Top of the evening to all.
I was taking the kids home from karate this evening. We pondered together a deep philosophical issue.
In the ultimate battle of evil against evil, who would win? Would it be Darth Sidius, the evil emperor from the Star Wars series? Or would it be Lord Voldemort?
Personally, I would root for Lord Voldemort. He had more depth as a character.
In any event, after a short discussion, we concluded that the winner would be composer John Williams. He wrote the music for both series of movies.
Have a good evening.
R/SCG
Wednesday, November 19, 2014
Tuesday, November 18, 2014
Now Just a Minute!!
Top of the evening all...
Many of you have read Jennifer's recent blog post entitled "Weird Things Couples Fight About". It is wrong to undercut one's spouse in public; however, circumstances sometimes dictate a vociferous response.
Folding towels: I learned as a kid to fold towels in ninths (I think my mother liked Beethoven). At some point over our time together, Jennifer asked me to do it differently. I was happy to acquiesce. The problem is that I never remembered how she liked it. I know that she does not like ninths. So I do not do that anymore. Still, the thought of folding something to fit in a certain space is entirely lost on me. The space will fit anything that is crammed into it. I think that Jennifer is too sensitive to stuff falling out on her when she opens closets and cabinets.
Serving utensils: it is just the five of us. What is the problem??
Toilet paper: Jennifer probably changes it more than I do. I am very worried about squeezing the Charmin. It should be done though with the pull-down on the outside.
The toothpaste tube: the reflexive property of mathematics states that in all equations, a = a. The amount of toothpaste in the tube does not change, no matter where one squeezes it.
Movies: Jennifer is right. The closest I come to watching a movie is to ask which movie I would like to fall asleep watching.
Leftovers: sometimes, I do not like them. Still, it is wrong to waste food. I will often have them for lunch. It seems to me that the ~12 hours between dinner and packing lunch for the next day is more than enough time for Jennifer to stake out her territory. If it is still in the fridge when I come home for lunch, it is fair game. They are never a late-night snack. By the way, I took some of tonight's leftover kasha from dinner and packed it in a container for her lunch. I get serious good husband points for that.
Ordering take-out: when I was but a lad, my parents would take us out to dinner. They would tell my brother and me* that we had a limit of $5, or whatever it was. I am used to that mindset. The second-born, left to his own druthers, will order every appetizer on the menu and a main course, and then wonder why he cannot have dessert. The firstborn also seems to like more than one entree. When we go out for sushi, he orders a dragon roll and the macaroni and cheese (he seems not to grasp the concept of fusion cooking). Leaving the ordering of takeout to Jennifer removes me from having to keep the boys under control.
The dishwasher: I have video that I am not going to upload in which one can observe the dishwasher expanding for her. It is unbelievable. 'Nuff said.
The drainboard: I put away everything whose location I can immediately ascertain. Plates are easy. The whisk? I never know where it goes. We have so many of them. They are easy enough to wash that they are not worth the space-time continuum in the dishwasher. So they get washed, and then live on the drainboard.
The shoes: my shoes are exactly where they are supposed to be right now. One is on my left foot. The other is on my right. Jennifer moved the shoe rack to another spot. It is not convenient to get to it. We shoot for the convenient spot. On an aside, I had a funeral on Sunday and could not find my funeral boots.
And now for a serious note: all couples fight. It is important to know what the lines in the sand are. There really should be very, very few. When the marriage is healthy, the little things do not matter. They might even become the stuff of humorous blog entries. When little things start to matter, there is a problem. When fights start to increase, and happen over anything, there is a problem.
Have a good evening everyone.
R/SCG
*Not 'my brother and I.' When working with a direct object, an indirect object, or the object of a preposition, 'my brother and me' is correct. The easiest test of this is to remove the other person from the sentence. "They told me." Therefore, "they told my brother and me." Also, note here that in each of the cases, we are dealing with an object (direct, indirect, of preposition). As soon as we bring the object into the sentence, 'me' becomes correct. In fact, me, him, her, us, and them are all called object pronouns or objective pronouns.
