended recipients, they replace those packages to those specific recipients from their own funds. Somehow, I don't think that's going to happen....Way to fail, AHA, way to fail.
While browsing through my FB feed, I came upon this short article, posted by the Being Mommy FB page. It gives a very brief summary of a public school's inability to fight legal action threatened against them for participating in a charity drive. Being that it was so short, I did a bit more research on the story. More information can be found here or here. Basically, the students of a public school were collecting items to make "shoeboxes" for Operation Christmas Child, a drive funded by Samaritan's Purse, an openly Christian organization. This was the third year in a row they were involved with this specific drive.
They were forced to abandon their project when they were threatened with legal action by the American Humanist Association for being unconstitutional. They were told that because the drive they were participating in was funded by a Christian organization and they are a public charter school, that they are violating the church vs. state issues involved in the constitution, or more specifically: 42 U.S.C.A 1983. Being a small school, they didn't have the resources and funds to enter into a legal battle and so they did indeed abandon the drive, informing students and their families that they had been faced with legal action and to please donate their gathered items to another charity.
Here's my issue (and it's not about whether the school is being constitutional or unconstitutional):
The attack on this school came from the American Humanist Association. According to their website, "The AHA strives to bring about a progressive society where being "good without a god" is an accepted way to live life." More importantly, according to the website, Humanism is defined as "a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism and other supernatural beliefs, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity."
Now, I completely understand that a huge part of their philosophy is that no sort of god is necessary to lead what's considered a good, moral and ethical life. They're against God, gods, deities, any sort of supernatural beings, any sort of outside non-worldly help. Got it. That's fine. It is completely up to each individual to decide if they want to believe or not believe in anything. So I understand that their issue with Operation Christmas Child is that it's run by Samaritan's Purse which is a Christian charity.
HOWEVER....
Humanism "affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity." The greater good of humanity. Can someone please explain to me how preventing boxes filled with toys, clothes and hygienic necessities from reaching their intended recipients in third world countries aspires to the greater good with humanity? Their (the AHA's) argument is that "the purpose and effect of Operation Christmas Child is to induce impoverished children to convert to Christianity” and “the boxes of toys are essentially a bribe, expressly used to pressure desperately poor children living in developing countries to convert to Christianity.”
In contrast to this, school officials stated that there were no religious materials included in the boxes and that the project was non-religious, strictly voluntary and not tied to any graded assignments.
It just seems slightly ironic to me that a group that claims to be "humanistic," a group that claims to "aspire to the greater good of humanity" will let their aversion to organized religion be a large enough obstacle to keep them from focusing on humanity. This is a group that preaches tolerance, that is, for everything except religion. So, basically, in order to save poor children from being bribed with Christianity, we're also going to deprive them of not only things that may be wanted, but also things that are desperately needed. Call me crazy, but that just doesn't sound real humanistic to me. It sounds more like they're on the exact opposite end of the spectrum as the WBC. WBC deals out intolerance under the guise of saving us from ourselves in the name of God. The AHA seems to deal out intolerance under the guise of saving us from God/gods/deities/etc. Either way, I think they're both missing their marks. By a lot.
I might suggest to the AHA that in lieu of not allowing those packages to reach their intended recipients, they replace those packages to those specific recipients from their own funds. Somehow, I don't think that's going to happen....Way to fail, AHA, way to fail.
Monday, September 16, 2013
September 16, 2013: My narrow and uneducated thoughts on Obamacare
As I was perusing my FB feed this morning in my daily ritual of social media-ing before starting my day, I came across an article a friend had shared by New York Magazine entitled "The Republican Plot to Kill Obamacare." It was a short blurb describing a number of Republican and/or conservative groups that are actively trying to tear Obamacare down before it gets fully raised up. It was short and sweet and in my mind, depicted Republicans/conservatives as petulant crybabies who are now throwing a huge tantrum because they didn't get their way. In my own personal experience with liberals, especially those involved in the media, this is pretty typical: they turn to name-calling and tit-for-tat because laying out a logical and intelligent side to their argument seems to be out of their scope of ability.
Sorry if this offends. Also, if you are a liberal and can lay out a logical and intelligent side to an argument, I would love to talk to you. About anything. It would be a blessed and appreciated change. Finally, before the bloodletting begins, I would like to point out that I do not consider myself a Republican or align myself with their party. Conservative? Fairly. But as of late, I find myself siding heavily with the Libertarian party. I did not vote for Mitt Romney in 2012. (I didn't vote for Obama either.) But I did vote.
Anyway. This was not meant to be a post about party vs. party, nor is it meant to start any fights. It's about Obamacare.
Now, I will be the first to admit that the amount of in-depth research I have done into Obamacare is not a whole lot. I haven't tracked down and read the pages upon pages of the actual bill. I haven't read word for word every detail that the bill entails. But I have done a bit and I've talked to a number of people in the medical field who have read the pages upon pages and have a pretty solid understanding of how it's going to affect them, their jobs and the field within which they work.
Obamacare is going to made health insurance accessible to everyone, even poor folks like me. Great! The first problem is, just like with auto insurance now, the insurance that will be a financial option for a lot of people may not be the best insurance available. The coverage may be limited, deductibles could potentially be higher, that insurance may not be accepted by certain practitioners. Insurance is now "affordable," yes, but is it worth it?
