What do you do when someone betrays your trust? What does it take for them to regain that trust? At what point do you find forgiveness? Is it worse if a friend betrays you, or a lover? What if the person is one in the same....someone with whom you had been really close friends, but then it became more? Is delibrately withholding information the same thing as lying? (In my opinion, yes, it is.) Should saving the friendship and regaining the trust be a top priority? (For both parties, but particularly to the one who committed the betrayal.) Why does the potential loss of a friend hurt so much worse than the loss of a lover, even when the person is one in the same? What expectations are realistic, in terms of what the person should do to save the friendship and regain the trust?
I'm a very forgiving person...perhaps overly so. And, I can't just write people out of my life, even if I should. But, being hurt by a friend....for reasons of miscommunication, lack of communication, withholding of information...by someone who you believed would always be honest with you and would never want to hurt you, is a very hard pill to swallow. How do you reconcile the anger over someone not being honest with you, with the feeling of the loss....the loss of a friendship that meant a lot.
Forgivness is actually less of a problem...I can find forgiveness. I already have, to a large degree. But, what needs to be done to save the friendship? And, what happens if the efforts aren't made? Not only has then, a betrayal occured, but perhaps the friendship didn't mean that much...and, how do you deal with that realization?
It's easy to say that at the end of the day, everything will be fine. Necessary efforts will be made, or they won't. The friendship will be saved, or it won't. And, long-term, yes, that is all true. But, it doesn't change the feelings of loss, anger, confusion, et al, that exist in the here and now.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Welcome Guest Blogger and Author of, "Faking It", Elisa Lorello!
Thanks, Vicki, for hosting me on your blog! Readers should know that Vicki and I met on Facebook through a mutual dear friend of ours. She heard about my novel from him, read and enjoyed it, and has been incredibly supportive ever since. You can buy a print or download version of FAKING IT at Lulu.com, and it’s also available at Amazon. You can also follow me on Twitter@elisalorello, my blog “I’ll Have What She’s Having", or on Facebook at the Faking It Fans fan page.
If you’re looking for a fun summer read, then FAKING IT is definitely the book for you! Andi, a 30-something writing professor from
If you like When Harry Met Sally or Sex and the City, then FAKING IT is for you.
My favorite aspect of FAKING IT is the chemistry between Andi and Devin. As a writer, I’m very drawn to characters that have chemistry, be it romantic or platonic or some other form, and draw heavily on film and television character pairings for inspiration. And it doesn’t always have to be male-female. Matt and Danny on Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip had great chemistry. So did Leo and President Bartlet on The West Wing, or Lorelai and Rory on Gilmore Girls. Then, of course, there’s Harry and Sally, the couple that most inspired me, or Tom Hanks’ and Meg Ryan’s characters in You’ve Got Mail, which developed through dialogue, and shows that chemistry isn’t only the result of physical attraction. Much of Andi and Devin’s chemistry is found in their conversation. They constantly call each other out on the carpet in ways that others won’t, despite the fact that they’re both hiding quite a bit from each other.
I’d like to know your favorite character couplings – in print or on screen – and why you love them so much. Is it Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy? Carrie and Mr. Big? Abbott and Costello? What makes their chemistry so electric? What makes them work (or not work)? Please leave a comment and share with us!
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Is There a Doctor in the Hamptons?
I recently watched the season premiere of "Royal Pains" on the USA Network, as I admittedly have something of a Mark Feuerstein crush, and given my love of the former NBC hit drama, "The West Wing", I feel the need to support any actor whom ever appeared on that show. (For those keeping track at home, Feuerstein played Cliff Caley, in a recurring guest-starring role.)
The show was, of course, entertaining, well-acted, well-written, clever, all anyone can ask of a new television show, in a time in which the pains of reality television seem to still be taking over. It did, however, raise the question for me, of "concierge doctors", and whether or not such a thing really does exist, and to what extent. Do the glitterati in places like the Hamptons, Manhattan, Aspen, Los Angeles, Telluride, Miami, et al., really have concierge doctors? Medical professionals who don't work for a hospital or medical practice, but rather work privately, for the world's elite, allowing them to avoid documented medical care (and, potential public embarrasment and/or police action) for plastic surgeries gone awry and drug overdoses? Doctors who pull up in a fancy SVU with a myriad of portable medical devices in the back? A black, leather Coach bag containing perscriptions? (And, how many medical ethics are being violated by physicians randomly carrying a variety of perscriptions, and potentially carrying them over state lines.)