Many of you have read Jennifer's recent blog post entitled "Weird Things Couples Fight About". It is wrong to undercut one's spouse in public; however, circumstances sometimes dictate a vociferous response.
Folding towels: I learned as a kid to fold towels in ninths (I think my mother liked Beethoven). At some point over our time together, Jennifer asked me to do it differently. I was happy to acquiesce. The problem is that I never remembered how she liked it. I know that she does not like ninths. So I do not do that anymore. Still, the thought of folding something to fit in a certain space is entirely lost on me. The space will fit anything that is crammed into it. I think that Jennifer is too sensitive to stuff falling out on her when she opens closets and cabinets.
Serving utensils: it is just the five of us. What is the problem??
Toilet paper: Jennifer probably changes it more than I do. I am very worried about squeezing the Charmin. It should be done though with the pull-down on the outside.
The toothpaste tube: the reflexive property of mathematics states that in all equations, a = a. The amount of toothpaste in the tube does not change, no matter where one squeezes it.
Movies: Jennifer is right. The closest I come to watching a movie is to ask which movie I would like to fall asleep watching.
Leftovers: sometimes, I do not like them. Still, it is wrong to waste food. I will often have them for lunch. It seems to me that the ~12 hours between dinner and packing lunch for the next day is more than enough time for Jennifer to stake out her territory. If it is still in the fridge when I come home for lunch, it is fair game. They are never a late-night snack. By the way, I took some of tonight's leftover kasha from dinner and packed it in a container for her lunch. I get serious good husband points for that.
Ordering take-out: when I was but a lad, my parents would take us out to dinner. They would tell my brother and me* that we had a limit of $5, or whatever it was. I am used to that mindset. The second-born, left to his own druthers, will order every appetizer on the menu and a main course, and then wonder why he cannot have dessert. The firstborn also seems to like more than one entree. When we go out for sushi, he orders a dragon roll and the macaroni and cheese (he seems not to grasp the concept of fusion cooking). Leaving the ordering of takeout to Jennifer removes me from having to keep the boys under control.
The dishwasher: I have video that I am not going to upload in which one can observe the dishwasher expanding for her. It is unbelievable. 'Nuff said.
The drainboard: I put away everything whose location I can immediately ascertain. Plates are easy. The whisk? I never know where it goes. We have so many of them. They are easy enough to wash that they are not worth the space-time continuum in the dishwasher. So they get washed, and then live on the drainboard.
The shoes: my shoes are exactly where they are supposed to be right now. One is on my left foot. The other is on my right. Jennifer moved the shoe rack to another spot. It is not convenient to get to it. We shoot for the convenient spot. On an aside, I had a funeral on Sunday and could not find my funeral boots.
And now for a serious note: all couples fight. It is important to know what the lines in the sand are. There really should be very, very few. When the marriage is healthy, the little things do not matter. They might even become the stuff of humorous blog entries. When little things start to matter, there is a problem. When fights start to increase, and happen over anything, there is a problem.
Have a good evening everyone.
R/SCG
*Not 'my brother and I.' When working with a direct object, an indirect object, or the object of a preposition, 'my brother and me' is correct. The easiest test of this is to remove the other person from the sentence. "They told me." Therefore, "they told my brother and me." Also, note here that in each of the cases, we are dealing with an object (direct, indirect, of preposition). As soon as we bring the object into the sentence, 'me' becomes correct. In fact, me, him, her, us, and them are all called object pronouns or objective pronouns.
Tuesday, November 11, 2014
Veterans Day and Remembrance Day
Top of the evening all....
In previous posts, I have mentioned the differences in the way we all understand November 11th. Armistice Day marks the end of World War I in Europe. Remembrance Day is geared toward those who fell in Canada's defense. Veterans' Day in the US is in honour of all those who have ever worn the uniform. It does not specifically acknowledge World War I because the United States did not sign the Treaty of Versailles.