For example: the last company my husband worked for offered medical benefits to their employees. We got a nice little package explaining the costs and the coverage. What we found when we did the math is that the cost of the insurance was no cheaper than paying for everything out of pocket should it happen within a year's time. The monthly premium for a family of four was somewhere between $300 and $400 (which is 20% of his monthly income). That premium covered within a single year: 2 doctors' visits (per person, each of which had a co-pay), 1(one) 24-hour period hospital stay (total), 2 ER visits (total), 1 ambulance ride (total), and a co-pay for every prescription. Anything above and beyond that, we would pay for out-of-pocket. This year, alone, Chaz has spent five days in the hospital, there have been 3 ER visits, the girls have been to the pediatrician numerous times and we've each had at least one prescription we've had to have filled. If we had "taken advantage" of the wonderful health care that Chaz's employer so graciously offered us, we'd have paid at the very least $3,600 in the year, for the coverage alone, plus the out-of-pocket costs for everything that went above and beyond what the insurance covered.
Who's to say that the insurance offered by the Affordable Care Act won't be the same? Heavy deductibles, limited coverage, small networks. Now...maybe it won't be. We'll have to see. But somehow I doubt that the insurance that will be available to me, my family and people like us, will be as nice and comfortable as the health care that the rich and famous have access to. (Or the government, for that matter, who offers us this plan and lauds its benefits to the sky, but isn't bound by its rules. So, it's good enough for us but not good enough for them? Yeah, that makes me feel real good about it.) Because overall, this, like anything else, is a money-making scheme. The insurance companies provide a service for a price. The higher the price, the better the service. You get what you pay for. Insurance companies are being forced to provide "affordable" insurance. This to me, reads cheap. You pay for cheap insurance, you get cheap coverage. I guess we'll have to see how it plays out. And if I'm wrong, I will gladly admit it, because it will mean that Obamacare is working and no matter who put it into motion, if more people can afford good and proper medical care, that is what's important. I just don't believe it yet.
The second problem with this whole thing is that it limits the medical practitioners in what they can do. A friend of mine is one of the supervisors in the ER at the hospital that my family uses. He's had to get pretty up-close and personal with the new laws. And he (being an Obama supporter) does not support this change to our healthcare. He doesn't believe it will work.
Here's a scenario: when a person walks into the ER with certain symptoms, say, chest pains, doctors usually want to run a certain set of tests. These usually include certain cardio tests to check the person's heart, but can also include tests that check the lungs, the blood and other things. In the past, doctors have been able to run any or all of these tests based on their own knowledge and discretion so that they can get a fuller picture of what may or may not be going on and so they don't miss anything and open themselves up to malpractice suits.
Hospitals, unlike private practices, are required to accept any and all insurances. Under this new health care plan, practitioners will be limited in what tests they can run based on the insurance the patient has. If a person comes in with chest pains and has awesome insurance that covers everything, great! But if a person comes in with chest pains and affordable insurance under this plan, doctors are told to run certain chest pain specific tests and nothing else--because that's what the insurance covers. And you know, it's supposed to be affordable. Medical tests that aren't covered under insurance aren't affordable. And if what's wrong with said person actually becomes clear under the covered tests, again, great! But what if it isn't? What if what's wrong is something that isn't typical and can only be discovered by a test that isn't covered? What if that person suffers complications or even dies because the proper treatment for his condition wasn't covered by the affordable health care that the government has required him to have?
Doctors are now open to more malpractice suits, which is going to make more doctors head for the hills. They are going to go into private practice, where they have some level of control over what they can do. Their offices will accept the insurances that cover whatever treatments they may or may not want to do and they will not accept insurances that my limit their ability to practice. And what does that leave those of us stuck with "affordable" aka cheap medical insurance? Cheap medical care.
My family is currently on the medical card because we, like so many, cannot afford private health insurance. When it comes to the kids, this isn't much of an issue because all pediatricians are required by the government to accept the medical card as a form of insurance. So I can take my girls to a good doctor that I know and trust where they get good care.
My husband and me? Well, we're limited to the fairly small number of doctors in the area that actually accept the medical card.
Before I got married, when I was still on my parents' insurance, my doctor was awesome. There was never a time when she didn't spend at least a half hour in the room with me, no matter what was going on. She took her own vitals, she asked her own questions. She did a thorough exam and covered all her bases. She ran tests as she saw fit. She didn't leave anything to chance. And she's like that with all of her patients. I know, I used to work in her office for a short time, as did my mother (for a much longer time).
My doctor now probably sees fifty to a hundred patients a day. I went to see her for chronic back and neck pain after my car accident. She was in the exam room with me for five minutes. She was rushed and detached. She prescribed me some high dose ibruprofen, recommended physical therapy and told me to have a nice day. When I went back six weeks later for a "follow-up" and told her the ibruprofen wasn't making a difference, and that I'd used up the 20 physical therapy sessions that the medical card covers per year and I was still in considerable pain, she basically shrugged and told me I'd just have to learn to live with the pain. There wasn't much else she could do. Again, she was in the room for less than five minutes.