Perhaps it's my own ignorance or naivety on the subject, as I am not one of the world's elite, possessed with the luxury of a private physician. Now, I will admit that in this day HMO's, increasing difficulty to obtain services as insurance companies don't want to pay, and the never-ending pleasure of waiting for hours in a hosptial emergency room, for a broken bone or laceration, the idea of having a conceirge doctor isn't an altogether unpleasant idea. But, shouldn't affordable and quality healthcare be a basic right of all people, regardless of station in life? Shouldn't the person who takes out Donald Trump's garbage be entitled to the same medical care as The Donald, himself? This isn't the same thing as buying a Wii or an iPhone, it's healthcare. Doesn't healthcare fall under the three unalienable rights that are provided to all citizens of this country, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Isn't that precisely why there are valid arguments for universal healthcare in this country, and why it's really only going to be a matter of time before it becomes a reality? Is this just going to be one more thing, one more wedge-issue to continue to divide the have's and have not's in America, yet another thing to cause contention between the classes?
And, should we be questioning the ethics of doctors who do become concierge doctors? The physician who went from being the Chief of Internal Medicine at the Mayo Clinic or Mount Sinai, and who now pumps the stomach of some Hollywood starlet who is vacationing in the Hamptons, so that it doesn't end up on "Entertainment Tonight", when she is taken to the hospital. (Let's be honest, the people who have the resources to hire doctors on demand aren't hiring the general practioner from some little family practice in Lancaster, Pennsylvania.) Does it only feed into the idea that has been perpetuated by society, the media, and certain aspects of the medical community, that people only become doctors because they want to be rich? (Now, obviously, anyone who has a friend or family member that is a doctor, knows that hardly all physicians end up rolling in dough, too. As with any profession, a great deal depends on location and specialty. The pediatrician or emergency room physician at a local, community hospital isn't making anywhere near what that plastic surgeon in New York City or the cardiothorasic surgeon in Boston are making.) I don't doubt that many doctors out there would love to find a way to pay off their student loans, faster, but wouldn't any reasonable physician have some serious moral or ethical objections to this type of practice? Shouldn't it, in some way, be a violation of the Hippocratic Oath?
Now, Feurestein's character on "Royal Pains" is certainly an example of a concierge doctor with a conscience, who genuinely cares more for the patients he is called in to see, rather than what he is being paid from someone's black American Express card. Should concierge doctors really be as prevelant as they seem, based on the portrayal, we can only hope that they have the same moral fiber possessed by Feurestein's character. And, for those of us who have or will watch, "Royal Pains", we can only hope that continues to the enduring and endearing trait of the character, and that he doesn't turn into what I'm sure we all imagine is the stereotypical concierge doctor in the Hamptons.
The show was, of course, entertaining, well-acted, well-written, clever, all anyone can ask of a new television show, in a time in which the pains of reality television seem to still be taking over. It did, however, raise the question for me, of "concierge doctors", and whether or not such a thing really does exist, and to what extent. Do the glitterati in places like the Hamptons, Manhattan, Aspen, Los Angeles, Telluride, Miami, et al., really have concierge doctors? Medical professionals who don't work for a hospital or medical practice, but rather work privately, for the world's elite, allowing them to avoid documented medical care (and, potential public embarrasment and/or police action) for plastic surgeries gone awry and drug overdoses? Doctors who pull up in a fancy SVU with a myriad of portable medical devices in the back? A black, leather Coach bag containing perscriptions? (And, how many medical ethics are being violated by physicians randomly carrying a variety of perscriptions, and potentially carrying them over state lines.)
Perhaps it's my own ignorance or naivety on the subject, as I am not one of the world's elite, possessed with the luxury of a private physician. Now, I will admit that in this day HMO's, increasing difficulty to obtain services as insurance companies don't want to pay, and the never-ending pleasure of waiting for hours in a hosptial emergency room, for a broken bone or laceration, the idea of having a conceirge doctor isn't an altogether unpleasant idea. But, shouldn't affordable and quality healthcare be a basic right of all people, regardless of station in life? Shouldn't the person who takes out Donald Trump's garbage be entitled to the same medical care as The Donald, himself? This isn't the same thing as buying a Wii or an iPhone, it's healthcare. Doesn't healthcare fall under the three unalienable rights that are provided to all citizens of this country, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Isn't that precisely why there are valid arguments for universal healthcare in this country, and why it's really only going to be a matter of time before it becomes a reality? Is this just going to be one more thing, one more wedge-issue to continue to divide the have's and have not's in America, yet another thing to cause contention between the classes?