The Gorman family has now been in Canada for close to a decade. In that time, we have had numerous occasions to see how Remembrance Day is noted in Canada. I sense that Canadians treat it with far more seriousness than the populace of the United States. It is not the beginning of some holiday season or another. It is not marked by sales. The nation attends ceremonies. The poppy becomes ubiquitous. You see them everywhere. It is authorized wear on the military uniforms, which we would never permit in the US.
That being said, I like the fact that there is a Veterans Day. Those of us who have stood ready to answer the nation's call all too often slip into the cracks. We came home. We went back to our lives.
Still, there is an old saying that a war is not over until the last veteran is dead. The effects of war stay with the vets and with their families for a long time. As the vets return to their lives, they carry the vision and the potential of what they experienced with them. They cannot 'un-see' what they saw. The effects of post-traumatic stress stay with them, and may rear their ugly head at any point. To have a day for veterans reminds us that we have obligations to the living. It reminds us that the veterans administrations in both the US and Canada are seriously flawed. It is our sacred debt both to those vets and to our national honour that we not forget our obligations to those who answer their country's call.
One other note: there is some confusion as to how to write Veterans Day. There is no apostrophe. It is merely the word in the plural. I like that far better than Veteran's Day, with 'veteran' as a singular noun. In many ways, I have more in common with soldiers in Canada than I do with civilians anywhere. The bond amongst those who have worn a uniform is tight. It forces the word to be rendered in the plural.
Have a good evening everyone.
R/SCG
In previous posts, I have mentioned the differences in the way we all understand November 11th. Armistice Day marks the end of World War I in Europe. Remembrance Day is geared toward those who fell in Canada's defense. Veterans' Day in the US is in honour of all those who have ever worn the uniform. It does not specifically acknowledge World War I because the United States did not sign the Treaty of Versailles.
The Gorman family has now been in Canada for close to a decade. In that time, we have had numerous occasions to see how Remembrance Day is noted in Canada. I sense that Canadians treat it with far more seriousness than the populace of the United States. It is not the beginning of some holiday season or another. It is not marked by sales. The nation attends ceremonies. The poppy becomes ubiquitous. You see them everywhere. It is authorized wear on the military uniforms, which we would never permit in the US.
That being said, I like the fact that there is a Veterans Day. Those of us who have stood ready to answer the nation's call all too often slip into the cracks. We came home. We went back to our lives.
Still, there is an old saying that a war is not over until the last veteran is dead. The effects of war stay with the vets and with their families for a long time. As the vets return to their lives, they carry the vision and the potential of what they experienced with them. They cannot 'un-see' what they saw. The effects of post-traumatic stress stay with them, and may rear their ugly head at any point. To have a day for veterans reminds us that we have obligations to the living. It reminds us that the veterans administrations in both the US and Canada are seriously flawed. It is our sacred debt both to those vets and to our national honour that we not forget our obligations to those who answer their country's call.
One other note: there is some confusion as to how to write Veterans Day. There is no apostrophe. It is merely the word in the plural. I like that far better than Veteran's Day, with 'veteran' as a singular noun. In many ways, I have more in common with soldiers in Canada than I do with civilians anywhere. The bond amongst those who have worn a uniform is tight. It forces the word to be rendered in the plural.
Have a good evening everyone.
R/SCG
Monday, October 27, 2014
Sermonic Response to Ottawa
Top of the evening to all.
You may remember that there was a terrorist attack in Boston about 18 months ago. I wrote a sermon in response to that event. After the attacks in Ottawa and in Quebec last week, I felt that I again needed to respond. The following sermon was delivered Shabbat Noach, October 25, 2014.
18 months ago, two bombs went off at the finish line of the Boston Marathon. Over the week afterwards, several of you offered me condolences as an American over an attack that took place in one of the venerated cities of my birth country, and in one of the venerated cities of that nation's birth.