This is the difference between good medical care and affordable medical care. Why would anyone want to pay for affordable health care that they may try like hell not to use because it's crappy? Not too long ago I had a pretty bad sinus infection. I called my doctor's office for an appointment. They couldn't get me in for two weeks and the receptionist, with no sympathy whatsoever, basically told me to suck it up. I called a number of doctor's offices that didn't accept the medical card and was looking at anywhere between $85 and $160 for just the doctor's visit. I ended up going to the ER because I was in so much pain and that was the only place that wouldn't break me. Now, I try as hard as I can to not call my doctor's office. I do suck it up. Because it's not worth the half hour drive to get five minutes and no results. Why would I want to pay a monthly fee for a "service" that I try like hell not to use, because it's crappy?
This is what I fear Obamacare is going to do. It's going to force people to start paying for a service that may not be worth their time, effort and money to pay for. Because it's limited. On paper, it looks like an excellent idea. I just don't see it working in practice.
I suppose only time will tell.
Sorry if this offends. Also, if you are a liberal and can lay out a logical and intelligent side to an argument, I would love to talk to you. About anything. It would be a blessed and appreciated change. Finally, before the bloodletting begins, I would like to point out that I do not consider myself a Republican or align myself with their party. Conservative? Fairly. But as of late, I find myself siding heavily with the Libertarian party. I did not vote for Mitt Romney in 2012. (I didn't vote for Obama either.) But I did vote.
Anyway. This was not meant to be a post about party vs. party, nor is it meant to start any fights. It's about Obamacare.
Now, I will be the first to admit that the amount of in-depth research I have done into Obamacare is not a whole lot. I haven't tracked down and read the pages upon pages of the actual bill. I haven't read word for word every detail that the bill entails. But I have done a bit and I've talked to a number of people in the medical field who have read the pages upon pages and have a pretty solid understanding of how it's going to affect them, their jobs and the field within which they work.
Obamacare is going to made health insurance accessible to everyone, even poor folks like me. Great! The first problem is, just like with auto insurance now, the insurance that will be a financial option for a lot of people may not be the best insurance available. The coverage may be limited, deductibles could potentially be higher, that insurance may not be accepted by certain practitioners. Insurance is now "affordable," yes, but is it worth it?
For example: the last company my husband worked for offered medical benefits to their employees. We got a nice little package explaining the costs and the coverage. What we found when we did the math is that the cost of the insurance was no cheaper than paying for everything out of pocket should it happen within a year's time. The monthly premium for a family of four was somewhere between $300 and $400 (which is 20% of his monthly income). That premium covered within a single year: 2 doctors' visits (per person, each of which had a co-pay), 1(one) 24-hour period hospital stay (total), 2 ER visits (total), 1 ambulance ride (total), and a co-pay for every prescription. Anything above and beyond that, we would pay for out-of-pocket. This year, alone, Chaz has spent five days in the hospital, there have been 3 ER visits, the girls have been to the pediatrician numerous times and we've each had at least one prescription we've had to have filled. If we had "taken advantage" of the wonderful health care that Chaz's employer so graciously offered us, we'd have paid at the very least $3,600 in the year, for the coverage alone, plus the out-of-pocket costs for everything that went above and beyond what the insurance covered.
Who's to say that the insurance offered by the Affordable Care Act won't be the same? Heavy deductibles, limited coverage, small networks. Now...maybe it won't be. We'll have to see. But somehow I doubt that the insurance that will be available to me, my family and people like us, will be as nice and comfortable as the health care that the rich and famous have access to. (Or the government, for that matter, who offers us this plan and lauds its benefits to the sky, but isn't bound by its rules. So, it's good enough for us but not good enough for them? Yeah, that makes me feel real good about it.) Because overall, this, like anything else, is a money-making scheme. The insurance companies provide a service for a price. The higher the price, the better the service. You get what you pay for. Insurance companies are being forced to provide "affordable" insurance. This to me, reads cheap. You pay for cheap insurance, you get cheap coverage. I guess we'll have to see how it plays out. And if I'm wrong, I will gladly admit it, because it will mean that Obamacare is working and no matter who put it into motion, if more people can afford good and proper medical care, that is what's important. I just don't believe it yet.
The second problem with this whole thing is that it limits the medical practitioners in what they can do. A friend of mine is one of the supervisors in the ER at the hospital that my family uses. He's had to get pretty up-close and personal with the new laws. And he (being an Obama supporter) does not support this change to our healthcare. He doesn't believe it will work.
Here's a scenario: when a person walks into the ER with certain symptoms, say, chest pains, doctors usually want to run a certain set of tests. These usually include certain cardio tests to check the person's heart, but can also include tests that check the lungs, the blood and other things. In the past, doctors have been able to run any or all of these tests based on their own knowledge and discretion so that they can get a fuller picture of what may or may not be going on and so they don't miss anything and open themselves up to malpractice suits.
Hospitals, unlike private practices, are required to accept any and all insurances. Under this new health care plan, practitioners will be limited in what tests they can run based on the insurance the patient has. If a person comes in with chest pains and has awesome insurance that covers everything, great! But if a person comes in with chest pains and affordable insurance under this plan, doctors are told to run certain chest pain specific tests and nothing else--because that's what the insurance covers. And you know, it's supposed to be affordable. Medical tests that aren't covered under insurance aren't affordable. And if what's wrong with said person actually becomes clear under the covered tests, again, great! But what if it isn't? What if what's wrong is something that isn't typical and can only be discovered by a test that isn't covered? What if that person suffers complications or even dies because the proper treatment for his condition wasn't covered by the affordable health care that the government has required him to have?