And, should we be questioning the ethics of doctors who do become concierge doctors? The physician who went from being the Chief of Internal Medicine at the Mayo Clinic or Mount Sinai, and who now pumps the stomach of some Hollywood starlet who is vacationing in the Hamptons, so that it doesn't end up on "Entertainment Tonight", when she is taken to the hospital. (Let's be honest, the people who have the resources to hire doctors on demand aren't hiring the general practioner from some little family practice in Lancaster, Pennsylvania.) Does it only feed into the idea that has been perpetuated by society, the media, and certain aspects of the medical community, that people only become doctors because they want to be rich? (Now, obviously, anyone who has a friend or family member that is a doctor, knows that hardly all physicians end up rolling in dough, too. As with any profession, a great deal depends on location and specialty. The pediatrician or emergency room physician at a local, community hospital isn't making anywhere near what that plastic surgeon in New York City or the cardiothorasic surgeon in Boston are making.) I don't doubt that many doctors out there would love to find a way to pay off their student loans, faster, but wouldn't any reasonable physician have some serious moral or ethical objections to this type of practice? Shouldn't it, in some way, be a violation of the Hippocratic Oath?
Now, Feurestein's character on "Royal Pains" is certainly an example of a concierge doctor with a conscience, who genuinely cares more for the patients he is called in to see, rather than what he is being paid from someone's black American Express card. Should concierge doctors really be as prevelant as they seem, based on the portrayal, we can only hope that they have the same moral fiber possessed by Feurestein's character. And, for those of us who have or will watch, "Royal Pains", we can only hope that continues to the enduring and endearing trait of the character, and that he doesn't turn into what I'm sure we all imagine is the stereotypical concierge doctor in the Hamptons.
Friday, June 5, 2009
On the Prowl
There definately seems to be an increasing interest in the older woman-young man relationship, as of late. While some actresses like Susan Sarandon and Goldie Hawn have been with their younger men (Tim Robbins and Kurt Russell, respectively), have Madonna and Demi Moore made it even more acceptable? Desirable, even.
Between the new reality show, "The Cougar" and new Courteney Cox sitcom, to debut in the fall, "Cougar Town", (and, just simple fact that a term, "cougar" was even coined, a few years ago, for women who date younger men), it's something that is being talked about and even examined more and more. Have we finally come to a point in our society in which is just as socially acceptable for a woman to date a younger man, as it is for an older man to date a younger woman? And, if so, what took us long to get here? Or, is that there is still something that seems rather illicit about the older woman-younger man relationship that has everyone tuning into a yet another reality show in which people voluntarily humiliate themselves, or network executives debuting new shows regarding the topic? And, how do the women who may be, by some, called cougars feel about it? How do they feel about the increased interest in, or attention to their dating and sex lives? How do they feel about the term, "cougar"? (CNN did a story on this topic a few weeks ago, in which many women were voicing their distain for the term, and felt that if a label needed to be attached to a woman who dates younger men, then they would prefer the word, "sophisiticat". Still in keeping with the feline imagery, apparently.)
As someone who did recently have a relationship with a younger guy (and, I'm playing it fast and loose with the word, "relationship"), there are aspects of it that were fun and appealing and aspects that weren't. (Allow me to preface by saying that unlike the Courteney Cox character in the upcoming ABC sitcom, "Cougar Town", or the woman who is allowing herself to be objectified on national television for her 15 minutes of fame, on "The Cougar", I am not in my 40's, typically the age range associated with woman who are called cougars...I'm 31 and the guy I had dated was 24.) He's a great guy, and we certainly had a lot of fun together, during the time in which we did date. But, it was definately hard for me to get serious about a guy who was still getting started in his life, while I am at a point of wanting to settle down and have a family. (Perhaps that is why "cougars" tend to be a bit older...the women who have already been married and had children and are now embarking on a new chapter of their lives?) And, it certainly didn't help that he was working as a bartender to pay his way through school, so he worked primarily evenings and weekends, while I work a Monday through Friday, 9 to 5-type of job. (He was so kind as to call me, intoxicated, at 3:00 in the morning, after the Super Bowl. The Super Bow being on a Sunday of course, meant that I was supposed to be waking up about 3 hours later, to workout, shower, eat breakfast, et al, before work. You can imagine my joy.) Do these relationships work better, when the women is perhaps in her 40's and has already done the marriage and kids-thing? (Or, at a point in her life where, even if she hasn't had those things, she wasn't looking for them in the first place, or perfectly content not having them?) Do they work better if the man and woman at least have more similar work schedules, as to prohibit one of them from being awoken in the middle of the night, for a booty call, on a work night, when the alarm is set to go off in just a couple of hours?