I went back and read the sermon I wrote in response to that event. It was a good sermon. With a few changes to the words, I could easily give the same sermon today. That sermon spoke of my condolences to all of us, as we had yet again had the point driven home that the number of soft targets that we take for granted, synagogues, subways, the ACC, or any place at which people gather, might be a target. We had all been attacked that day.
The events of this week both in Quebec and in Ottawa are a grim reminder of this continuing reality. As I mentioned then, the mundane act of looking both ways when crossing the street involves more now than just checking for traffic. As well, with Canada's seat of government attacked, this nation is forced to consider the uncomfortable possibilities of increased security at its most proudly public places. As such, I return those condolences to all of you.
But I will also again accept condolences in this regard. I accept condolences though not as an American. I accept them as someone who shares a bond with all those who wear a uniform. It is a bond that crosses borders. I accept them as someone who, like you, has just been attacked. I accept them as someone who has just seen the reminder that the US and Canada have far more in common than not. I accept them as someone, like you, who has had to find the balance between security and individual rights, between a visible, accessible government with the doors of Parliament wide open so that we can all see what happens there, balanced against the need to protect those inside.
I again want to point out some of the good that happened. The first responders reacted well. They secured the locations, tended to the wounded, and protected their charges. Four total strangers stood over a mortally wounded Soldier to help him, and making sure that the final words he heard were of love. O' Canada was sung at a hockey game between the Flyers and the Penguins, teams not from this country. Yet again, good people outnumbered the bad.
Words of consolation are clearly in order. As such, I remember that we stand together, Canadians, Americans, British, Australians, and all of the other nations that had to adjust their security posture this week. We do not just stand together with resolve against the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, to take arms against a sea of troubles. We also stand together with the warmth of genuine friendship and concern not just for ourselves, but for each other. We stand together knowing that we can no longer walk placidly through the chaos, but also knowing that we do not walk through that chaos alone.
As the locals build the Tower of Babel, there is an old midrash that as the tower got higher and higher, there would be construction accidents. The builders would sit and cry when a brick fell, but would not pay heed when a person fell. We pay heed when our people fall. We feel when our people fall. We realize that what makes the soul of a community and the soul of a nation is not contained in its bricks, but in the values and beliefs of its people. We are those people. We care when one of our own falls.
Keep safe, everyone.
R/SCG
Tuesday, October 21, 2014
Jennifer's Favourite Mitzvah Redux...
Top of the evening everyone...
A few years back, I wrote an entry to this blog entitled Jennifer's Favourite Mitzvah. It was a posting about mikveh. I would, first and foremost, like to reiterate some of the points of that posting.
The mikveh attendants of any city should meet once a month. Each mikveh has its own practices and customs. Often there is a great deal of logic behind those practices that should be shared with the world.
I also mentioned that a mikveh should be a place of physical health as well as spiritual health. To that end, the dressing rooms should have instructions for a monthly exam, as well as phone numbers to shelters and crisis counsellors.
There is a certain etiquette to the mikveh. In general, the women who go are there for the same reason. It is the end of the monthly cycle. They are there to immerse. They will then go home and resume intimate relations with their spouses after having taken an 11-day hiatus. That is not discussed, obviously. When we were still living in New York, there were times that I would go with Jennifer. When that happened, I would wait across the street or across the parking lot. There was NEVER eye contact with the women who were going. Again, this was an intimate moment for them. It is not to be intruded upon, especially by a stranger, and especially by a male. I call it a secret sorority. Most men have not been privileged with the password.
I write this now due to the pending case of a prominent rabbi in the Washington DC area. Allegedly, he had rigged a camera in the mikveh area. He is being charged with voyeurism.
This is appalling. That he would (allegedly) violate both the intimate spiritual life and the intimate marital life of these women is a betrayal on a grand scale. Frankly, it is a violation not just of the mikveh at Kesher Israel, but at every mikveh throughout the world. Every woman now must enter the mikveh with the knowledge that if it can happen in DC, it can happen anywhere.