Doctors are now open to more malpractice suits, which is going to make more doctors head for the hills. They are going to go into private practice, where they have some level of control over what they can do. Their offices will accept the insurances that cover whatever treatments they may or may not want to do and they will not accept insurances that my limit their ability to practice. And what does that leave those of us stuck with "affordable" aka cheap medical insurance? Cheap medical care.
My family is currently on the medical card because we, like so many, cannot afford private health insurance. When it comes to the kids, this isn't much of an issue because all pediatricians are required by the government to accept the medical card as a form of insurance. So I can take my girls to a good doctor that I know and trust where they get good care.
My husband and me? Well, we're limited to the fairly small number of doctors in the area that actually accept the medical card.
Before I got married, when I was still on my parents' insurance, my doctor was awesome. There was never a time when she didn't spend at least a half hour in the room with me, no matter what was going on. She took her own vitals, she asked her own questions. She did a thorough exam and covered all her bases. She ran tests as she saw fit. She didn't leave anything to chance. And she's like that with all of her patients. I know, I used to work in her office for a short time, as did my mother (for a much longer time).
My doctor now probably sees fifty to a hundred patients a day. I went to see her for chronic back and neck pain after my car accident. She was in the exam room with me for five minutes. She was rushed and detached. She prescribed me some high dose ibruprofen, recommended physical therapy and told me to have a nice day. When I went back six weeks later for a "follow-up" and told her the ibruprofen wasn't making a difference, and that I'd used up the 20 physical therapy sessions that the medical card covers per year and I was still in considerable pain, she basically shrugged and told me I'd just have to learn to live with the pain. There wasn't much else she could do. Again, she was in the room for less than five minutes.
This is the difference between good medical care and affordable medical care. Why would anyone want to pay for affordable health care that they may try like hell not to use because it's crappy? Not too long ago I had a pretty bad sinus infection. I called my doctor's office for an appointment. They couldn't get me in for two weeks and the receptionist, with no sympathy whatsoever, basically told me to suck it up. I called a number of doctor's offices that didn't accept the medical card and was looking at anywhere between $85 and $160 for just the doctor's visit. I ended up going to the ER because I was in so much pain and that was the only place that wouldn't break me. Now, I try as hard as I can to not call my doctor's office. I do suck it up. Because it's not worth the half hour drive to get five minutes and no results. Why would I want to pay a monthly fee for a "service" that I try like hell not to use, because it's crappy?
This is what I fear Obamacare is going to do. It's going to force people to start paying for a service that may not be worth their time, effort and money to pay for. Because it's limited. On paper, it looks like an excellent idea. I just don't see it working in practice.
I suppose only time will tell.
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
September 3, 2013--So you know how to blame a victim. Well, that makes you a class act, doesn't it?
**This post has been slightly edited; I was advised by a reader whose opinion I value that it was a bit hard to follow and below my typical standards as a writer. I agree with her and knew that when I posted it, but I originally posted this in an extremely emotional state of mind and had some things I needed to say. Now that I've said them and had some time to reflect, I will try to make my point in a more concise and articulate way. Thank you for reading.**
A few weeks ago I blogged about people being passively judgmental. Now, I have a few things to say about being overtly and blatantly judgmental. Specifically when it comes to a situation that you know absolutely nothing about. More specifically, when it comes to a situation where there is a victim involved, and you feel the need to blame them for said situation. But first, here's a hypothetical situation for you:
"Rowena" is a 26 year old female. She's a pretty typical 26 year old--she's worked a fair amount in food service jobs, every few months she struggles a bit to get her bills paid, she's had a couple of serious relationships that have ended up going nowhere, lately she's been on pins and needles with her roommates and she is now considering how to go about getting a "new start" on her life. Pertinent also to the story is that growing up, her father was physically abusive and her mother wasn't always around.
One day, while hanging out with her best friend and her best friend's husband, Rowena meets Mick, a friend of theirs. There is an instant attraction between Rowena and Mick and they start dating immediately. It's a bit of a whirlwind romance, yes, but for the first time in a while Rowena is happy. About three months into the relationship, much to the dismay of her family and many of her friends and acquaintances, Rowena finds a new job and moves in with Mick. She's found her new start.
Now, a little about "Mick." He's a military vet that has been medically discharged. He's extremely intelligent and gets bored easily. He's fascinated by things like conspiracy theories and dirty politics and he believes in other sentient beings (aka aliens). The word "crazy" has been used to describe him by many people, including his close friends, but that doesn't bother him. Or his friends, for that matter. He's simply "being Mick."
A few weeks after Rowena moves in, Mick decides to check out a local head shop and ends up buying some "fake weed." Also known as incense or bath salts. He has a very bad (although fairly typical) reaction to it. Suddenly he is having hallucinations, he's paranoid, he can't sleep (and doesn't for days). Simply put, he enters a state of drug-induced psychosis.