What is the increased interest within our society, as of late, regarding this relationship dynamic? Why was it so socially acceptable for Sarandon and Hawn for years (nobody ever seemed to question their relationships with their younger partners), both of whom have been with their significant others for longer periods of time than most other Hollywood couples, while most other women had (and, still do, to a certain degree) snide comments made about them? Are these women trying to recapture their youth, the things they may have missed out on, while they were focusing on their careers, or their marriages, or raising their children? Is the term, "cougar" offensive to a lot of women? What makes the older woman-younger man relationship work, what makes it successful? (Or is it necessarily supposed to be successful, long-term?)
I, for one, applaud women who are comfortable with themselves and their sexuality. And, if you're in your 40's and 20-somethings are finding you attractive and desirable, then you know what? You must be doing something right.
Between the new reality show, "The Cougar" and new Courteney Cox sitcom, to debut in the fall, "Cougar Town", (and, just simple fact that a term, "cougar" was even coined, a few years ago, for women who date younger men), it's something that is being talked about and even examined more and more. Have we finally come to a point in our society in which is just as socially acceptable for a woman to date a younger man, as it is for an older man to date a younger woman? And, if so, what took us long to get here? Or, is that there is still something that seems rather illicit about the older woman-younger man relationship that has everyone tuning into a yet another reality show in which people voluntarily humiliate themselves, or network executives debuting new shows regarding the topic? And, how do the women who may be, by some, called cougars feel about it? How do they feel about the increased interest in, or attention to their dating and sex lives? How do they feel about the term, "cougar"? (CNN did a story on this topic a few weeks ago, in which many women were voicing their distain for the term, and felt that if a label needed to be attached to a woman who dates younger men, then they would prefer the word, "sophisiticat". Still in keeping with the feline imagery, apparently.)
As someone who did recently have a relationship with a younger guy (and, I'm playing it fast and loose with the word, "relationship"), there are aspects of it that were fun and appealing and aspects that weren't. (Allow me to preface by saying that unlike the Courteney Cox character in the upcoming ABC sitcom, "Cougar Town", or the woman who is allowing herself to be objectified on national television for her 15 minutes of fame, on "The Cougar", I am not in my 40's, typically the age range associated with woman who are called cougars...I'm 31 and the guy I had dated was 24.) He's a great guy, and we certainly had a lot of fun together, during the time in which we did date. But, it was definately hard for me to get serious about a guy who was still getting started in his life, while I am at a point of wanting to settle down and have a family. (Perhaps that is why "cougars" tend to be a bit older...the women who have already been married and had children and are now embarking on a new chapter of their lives?) And, it certainly didn't help that he was working as a bartender to pay his way through school, so he worked primarily evenings and weekends, while I work a Monday through Friday, 9 to 5-type of job. (He was so kind as to call me, intoxicated, at 3:00 in the morning, after the Super Bowl. The Super Bow being on a Sunday of course, meant that I was supposed to be waking up about 3 hours later, to workout, shower, eat breakfast, et al, before work. You can imagine my joy.) Do these relationships work better, when the women is perhaps in her 40's and has already done the marriage and kids-thing? (Or, at a point in her life where, even if she hasn't had those things, she wasn't looking for them in the first place, or perfectly content not having them?) Do they work better if the man and woman at least have more similar work schedules, as to prohibit one of them from being awoken in the middle of the night, for a booty call, on a work night, when the alarm is set to go off in just a couple of hours?
What is the increased interest within our society, as of late, regarding this relationship dynamic? Why was it so socially acceptable for Sarandon and Hawn for years (nobody ever seemed to question their relationships with their younger partners), both of whom have been with their significant others for longer periods of time than most other Hollywood couples, while most other women had (and, still do, to a certain degree) snide comments made about them? Are these women trying to recapture their youth, the things they may have missed out on, while they were focusing on their careers, or their marriages, or raising their children? Is the term, "cougar" offensive to a lot of women? What makes the older woman-younger man relationship work, what makes it successful? (Or is it necessarily supposed to be successful, long-term?)
I, for one, applaud women who are comfortable with themselves and their sexuality. And, if you're in your 40's and 20-somethings are finding you attractive and desirable, then you know what? You must be doing something right.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Loving "Law and Order: Special Victims Unit"
Like many people, I love the show, "Law and Order: Special Victims Unit", and watching with eagerness and glee on Tuesday night, as they aired the season finale.