What to do? First and foremost, the communities should pronounce a herem on him if and when he is convicted. This is effectively a communal silent treatment. He is not to be allowed to daven anywhere. No one is allowed to do any sort of business with him.
Second, no one person should ever be allowed into the mikveh area alone. This means the rabbis. This means the women who go. Usually, there is an attendant in there with the women. This is normal.
Third, every mikveh board should have women on it. It is in and of itself ludicrous that this needs to be said. Women are the primary users. Men often do not fully understand the intimacy involved. It is the natural result of being wired differently.
I am at present wrestling with the fourth thing to do. I have said that men should likely go on a monthly basis. The rabbis of the Talmud teach us that the monthly observance of mikveh is to maintain a woman's enticing nature to her spouse. Men are also involved in that. We should also be enticing to our spouses.
There may be another level to consider men's attendance at the mikveh.
As healthy men, we have very few violations of our bodies. We do not have to endure yearly pap smears that accompany remarkably personal physical examinations. We have a brit milah, and then a digital exam when we become men of a certain age. I do not think that we will ever fully understand the physical and spiritual vulnerability of the mikveh without using it consistently. Perhaps if we can come to understand it, we menfolk might be more able to react to what has happened here. Please note here that I have read at least six different editorials on this incident today. Only one was written by a man.
Gentlemen: a violation of our spouses is also a violation of us. What happens to one spouse happens to the other.
On a separate note, both the Rabbinical Council of America and the rabbanut in Israel have decided that the conversions he has thus far overseen are valid. Out of respect to those people who have undergone conversion with him, that is the right decision. However, putting on tefillin, keeping kosher, and observing Shabbat are simply not sufficient. Henceforth, until the teshuvah is done, his kashrut is not to be trusted. His testimony before a beit din is not to be trusted. The failure to keep the national laws in my mind renders all of his Jewish practice suspect.
Have a good evening everyone.
R/SCG
P.S. The synagogue and the mikveh are separate organizations. I have looked at the synagogue's website. If you would like to see a superb example of how to respond to this correctly, go to www.kesher.org. I give them a great deal of credit.
A few years back, I wrote an entry to this blog entitled Jennifer's Favourite Mitzvah. It was a posting about mikveh. I would, first and foremost, like to reiterate some of the points of that posting.
The mikveh attendants of any city should meet once a month. Each mikveh has its own practices and customs. Often there is a great deal of logic behind those practices that should be shared with the world.
I also mentioned that a mikveh should be a place of physical health as well as spiritual health. To that end, the dressing rooms should have instructions for a monthly exam, as well as phone numbers to shelters and crisis counsellors.
There is a certain etiquette to the mikveh. In general, the women who go are there for the same reason. It is the end of the monthly cycle. They are there to immerse. They will then go home and resume intimate relations with their spouses after having taken an 11-day hiatus. That is not discussed, obviously. When we were still living in New York, there were times that I would go with Jennifer. When that happened, I would wait across the street or across the parking lot. There was NEVER eye contact with the women who were going. Again, this was an intimate moment for them. It is not to be intruded upon, especially by a stranger, and especially by a male. I call it a secret sorority. Most men have not been privileged with the password.
I write this now due to the pending case of a prominent rabbi in the Washington DC area. Allegedly, he had rigged a camera in the mikveh area. He is being charged with voyeurism.
This is appalling. That he would (allegedly) violate both the intimate spiritual life and the intimate marital life of these women is a betrayal on a grand scale. Frankly, it is a violation not just of the mikveh at Kesher Israel, but at every mikveh throughout the world. Every woman now must enter the mikveh with the knowledge that if it can happen in DC, it can happen anywhere.
What to do? First and foremost, the communities should pronounce a herem on him if and when he is convicted. This is effectively a communal silent treatment. He is not to be allowed to daven anywhere. No one is allowed to do any sort of business with him.
Second, no one person should ever be allowed into the mikveh area alone. This means the rabbis. This means the women who go. Usually, there is an attendant in there with the women. This is normal.