Rowena, who is completely unfamiliar with this type of situation and who doesn't recognize the guy she's now staying with, does everything she can to help him, to try and stay in control of the situation. She admits to herself that she's in love with Mick, has been for a while, and for that reason she's going to stick by him through this episode...and when it's done, she's going to try like hell to make sure it never happens again, because she's scared.
Unfortunately, in the middle of Mick's psychotic episode, he becomes violent. He hits Rowena, once. She leaves the apartment immediately and seeks medical attention. The police are called and Mick is arrested. Rowena refuses to press charges, however, and because this is Mick's first offense and he has no history of violence he is released. Based on the research she's done and talking to her best friend's husband (who is Mick's best friend and knows him better than just about anybody) Rowena figures that Mick will be coming out of this state anytime, so she goes back to the apartment with the intention of helping him through the rest of it. Two days later, Mick still hasn't come down and he becomes violent again. Rowena again leaves the apartment immediately, calls her friends to come pick her up and starts making arrangements to leave for good. She gets a police escort to move her things out of the apartment the very next day and three days later, she is on her way to stay with a relative who lives out of state. She doesn't speak to Mick again.
Before leaving, she confides in her best friend that she is very worried about Mick and just wants to know if he's okay. She admits to going back to the apartment to look for him but he's gone and she doesn't know where he might have gone. She's called his only relative, who hasn't seen or heard from him. She knows she needs to leave and she is going to, but she loves Mick and needs to know that he's alright. She also tells her best friend that she's feeling a lot of anger, not towards Mick, but towards her father and some of her other friends because they are bombarding her with sentiments like "You should have known better" and "That's what you get" and "You're stupid" and "Why do you care about him, he hit you."
After a teary goodbye, she heads out of state to seek her own help and to move on with her life.
I call this a hypothetical situation, but in reality it is very close to a situation that has recently occurred to someone close to me. I present it as a hypothetical to try and preserve some sense of privacy for the parties involved. And I present the entire story to you to give you an idea of what was going on before I dive into the major point and issue I have with it.
And that issue encompasses two very small but two very strong words: You're stupid.
The words "you're stupid" have been directed towards many people in this world, in many different situations. Whether they are appropriate or not, whether they are said jokingly or not, they can be (and oftentimes are) taken as degrading and hurtful. These two words are specifically degrading and hurtful when they are directed at women (or anyone in that matter) in abusive situations.
Have you ever heard of "battered woman syndrome?" (If not, here's a very basic overview.) Battered woman syndrome is a subcategory of post-traumatic stress disorder and it refers to women who are physically abused over and over again yet have extreme difficulty leaving the situation they are in. Such women are often referred to as stupid. They are asked, over and over again, "Why don't you just leave?" "If you're in a bad situation, get out of it." "Leave him." "Get out." "If you stay, then you're stupid." Just like in the situation of rape, in cases of battered women, blaming the victim becomes commonplace.
To these people who find themselves justified in addressing these women in such a way, I would like to simply and very politely say: Shut your {insert appropriate adjective here}mouth.
If you have never been in such a situation, you have absolutely no clue as to the psychological trauma that occurs. It's not just about being hit. It's not just about the physical aspect of abuse. It's the mental, emotional and psychological aspects of the abuse. Women are emotional beings, whether we like it or not. And love is a pretty strong emotion. Seriously, what hasn't been done for love? People steal to feed their children, or their parents for that matter. People murder for the sake of their loved ones. Wars have been fought and countries defended by men and women who simply strive to protect the people they love from danger. A lot is done in the name of love. Seeing a woman stay with a man because she loves him, even when he hurts her, is not new. It happens everyday. We see it all the time.
My question then, is this: Can all of these women, each and every one of them, be stupid? Really? Are each and every one of them suffering from a lack of intelligence? Perhaps that is easy to assume. However, might there actually be something else going on, something under the surface that we, who haven't experienced what they've experienced, cannot possibly understand? Might there possibly be some sort of psychological damage that is done, some sort of thought process that they cannot escape that might be influencing their decisions? Gee, there's a thought.
Battered women have often suffered abuse their entire lives (as Rowena did). They are brought up believing that they are somehow at fault for the abuse. They blame themselves and constantly try to "do better" knowing that they will continually fall short. And when they find themselves in a similar situation as an adult, with a boyfriend or husband, they continue to believe that somehow the situation is their fault. So instead of leaving, they continue to try harder, to do better, to be better and if they are, the abuse will stop. This thought process is textbook. It happens in almost every case. Not because the woman is "stupid"--not because she lacks intelligence or common sense--but because abuse is cyclic. And the victim is stuck in that cycle. Breaking away from it is extremely difficult and oftentimes it takes months if not years to achieve...if it ever is achieved.
"Rowena" was not even suffering from battered woman syndrome. Her case had not gone that far. She was not with Mick long enough and the abuse hadn't been going on long enough for it to qualify. He hit her twice within the same number of days and that was enough for her to get out, to leave. Was it hard for her? Yes. Did she still claim feelings for him, did she worry about him and his well-being because she loved him? Absolutely. But she left. She got out. She did it a lot more quickly than most women ever do.
And yet, she was still called stupid. By her abusive father, no less. And by others who were supposed to be supportive and loving in this situation. People she should have been able to depend on.