I can't begin to express how happy I am that NBC didn't end the season with a cliffhanger episode, making viewers spend their summer, waiting in anxious anticipation for the new season to begin in the fall. Additionally, like most people, I am grateful that no one was taking my blood pressure, while watching the show. I think it's fair to say that Tuesday night's episode was one of the best of the show. (And, that's saying a lot, as every show is well-written, well-acted, and full of suspense and twists.) For those who watch the show, I think we all knew it was a matter of time before the character of Dale Stuckey was bid adieu, given the irritating nature of the character. But, as I'm sure many people were, I wouldn't have guessed, a few episodes ago, that he was going to go out in the manner in which he did. (I guess being bullied really can cause some people to snap!)
The main reason I was concerned, as I'm sure others were, that NBC would end the season with a cliffhanger episode is due to the fact that at last word, neither Christopher Meloni (aka Detective Elliot Stabler) or Mariska Hargitay (aka Detective Olivia Benson) had signed their contracts for next season, and were still in negotiations. Which leads me to ponder....how would it affect the show, should one or both of those actors chose to leave? Would it affect the ratings? Would people stop watching, given that a great many people feel that Meloni and Hargitay's characters, and their chemisty is a large part of the popularity? (While the ratings may not have been affected after the departure of Stephanie March, who plays ADA Alexandra Cabot, a lot of viewers were sad to see her leave, hopeful that she would return, expressing disdain for the other actresses who stepped into the role of the Special Victims Unit ADA, and very happy to see her return earlier this season, while remaining concerned that it my only be short-term, as she continues to appear in the credits as a "special guest star" as opposed to her name and photo appearing in the opening theme song sequence, along with Meloni, Hargitay, B.D. Wong, Dan Florek, Tamara Tunie, Ice-T, and Richard Belzer.) Would the overall chemisty and dynamic of the show be adversely affected should either (or both) Meloni or Hargitay chose not to sign a new contract? Or, would the show continue, essentially unaffected, demonstrating that it's more about the writing, the story lines, the direction, and the overall ensemble, rather than one or two characters? (Many a critic and viewer thought it was going to be the end of "ER", after Anthony Edwards left the show, especially since George Clooney, Sherry Stringfield, Julianna Marguiles and a few others had already left the show by that point, too. But, the show continued on, even with a seeming revolving door of cast members, for several more years, not calling, "wrap", until earlier this season.) Besides, hasn't the orignal, "Law and Order" been on the air, for something like 15 years? And, none of the current cast members have been with the show, since the beginning, not even Sam Waterston.
All of the primary characters on "Law and Order: Special Victims Unit" are enjoyable to watch and brought to life by talented actors, and it would certainly feel strange to watch the show, should any of them permenately. (Again, people never warmed to the other actresses who portrayed the ADA, the way they did Stephanie March.) Who could preside over the squad better then Dan Florek as Captain Cregan? What would it be like to not see the smart street sense of Ice-T as Finn Tutuola, paired with the paranoid, conspiracy theorist of Richard Belzer's John Munch. Who could give the FBI profiles prospective better than B.D. Wong as Dr. Georg Huang, and would we really want to see any other medical examiner speaking for the victim, other than Tamara Tunie as Dr. Melinda Warner? But, somehow, it still seems to come back around to Meloni and Hargitay as Stabler and Benson, respectively. How would the departure of one or both of these actors affect the show?
Of course, we have summer for these actors to renew their contracts. And, the possibility of the Screen Actors Guild going on strike again, too, could make it something of a moot point, for awhile, too.
I can't begin to express how happy I am that NBC didn't end the season with a cliffhanger episode, making viewers spend their summer, waiting in anxious anticipation for the new season to begin in the fall. Additionally, like most people, I am grateful that no one was taking my blood pressure, while watching the show. I think it's fair to say that Tuesday night's episode was one of the best of the show. (And, that's saying a lot, as every show is well-written, well-acted, and full of suspense and twists.) For those who watch the show, I think we all knew it was a matter of time before the character of Dale Stuckey was bid adieu, given the irritating nature of the character. But, as I'm sure many people were, I wouldn't have guessed, a few episodes ago, that he was going to go out in the manner in which he did. (I guess being bullied really can cause some people to snap!)