Third, every mikveh board should have women on it. It is in and of itself ludicrous that this needs to be said. Women are the primary users. Men often do not fully understand the intimacy involved. It is the natural result of being wired differently.
I am at present wrestling with the fourth thing to do. I have said that men should likely go on a monthly basis. The rabbis of the Talmud teach us that the monthly observance of mikveh is to maintain a woman's enticing nature to her spouse. Men are also involved in that. We should also be enticing to our spouses.
There may be another level to consider men's attendance at the mikveh.
As healthy men, we have very few violations of our bodies. We do not have to endure yearly pap smears that accompany remarkably personal physical examinations. We have a brit milah, and then a digital exam when we become men of a certain age. I do not think that we will ever fully understand the physical and spiritual vulnerability of the mikveh without using it consistently. Perhaps if we can come to understand it, we menfolk might be more able to react to what has happened here. Please note here that I have read at least six different editorials on this incident today. Only one was written by a man.
Gentlemen: a violation of our spouses is also a violation of us. What happens to one spouse happens to the other.
On a separate note, both the Rabbinical Council of America and the rabbanut in Israel have decided that the conversions he has thus far overseen are valid. Out of respect to those people who have undergone conversion with him, that is the right decision. However, putting on tefillin, keeping kosher, and observing Shabbat are simply not sufficient. Henceforth, until the teshuvah is done, his kashrut is not to be trusted. His testimony before a beit din is not to be trusted. The failure to keep the national laws in my mind renders all of his Jewish practice suspect.
Have a good evening everyone.
R/SCG
P.S. The synagogue and the mikveh are separate organizations. I have looked at the synagogue's website. If you would like to see a superb example of how to respond to this correctly, go to www.kesher.org. I give them a great deal of credit.
Saturday, October 11, 2014
Recent Discoveries in Paleontology...
Top of the evening all.
Recently, a new species of dinosaur was discovered. It was very interesting. There were fossils of empty eggs around it, but no real evidence of footprints other than its own. There was ample food supply in the area, but nothing was found in the dinosaur's belly. As well, it was clear that this species had been in some sort of tussle. It had scars on its bones, and one bone was in fact broken.
In the world of paleontology, if one discovers a new species, one gets to name it. This one is thus called 'OyhaveIgotsaurus.'
Have a good evening everyone.
R/SCG
Recently, a new species of dinosaur was discovered. It was very interesting. There were fossils of empty eggs around it, but no real evidence of footprints other than its own. There was ample food supply in the area, but nothing was found in the dinosaur's belly. As well, it was clear that this species had been in some sort of tussle. It had scars on its bones, and one bone was in fact broken.
In the world of paleontology, if one discovers a new species, one gets to name it. This one is thus called 'OyhaveIgotsaurus.'
Have a good evening everyone.
R/SCG
Sunday, September 21, 2014
You're Kidding, Right?
Top of the evening all...
News of the recent goings-on within the NFL has been all over every media out there. Said news has nothing to do with the scores and the standings.
Apparently, a player for the Ravens flattened his spouse (might have been girlfriend at the time). There is video. The player was appropriately fired from his team and suspended from the NFL. This is the right response, even though it should have happened months ago.
Several people have asked the appalling question: why does she not just leave? Let's analyze this question before answering it.
A parallel situation: a person walks into a store with a gun and robs the place. The storekeeper calls the police. The police come. They take a statement, and then go and look for the alleged perpetrator. The case goes to trial. The defense lawyer questions the storekeeper. Oddly enough, no one suggests to the storekeeper closing up shop and moving elsewhere. The Crown pursues the case as though the storekeeper is innocent. The reason for that is very simple: the storekeeper is innocent!
Now that we have analyzed our parallel situation, let us come back to the question at hand. Why does she not just leave? It is her home. She was attacked by someone who is supposed to keep her home safe. She should not have to leave. Why does he not just leave? He committed the assault. Asking the original question says that she, and she alone, is responsible for her own safety. She, and she alone, holds the keys to preventing such threats to her body. She must suffer the loss of her home after having been assaulted.