So, here's my newsflash for all you loving and supportive {read: judgmental} people out there: Being superior does NOT equal being supportive. Sure, you may have looked at a situation from the outside and not agreed with the actions and decisions of those you claim to care about. You may have looked at the situation and said, "That's not going to turn out well." And you may even be right. Congratulations. However, when it goes wrong, as it indubitably will sometimes, you then take great pleasure and pride in being able to say "I told you so." Guess what? Saying "I told you so" makes you a {insert appropriate not-so-nice term here}. It may make you feel better, it may make you feel justified, but it just makes the person you told it to feel even worse than they already do. And here's another newsflash for you: This isn't about you!
"Rowena" went through a trauma. Every woman (or man, or child) who is abused suffers trauma. They all suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder and the swirling thoughts in their own heads. They are already telling themselves that they are stupid, that they are wrong for loving a person who would hit them, that they shouldn't be worried about that person, that everyone around them that has warned them about getting together or moving in with a person they've known for so little time was right. Even worse, they believe they're somehow responsible for the situation. Having all of those sentiments repeated harshly and heavily in their ears is not helpful. It only makes the situation that much worse.
This is how it is for every person who is victimized. They each go through the same very specific set of reactions. They blame themselves. They rationalize their abuser's actions. They believe their abusers when they're promised that the abuse is over. Things like PTSD, battered woman syndrome and Stockholm Syndrome aren't just money making schemes by the shrinks of this world. They're real. They happen. To millions of people every day. And they're not simple. They are complicated, difficult states of being to deal with and to be successfully treated, they demand a strong support system for the victim.
So if you know a victim and all you can think to say to them is "you should have known better" or "I told you so," do me--and them--a favor and keep your mouth shut. Congratulations. You are omniscient and all-powerful and your hindsight is 20/20. In the meantime, while you're patting yourself on the back for being so wonderful, the person you claim to love is falling to pieces. Way to go on being a grade-A {insert another appropriate not-so-nice term here}. I'm sure my sentiments are obvious.
A few weeks ago I blogged about people being passively judgmental. Now, I have a few things to say about being overtly and blatantly judgmental. Specifically when it comes to a situation that you know absolutely nothing about. More specifically, when it comes to a situation where there is a victim involved, and you feel the need to blame them for said situation. But first, here's a hypothetical situation for you:
"Rowena" is a 26 year old female. She's a pretty typical 26 year old--she's worked a fair amount in food service jobs, every few months she struggles a bit to get her bills paid, she's had a couple of serious relationships that have ended up going nowhere, lately she's been on pins and needles with her roommates and she is now considering how to go about getting a "new start" on her life. Pertinent also to the story is that growing up, her father was physically abusive and her mother wasn't always around.
One day, while hanging out with her best friend and her best friend's husband, Rowena meets Mick, a friend of theirs. There is an instant attraction between Rowena and Mick and they start dating immediately. It's a bit of a whirlwind romance, yes, but for the first time in a while Rowena is happy. About three months into the relationship, much to the dismay of her family and many of her friends and acquaintances, Rowena finds a new job and moves in with Mick. She's found her new start.
Now, a little about "Mick." He's a military vet that has been medically discharged. He's extremely intelligent and gets bored easily. He's fascinated by things like conspiracy theories and dirty politics and he believes in other sentient beings (aka aliens). The word "crazy" has been used to describe him by many people, including his close friends, but that doesn't bother him. Or his friends, for that matter. He's simply "being Mick."
A few weeks after Rowena moves in, Mick decides to check out a local head shop and ends up buying some "fake weed." Also known as incense or bath salts. He has a very bad (although fairly typical) reaction to it. Suddenly he is having hallucinations, he's paranoid, he can't sleep (and doesn't for days). Simply put, he enters a state of drug-induced psychosis.
Rowena, who is completely unfamiliar with this type of situation and who doesn't recognize the guy she's now staying with, does everything she can to help him, to try and stay in control of the situation. She admits to herself that she's in love with Mick, has been for a while, and for that reason she's going to stick by him through this episode...and when it's done, she's going to try like hell to make sure it never happens again, because she's scared.
Unfortunately, in the middle of Mick's psychotic episode, he becomes violent. He hits Rowena, once. She leaves the apartment immediately and seeks medical attention. The police are called and Mick is arrested. Rowena refuses to press charges, however, and because this is Mick's first offense and he has no history of violence he is released. Based on the research she's done and talking to her best friend's husband (who is Mick's best friend and knows him better than just about anybody) Rowena figures that Mick will be coming out of this state anytime, so she goes back to the apartment with the intention of helping him through the rest of it. Two days later, Mick still hasn't come down and he becomes violent again. Rowena again leaves the apartment immediately, calls her friends to come pick her up and starts making arrangements to leave for good. She gets a police escort to move her things out of the apartment the very next day and three days later, she is on her way to stay with a relative who lives out of state. She doesn't speak to Mick again.
Before leaving, she confides in her best friend that she is very worried about Mick and just wants to know if he's okay. She admits to going back to the apartment to look for him but he's gone and she doesn't know where he might have gone. She's called his only relative, who hasn't seen or heard from him. She knows she needs to leave and she is going to, but she loves Mick and needs to know that he's alright. She also tells her best friend that she's feeling a lot of anger, not towards Mick, but towards her father and some of her other friends because they are bombarding her with sentiments like "You should have known better" and "That's what you get" and "You're stupid" and "Why do you care about him, he hit you."