The main reason I was concerned, as I'm sure others were, that NBC would end the season with a cliffhanger episode is due to the fact that at last word, neither Christopher Meloni (aka Detective Elliot Stabler) or Mariska Hargitay (aka Detective Olivia Benson) had signed their contracts for next season, and were still in negotiations. Which leads me to ponder....how would it affect the show, should one or both of those actors chose to leave? Would it affect the ratings? Would people stop watching, given that a great many people feel that Meloni and Hargitay's characters, and their chemisty is a large part of the popularity? (While the ratings may not have been affected after the departure of Stephanie March, who plays ADA Alexandra Cabot, a lot of viewers were sad to see her leave, hopeful that she would return, expressing disdain for the other actresses who stepped into the role of the Special Victims Unit ADA, and very happy to see her return earlier this season, while remaining concerned that it my only be short-term, as she continues to appear in the credits as a "special guest star" as opposed to her name and photo appearing in the opening theme song sequence, along with Meloni, Hargitay, B.D. Wong, Dan Florek, Tamara Tunie, Ice-T, and Richard Belzer.) Would the overall chemisty and dynamic of the show be adversely affected should either (or both) Meloni or Hargitay chose not to sign a new contract? Or, would the show continue, essentially unaffected, demonstrating that it's more about the writing, the story lines, the direction, and the overall ensemble, rather than one or two characters? (Many a critic and viewer thought it was going to be the end of "ER", after Anthony Edwards left the show, especially since George Clooney, Sherry Stringfield, Julianna Marguiles and a few others had already left the show by that point, too. But, the show continued on, even with a seeming revolving door of cast members, for several more years, not calling, "wrap", until earlier this season.) Besides, hasn't the orignal, "Law and Order" been on the air, for something like 15 years? And, none of the current cast members have been with the show, since the beginning, not even Sam Waterston.
All of the primary characters on "Law and Order: Special Victims Unit" are enjoyable to watch and brought to life by talented actors, and it would certainly feel strange to watch the show, should any of them permenately. (Again, people never warmed to the other actresses who portrayed the ADA, the way they did Stephanie March.) Who could preside over the squad better then Dan Florek as Captain Cregan? What would it be like to not see the smart street sense of Ice-T as Finn Tutuola, paired with the paranoid, conspiracy theorist of Richard Belzer's John Munch. Who could give the FBI profiles prospective better than B.D. Wong as Dr. Georg Huang, and would we really want to see any other medical examiner speaking for the victim, other than Tamara Tunie as Dr. Melinda Warner? But, somehow, it still seems to come back around to Meloni and Hargitay as Stabler and Benson, respectively. How would the departure of one or both of these actors affect the show?
Of course, we have summer for these actors to renew their contracts. And, the possibility of the Screen Actors Guild going on strike again, too, could make it something of a moot point, for awhile, too.
Words Can Hurt, Too
As someone who used to work in the field of domestic violence and sexual assault, perhaps I have stronger radar as it pertains to healthy relationships and anger management and communication skills. But, I continue to be concerned by the number of women who find themselves in abusive relationships and don't realize it. Why don't they realize it? Because the abuse isn't coming in the form of physical or sexual abuse, it's coming in the form of verbal abuse. And, it seems that a great many people continue to either deny or at least not see, that verbal abuse is every bit as damaging as physical abuse. No one (or at least no one with a social conscious) would stand by and allow a parent to hurl expletives and hurtful statements at a child, so why do some of these same people not see that it's not different just because the husband or boyfriend is yelling degrading and derogatory statements towards a wife or girlfriend? Is it because adults should have the "equipment" to defend themselves, or fight back? Or is it that verbal abuse is still not widely acknowledged or understood, since it doesn't leave physical bruises or scars? (With that said, to paraphrase a former Supreme Court Justice, I may not be able to define verbal abuse, but I know it when I see it.) Do the women (and, men...women can be perpetrators of abuse and violence, too) think that they egged the person on, got them angry and riled up? Do they say, "but, he doesn't hit me...I'm not being abused", or do they just feel they deserve it.
Sadly, it's probably, more often than not, the last one. Boys who grow up in abusive households are three times more likely to become perpetrators themselves, while girls are much more likely to end up in abusive relationships, themselves. Boys see dad being abusive and girls see mom being abused.
The fact remains, however, that no matter what you may have done, being late for dinner, not being in the mood for sex, forgetting to record a tv show, no one has the right to make you feel as though you are less than you are. And, it continues to be of concern to me, when I even see friends of mine, women who are, in every other respect, strong, capable, forthright women, in relationships in which they are not being treated well...not treated well to the point of verbal and emotional abuse. (Note: if your boyfriend or husband wants to know where you are every second of the day, if he expects you to report to him by a certain point in the evening, if he expects an explanation as to why you didn't answer the phone when he called, it's not because he loves you and is concerned about you, it's because he's trying to control you. And, that's not live, sista.)
Does he call you names? Refer you to, using language that is demeaning? Does he limit your ability to communicate, openly, with friends and family? Does he embarras or humiliate you in public? Does he make you feel like you can't do anything right? Does he continually make fun of you? Does he expect to track your every move? Well, that's abusive behavior. And, the greatest concern is always that of it possibly escalating.