Furthermore, all of the statistics will tell us that the most dangerous time for an abused woman is when she leaves. With that in mind, let us rephrase the question: she has been assaulted. Why does she not increase the danger to life and limb by leaving?
A few other notes are in order. Physical abuse is usually only the tip of the iceberg. Prior to that, there is often sexual abuse, emotional abuse, psychological abuse, financial abuse, and social abuse. Leaving becomes far more difficult when one has already been so beaten down prior to the actual punch.
Furthermore, the question itself takes no other circumstances into consideration. A society that asks the question about her leaving is not exactly going to provide the support she needs when she finally does. Beyond that, where will she go? Leaving is easy. Going somewhere is not so easy. What happens with her children? She cannot leave them in a home where she is unsafe. Now the question becomes: where will they go? That question becomes even more acute as summer draws to a close. We had days last year when it was -18 C/0 F last year. It is remarkably easy to ask where someone will go when the weather is lovely. As of mid-February last year, Toronto had 19 days of extreme cold weather alerts. Baltimore, where this couple lives, had 26 days.
Folks, we need to ask the right questions on this. What are we doing to prevent this man from ever punching another person? What are we doing to protect those who have been abused? What are we doing to support those who have been abused as they come through the ordeal? These are better questions.
Have a good evening everyone.
R/SCG
News of the recent goings-on within the NFL has been all over every media out there. Said news has nothing to do with the scores and the standings.
Apparently, a player for the Ravens flattened his spouse (might have been girlfriend at the time). There is video. The player was appropriately fired from his team and suspended from the NFL. This is the right response, even though it should have happened months ago.
Several people have asked the appalling question: why does she not just leave? Let's analyze this question before answering it.
A parallel situation: a person walks into a store with a gun and robs the place. The storekeeper calls the police. The police come. They take a statement, and then go and look for the alleged perpetrator. The case goes to trial. The defense lawyer questions the storekeeper. Oddly enough, no one suggests to the storekeeper closing up shop and moving elsewhere. The Crown pursues the case as though the storekeeper is innocent. The reason for that is very simple: the storekeeper is innocent!
Now that we have analyzed our parallel situation, let us come back to the question at hand. Why does she not just leave? It is her home. She was attacked by someone who is supposed to keep her home safe. She should not have to leave. Why does he not just leave? He committed the assault. Asking the original question says that she, and she alone, is responsible for her own safety. She, and she alone, holds the keys to preventing such threats to her body. She must suffer the loss of her home after having been assaulted.
Furthermore, all of the statistics will tell us that the most dangerous time for an abused woman is when she leaves. With that in mind, let us rephrase the question: she has been assaulted. Why does she not increase the danger to life and limb by leaving?
A few other notes are in order. Physical abuse is usually only the tip of the iceberg. Prior to that, there is often sexual abuse, emotional abuse, psychological abuse, financial abuse, and social abuse. Leaving becomes far more difficult when one has already been so beaten down prior to the actual punch.
Furthermore, the question itself takes no other circumstances into consideration. A society that asks the question about her leaving is not exactly going to provide the support she needs when she finally does. Beyond that, where will she go? Leaving is easy. Going somewhere is not so easy. What happens with her children? She cannot leave them in a home where she is unsafe. Now the question becomes: where will they go? That question becomes even more acute as summer draws to a close. We had days last year when it was -18 C/0 F last year. It is remarkably easy to ask where someone will go when the weather is lovely. As of mid-February last year, Toronto had 19 days of extreme cold weather alerts. Baltimore, where this couple lives, had 26 days.
Folks, we need to ask the right questions on this. What are we doing to prevent this man from ever punching another person? What are we doing to protect those who have been abused? What are we doing to support those who have been abused as they come through the ordeal? These are better questions.
Have a good evening everyone.
R/SCG
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)