After a teary goodbye, she heads out of state to seek her own help and to move on with her life.
I call this a hypothetical situation, but in reality it is very close to a situation that has recently occurred to someone close to me. I present it as a hypothetical to try and preserve some sense of privacy for the parties involved. And I present the entire story to you to give you an idea of what was going on before I dive into the major point and issue I have with it.
And that issue encompasses two very small but two very strong words: You're stupid.
The words "you're stupid" have been directed towards many people in this world, in many different situations. Whether they are appropriate or not, whether they are said jokingly or not, they can be (and oftentimes are) taken as degrading and hurtful. These two words are specifically degrading and hurtful when they are directed at women (or anyone in that matter) in abusive situations.
Have you ever heard of "battered woman syndrome?" (If not, here's a very basic overview.) Battered woman syndrome is a subcategory of post-traumatic stress disorder and it refers to women who are physically abused over and over again yet have extreme difficulty leaving the situation they are in. Such women are often referred to as stupid. They are asked, over and over again, "Why don't you just leave?" "If you're in a bad situation, get out of it." "Leave him." "Get out." "If you stay, then you're stupid." Just like in the situation of rape, in cases of battered women, blaming the victim becomes commonplace.
To these people who find themselves justified in addressing these women in such a way, I would like to simply and very politely say: Shut your {insert appropriate adjective here}mouth.
If you have never been in such a situation, you have absolutely no clue as to the psychological trauma that occurs. It's not just about being hit. It's not just about the physical aspect of abuse. It's the mental, emotional and psychological aspects of the abuse. Women are emotional beings, whether we like it or not. And love is a pretty strong emotion. Seriously, what hasn't been done for love? People steal to feed their children, or their parents for that matter. People murder for the sake of their loved ones. Wars have been fought and countries defended by men and women who simply strive to protect the people they love from danger. A lot is done in the name of love. Seeing a woman stay with a man because she loves him, even when he hurts her, is not new. It happens everyday. We see it all the time.
My question then, is this: Can all of these women, each and every one of them, be stupid? Really? Are each and every one of them suffering from a lack of intelligence? Perhaps that is easy to assume. However, might there actually be something else going on, something under the surface that we, who haven't experienced what they've experienced, cannot possibly understand? Might there possibly be some sort of psychological damage that is done, some sort of thought process that they cannot escape that might be influencing their decisions? Gee, there's a thought.
Battered women have often suffered abuse their entire lives (as Rowena did). They are brought up believing that they are somehow at fault for the abuse. They blame themselves and constantly try to "do better" knowing that they will continually fall short. And when they find themselves in a similar situation as an adult, with a boyfriend or husband, they continue to believe that somehow the situation is their fault. So instead of leaving, they continue to try harder, to do better, to be better and if they are, the abuse will stop. This thought process is textbook. It happens in almost every case. Not because the woman is "stupid"--not because she lacks intelligence or common sense--but because abuse is cyclic. And the victim is stuck in that cycle. Breaking away from it is extremely difficult and oftentimes it takes months if not years to achieve...if it ever is achieved.
"Rowena" was not even suffering from battered woman syndrome. Her case had not gone that far. She was not with Mick long enough and the abuse hadn't been going on long enough for it to qualify. He hit her twice within the same number of days and that was enough for her to get out, to leave. Was it hard for her? Yes. Did she still claim feelings for him, did she worry about him and his well-being because she loved him? Absolutely. But she left. She got out. She did it a lot more quickly than most women ever do.
And yet, she was still called stupid. By her abusive father, no less. And by others who were supposed to be supportive and loving in this situation. People she should have been able to depend on.
So, here's my newsflash for all you loving and supportive {read: judgmental} people out there: Being superior does NOT equal being supportive. Sure, you may have looked at a situation from the outside and not agreed with the actions and decisions of those you claim to care about. You may have looked at the situation and said, "That's not going to turn out well." And you may even be right. Congratulations. However, when it goes wrong, as it indubitably will sometimes, you then take great pleasure and pride in being able to say "I told you so." Guess what? Saying "I told you so" makes you a {insert appropriate not-so-nice term here}. It may make you feel better, it may make you feel justified, but it just makes the person you told it to feel even worse than they already do. And here's another newsflash for you: This isn't about you!
"Rowena" went through a trauma. Every woman (or man, or child) who is abused suffers trauma. They all suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder and the swirling thoughts in their own heads. They are already telling themselves that they are stupid, that they are wrong for loving a person who would hit them, that they shouldn't be worried about that person, that everyone around them that has warned them about getting together or moving in with a person they've known for so little time was right. Even worse, they believe they're somehow responsible for the situation. Having all of those sentiments repeated harshly and heavily in their ears is not helpful. It only makes the situation that much worse.
This is how it is for every person who is victimized. They each go through the same very specific set of reactions. They blame themselves. They rationalize their abuser's actions. They believe their abusers when they're promised that the abuse is over. Things like PTSD, battered woman syndrome and Stockholm Syndrome aren't just money making schemes by the shrinks of this world. They're real. They happen. To millions of people every day. And they're not simple. They are complicated, difficult states of being to deal with and to be successfully treated, they demand a strong support system for the victim.