Women tend to be overwhelmed with these feelings of, "oh, but I know he can change." Can he? Of course he can. People can change, it happens all the time. Will he? Maybe. Maybe not. But, like everything else in life, people can only change when THEY want to, not because someone else wants them to. If HE realizes that his behavior is unacceptable, and is willing to go through the proper channels to address whatver his issues are (growing up in abusive household, issues of anger management, jealousy, trust, et al), then yes, it's promising. But, if that's not going to happen, then we can only hope that the women who find themselves in the position of being victimized by verbal and emotional abuse, find their inner strength to realize they deserve so much better, and that the world really is full of men who won't disrespect them.
And, for the men out there who do find themselves the perpetrators of abuse towards women, just remember...a woman brought you into this world, and another one can take you out.
Sadly, it's probably, more often than not, the last one. Boys who grow up in abusive households are three times more likely to become perpetrators themselves, while girls are much more likely to end up in abusive relationships, themselves. Boys see dad being abusive and girls see mom being abused.
The fact remains, however, that no matter what you may have done, being late for dinner, not being in the mood for sex, forgetting to record a tv show, no one has the right to make you feel as though you are less than you are. And, it continues to be of concern to me, when I even see friends of mine, women who are, in every other respect, strong, capable, forthright women, in relationships in which they are not being treated well...not treated well to the point of verbal and emotional abuse. (Note: if your boyfriend or husband wants to know where you are every second of the day, if he expects you to report to him by a certain point in the evening, if he expects an explanation as to why you didn't answer the phone when he called, it's not because he loves you and is concerned about you, it's because he's trying to control you. And, that's not live, sista.)
Does he call you names? Refer you to, using language that is demeaning? Does he limit your ability to communicate, openly, with friends and family? Does he embarras or humiliate you in public? Does he make you feel like you can't do anything right? Does he continually make fun of you? Does he expect to track your every move? Well, that's abusive behavior. And, the greatest concern is always that of it possibly escalating.
Women tend to be overwhelmed with these feelings of, "oh, but I know he can change." Can he? Of course he can. People can change, it happens all the time. Will he? Maybe. Maybe not. But, like everything else in life, people can only change when THEY want to, not because someone else wants them to. If HE realizes that his behavior is unacceptable, and is willing to go through the proper channels to address whatver his issues are (growing up in abusive household, issues of anger management, jealousy, trust, et al), then yes, it's promising. But, if that's not going to happen, then we can only hope that the women who find themselves in the position of being victimized by verbal and emotional abuse, find their inner strength to realize they deserve so much better, and that the world really is full of men who won't disrespect them.
And, for the men out there who do find themselves the perpetrators of abuse towards women, just remember...a woman brought you into this world, and another one can take you out.
Take This Job, And...Suck It Up?
How does one deal with job frustrations in a time of economic strife and country-wide layoffs? A time in which companies are going through hiring freezes and the cost of everything from health care to food is going up? Do you voice your concerns and frustrations to your supervisor, in the hopes of things improving? Or do you suck it up and just keep doing what you're doing, for fear that you will get fired, and won't be able to find another job, in a timely fashion? Would an employee fire someone, for voicing displeasure with their job, or the way in which the company handles things? Is it worth the cost of unemployment combined with the cost of posting job ad's, hiring and training a new employee? Or, is it worth letting go of a unhappy employee and hiring someone, whom yes, will need to be trained, but who has perhaps been out of work, for awhile, and therefore just so happy to have a job again that they will put with anything?
If you do choose to voice your concerns or displeasure with an employer in the current job market, should you, just to err on the side of caution, have already started looking for another job, should you at least have some irons in the fire? Do potential job seekers need to be more open to the possibility of picking up and moving, to another part of the country where they may be more opportunities, rather than limiting themselves to only looking in the area in which they currently reside? And, if married, how does that possibility affect the spouse and the career prospects? (The world is full of people who don't want to move for a different job opportunity, because they don't want to uproot their kids, have them change schools, etc. But, as an Army Brat myself, I have never had much understanding or sympathy for that line of thinking...kids adjust far easier than adults do, and there is a lot to be said for the educational and sociological experiences that come with not living in the same place for ones entire life. You go where the work is. And, in the long run, which is worse for the child, moving to a place, or seeing their parents depressed, out of work, and struggling financially?)