So if you know a victim and all you can think to say to them is "you should have known better" or "I told you so," do me--and them--a favor and keep your mouth shut. Congratulations. You are omniscient and all-powerful and your hindsight is 20/20. In the meantime, while you're patting yourself on the back for being so wonderful, the person you claim to love is falling to pieces. Way to go on being a grade-A {insert another appropriate not-so-nice term here}. I'm sure my sentiments are obvious.
"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle."--Plato
You may have absolutely no idea just how hard a battle a person may be fighting and that alone is reason enough to take a second before whipping your judgments around. If you do however, have even an inkling of how hard a person's battle might be, all the more reason to send them your support, your love, your shoulder, and keep your petty and unnecessary judgments to yourself. Whether you think you're right or not. Their battle is hard enough. They don't need you making it harder. You may want to remember that when you find yourself in a battle and realize you have nobody willing to fight for you because you were unable to fight for them.
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
August 13, 2013--Passive Judgment
"Stop feeling like you have to explain yourself to everyone else or justify your decisions. Are you doing what's best for you? Does it make you feel good/happy/fulfilled? Does it feel like the right timing to you? AWESOME. That's all that matters. You're under no obligation to live according to anyone else's feelings, concerns or opinions about what's best."
I posted this quote on Facebook yesterday because I find that I need to remind myself of this constantly. It can be applied to a number of aspects of my life (and others' as well, I'm sure)--how I choose to raise my children, how I choose to spend my money, how I choose to deal with my husband, my parents, my in-laws, what I choose to eat and subsequently, what I feed my children. And the list can go on and on and on.
I'm not sure what it is that makes many people in this life feel like they are entitled to pass judgment on others. I don't know if it's a misplaced sense of superiority or rather a profound sense of insecurity. I do know that I used to be like that and in my case I think it was a combination of the two. It took having that constant feeling of being judged for me to realize that that was not the kind of person I wanted to be. I have worked very hard over the past year or so to not be that person anymore; to realize that I may not know a person's story and even though what is presented to me might look really bad, I have absolutely no idea what may have triggered it.
People make decisions based on a lot of reasons; they may or may not choose their religion, their sexual orientation, their career path. They may change their religion, their sexual orientation or their career path. People who had bad parents may choose to not have kids because they worry they will be like their parents. Other people choose specifically to have kids and swear they will be nothing like their parents. Some people face their problems and others run away from them. But the decisions people make and the paths they choose are triggered by their whole life story and it really isn't up to the rest of the world to make snap judgments based on limited information.
What saddens me most when it comes to this issue is that often times, I find that these judgments can come from the people we hold closest to us. Family, close friends, people we've known for a lifetime. Those people who should know us best, who should understand us, are often the quickest to make it known when they don't approve.
Now, let me just be clear: there is a difference between not approving and judging. You don't have to approve of every decision those close to you make. But passing a blatant and negative judgment about the things you don't approve of is not in any way helpful or conducive to the situation. It's a fine line, I know, but support is crucial, even in situations that you don't approve of. God doesn't approve of our sin, but he also doesn't condemn us for it. He is merciful and forgiving. In my mind, that equates to us being supportive of those we love, even if we're not completely on board with what's going on.
Family is extremely important to me. Always has been and unless something major happens, always will be. I love my family dearly and would do anything for them. That being said, what my family thinks of me, my family (meaning me, Chaz and the girls) and our life is important. These are the people I depend on, the people I care about, the people who mean the most to me. I want them to be proud of me. I want them to have my back. I want them to be part of my girls' lives. So it is extremely hard for me when I get the feeling that one of the people I value greatly doesn't approve of what I'm doing.
Well, and it's not even the disapproval that bothers me. I am not naive enough to believe that I am going to please every person with every decision I make. What bothers me is when people don't feel like they can come straight out and tell me they disapprove, but they make it perfectly clear that they don't anyway. I have always felt that being family--whether that's by blood or not--demands honesty. Because if you can't be honest with the people you love, who can you be honest with? So I expect people to be honest with me, with the expectation that I can be honest with them. Even if they don't like what I'm doing, even if I don't like what they're doing, I feel like being family means that we should be able to be upfront and honest about our disagreements without causing major distress.
I don't believe it's okay when your words say one thing but the underlying meaning is crystal clear--and in complete opposition to your words. Because in most cases it's completely evident that you don't like or agree or approve of what's happening, but in the guise of "being nice" or not wanting to "hurt someone's feelings" or whatever, you won't say so. That's not love and it's not support and it's not okay. It's patronizing and degrading and hurtful.
The overall point here--and again, yes, I do have one--is that what my family and close friends think matters to me. And at times, more than it should, apparently. And so I need to remind myself that at this junction in my life--as a married adult with children--that I know what is best for me, my husband, my children and the four of us as a family. The person whose opinion matters most is my husband's. We have to make decisions together that work for us and our girls and if the people around us don't agree or can't understand, well, I'm just going to have to live with that and get over it. Because in the end, as much as I love my family (big), I have to put my family (small) first. We know our needs best and yes, we're going to make mistakes and have setbacks. But those are our mistakes to make, our setbacks to have. Our parents had them in their own time, our grandparents and uncles and aunts and cousins have all had them too. They learned and adjusted and grew.
Now it's my turn.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)