I am seeing, more and more, people who are frustrated in their current jobs. Frustrated, because of budget cuts, restructuring and hiring freezes, they are faced with the inability to do much to grow, or receive much support in their efforts towards professional development. And, the frustration is only increased by the fear that they are not in a position to speak out, given concern of being laid-off. (Even if a company doesn't fire you for voicing displeasure, the threat of future lay-offs always seems to be looming.)
What can companies do to ensure that their employees are remaining satisfied in their jobs, ensuring that they don't choose to look for other jobs, once the economy and job market improves? Will there be an onslaught, once things to pick up again, of people resigning from their jobs, to look for better opportunities, after months or even years of feeling dissatisfied and unappreciated? While companies, both for profit and nonprofits are being forced, more and more, to demonstrate their transparency with the general public, could they be doing a better job of demonstrating it to their employees, giving a better understanding of where the company is and where it's headed?
Both employers and employees seem to be dancing on the edge of a knife. No one, in the current state of financial affairs, can really afford to be out of work, but can employers really run the risk of being further short-staffed, should employees resign, given the number of lay-offs and hiring freezes that have, or are, currently, taking place? How can both parties be satisfied, fulfilled, and productive? Because, there is a big difference between a job and a career, and most people want careers. But, it seems, more and more that even those who are in their careers are feeling as though it's just a job, but stuck to do much about it. And, which is more beneficial to an employer...someone who feels that they're being treated fairly and given opportunity to grow, professionally, someone who is satisfied, or someone who feels that they have no idea what is going on from one day to the next, within the company for which they work, feeling as though they're walking on eggshells, and feeling infuriated when they see the bonuses that were paid to the CEO and COO, on the companies tax returns?
It seems that honesty may be the best policy on both fronts...the employee needs to be honest about how their feeling, their career goals, et al, the employer needs to be honest with the employees, regarding finances and the track that the company is on. And, both need to be able to feel as though they can do without fear of retribution. And, that's the rub, it seems....
If you do choose to voice your concerns or displeasure with an employer in the current job market, should you, just to err on the side of caution, have already started looking for another job, should you at least have some irons in the fire? Do potential job seekers need to be more open to the possibility of picking up and moving, to another part of the country where they may be more opportunities, rather than limiting themselves to only looking in the area in which they currently reside? And, if married, how does that possibility affect the spouse and the career prospects? (The world is full of people who don't want to move for a different job opportunity, because they don't want to uproot their kids, have them change schools, etc. But, as an Army Brat myself, I have never had much understanding or sympathy for that line of thinking...kids adjust far easier than adults do, and there is a lot to be said for the educational and sociological experiences that come with not living in the same place for ones entire life. You go where the work is. And, in the long run, which is worse for the child, moving to a place, or seeing their parents depressed, out of work, and struggling financially?)
I am seeing, more and more, people who are frustrated in their current jobs. Frustrated, because of budget cuts, restructuring and hiring freezes, they are faced with the inability to do much to grow, or receive much support in their efforts towards professional development. And, the frustration is only increased by the fear that they are not in a position to speak out, given concern of being laid-off. (Even if a company doesn't fire you for voicing displeasure, the threat of future lay-offs always seems to be looming.)
What can companies do to ensure that their employees are remaining satisfied in their jobs, ensuring that they don't choose to look for other jobs, once the economy and job market improves? Will there be an onslaught, once things to pick up again, of people resigning from their jobs, to look for better opportunities, after months or even years of feeling dissatisfied and unappreciated? While companies, both for profit and nonprofits are being forced, more and more, to demonstrate their transparency with the general public, could they be doing a better job of demonstrating it to their employees, giving a better understanding of where the company is and where it's headed?
Both employers and employees seem to be dancing on the edge of a knife. No one, in the current state of financial affairs, can really afford to be out of work, but can employers really run the risk of being further short-staffed, should employees resign, given the number of lay-offs and hiring freezes that have, or are, currently, taking place? How can both parties be satisfied, fulfilled, and productive? Because, there is a big difference between a job and a career, and most people want careers. But, it seems, more and more that even those who are in their careers are feeling as though it's just a job, but stuck to do much about it. And, which is more beneficial to an employer...someone who feels that they're being treated fairly and given opportunity to grow, professionally, someone who is satisfied, or someone who feels that they have no idea what is going on from one day to the next, within the company for which they work, feeling as though they're walking on eggshells, and feeling infuriated when they see the bonuses that were paid to the CEO and COO, on the companies tax returns?
It seems that honesty may be the best policy on both fronts...the employee needs to be honest about how their feeling, their career goals, et al, the employer needs to be honest with the employees, regarding finances and the track that the company is on. And, both need to be able to feel as though they can do without fear of retribution. And, that's the rub, it seems....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
