Cathy Wilson's Open Salon Blog

RHOBH: I'd say, 'Just hit me so we can get this over with.'

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 11:01:22 -0500

Reality TV shows are often nothing but a cesspool of one or all of the following: cat-fighting, bickering, hooking up, and has-been celebrities (or celebrities who have never made it above the C-list). The reputation that these shows have -- that it's just mindless entertainment -- is something I've often disputed, especially when it comes to shows like 16 and Pregnant, Teen Mom, and the Real Housewives series. I think this is especially true in tonight's Real Housewives of Beverly Hills reunion special (part one), during which Taylor Armstrong's abusive relationship with her late husband Russell was discussed in pretty candid detail.

Yes, these vivid descriptions of emotional and physical abuse -- coupled with the psychological trauma they cause -- were sandwiched between arguments about Lisa calling Adrienne's dog "Crackpot" instead of "Jackpot," and debates about who sells stories to tabloids. But what Taylor shared with the world provides an honest look at domestic violence that people need to know about -- it's not as simple as Russell yelling at her or hitting her, and then her leaving. It's a continuous cycle that is complicated; that pushes people away; that leaves people feeling empty and lost.

"I would often say, 'Just hit me so we can get this over with,'" Taylor told host Andy Cohen, concerning Russell's abuse. She explained that it gets to be routine, that it becomes easier not to fight the inevitable rather than make things worse. That she was at such a loss for how to stop the domestic violence, she invited cameras from BravoTV into her home in hopes that their watchful gaze would reduce Russell's violent behavior. Adrienne commented that she thinks the cameras saved Taylor's life -- I agree.

According to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, one-third of female homicide victims were killed by their partner. In 70 to 80 percent of intimate partner homicide cases, the man had a history of abusing the woman. There are 16,800 domestic partner homicides each year -- a number higher than the death rate of HIV, emphysema, or gun-related assaults that ended in death. Russell's rage was so uncontrollable that, according to Taylor's new memoir, he once told her that he was afraid he was going to kill her.

In the end, the cameras did put pressure on Russell to shape up, as he lamented Bravo's painting him as a villain during the show's first season. He blamed the show for slanderously ruining his life, career, and marriage, but more than anything I think he really blamed the show for putting a spotlight on his abusive ways and for publicizing his abusive actions -- something he most certainly wanted to keep private.

Her plan was an interesting twist that showcased both her privilege and vulnerability -- few women could end abuse by inviting cameras from a reality show inside their homes, yet her struggle was similar to any woman of any class who is dealing with domestic violence -- she was trapped in a state of financial insecurity, destroyed self-confidence, and constant fear.

"Some days I still wake up and think, 'Am I supposed to be doing this, am I supposed to be doing that?' because I'm used to someone being there and telling me what I can and can't do ... I'm able to make my own decisions now and it's hard," Taylor told Andy. Camille chimed in, citing ex-husband Kelsey Grammar's emotional abuse and controlling nature, and the complexity of this violence really reared its ugly head. You try to please that person, but nothing is good enough, and eventually your own self-image is tarnished by this abuser ingraining his own ideas in your head -- that you're dumb, worthless, and constantly disappointing.

And even more confusing to the ladies was Taylor's insistence that, after sharing with them details of Russell's abuse, they come to be friends with him. "I was very confused by it because one moment she's telling this story that's horrific to hear ... but on the other end she wants us to like him," Camille said. Lisa described one of the texts she saw from Russell to Taylor, in which Lisa said that "[Russell] called her an f-ing whore to start off with, he called her a piece of shit."

It's a tough road to walk -- in trying to piece together her marriage, Taylor really couldn't undo the months and maybe years of confiding she had done, telling her friends about Russell's violence. She might've thought things would be better if Russell felt more welcome around her friends, that maybe even being around her friends more and at more social events could help reduce the violence -- no one knows but Taylor. Some of the women took this as evidence of Taylor's dishonesty, but really it speaks to her really hoping that starting from scratch would provide a different outcome -- that her friends and Russell getting along would ease tension and change the abuse. But it was merely trying to put a band-aid in the wrong place, not an attempt to deceive her friends. Perhaps in convincing her friends it wasn't that bad, she was hoping to suppress the abuse in her own mind, too.

Something Taylor said at the beginning of the episode was very telling: Russell was extremely narcissistic, often telling Taylor how much everyone loved him. This self-importance and ego perhaps drove him to react violently when questioned, to demand control over every aspect of Taylor's life, to think that Bravo was the reason that his life was tumbling down -- not able to see the wrong in his own actions or take any responsibility for them. When it comes to dating, this extreme narcissism is a definite red flag.

And so I've been writing about domestic violence for paragraphs and paragraphs, and I know it might not be as scintillating as the gossip about Adrienne's chef, Bernie, dissing Lisa. But it's important that this show, the epitome of glitz and glamour, not shy away from these real life problems that people of all classes face. What am amazing, public platform for raising awareness about domestic violence -- its complexity, its heartache, its tragedy.

I don't care if people are attracted by the drama of it all -- I just hope they leave the reunion special with more education on the topic. Yes, it's ridiculous that one of the housewives' friends owns a pair of $25,000 sunglasses -- but it's also ridiculous that so many women are assaulted and murdered each year by their partners. And I'm glad this realty show is at least introducing this conversation into the world.

Teen Mom 2: Coal mining, child support, and self-doubt

Fri, 20 Jan 2012 11:01:42 -0500

Where to begin this week with Teen Mom -- coal mining? Child support? Jenelle's ability to somehow convince everyone in her life that her often delusional perspective makes total sense? Let's take these topics on, inverted pyramid-style.

Teen pregnancy, class, and coal mining

I never thought I'd see the day when two of the topics that really interest me -- teen pregnancy and coal mining -- would intersect, but this episode made subtle mention of them. Leah briefly mentions that her husband, Corey, is taking a coal mining certification test. Later, Corey makes a quick remark about spending his days working in a coal mine.

Leah and Corey live in Elkview, West Virginia, a city surrounded by coal mines that sit just an hour and a half from Raleigh, West Virginia, where the Upper Big Branch mine disaster killed 29 coal miners in 2010. When mining companies are lax about following -- or in some cases blatantly ignore -- safety regulations because they want to maximize profit, coal miners are put in extreme danger.

The job already puts coal miners at increased risk for health problems such as black lung, not to mention the higher rates of heart, lung, and kidney disease found in those who live in mining communities.

I wonder how much of Corey's decision was based on his own socioeconomic standing. The Charleston area's unemployment rate has steadily been decreasing, dropping from 7.6 percent in June 2011 to 6.4 percent in November 2011, but Corey is also limited in his job search because he has a high school education and needs a full-time, decent-paying job because he has a family to support -- and coal mining jobs have an average starting salary of $60,000 per year. That's quite a luring paycheck for someone with a family and no college education.

With 17.8 percent of West Virginians living below the poverty level -- higher than the national average of 14.3 percent -- residents are already at a disadvantage class-wise. The percentage of people with a high school diploma is 3 percent below the national average, with the percentage of people with a bachelor's degree 10.4 percent lower than the national average. Born into this socioeconomic scenario, teens like Corey and Leah would have to work harder than many to move above these statistics. Add two children into the mix, and Corey likely sees coal mining as one of his only options -- which is an unfortunate predicament considering how dangerous it is.

It's this cycle that keeps low-income people in coal mines, putting their health and safety at higher risk than higher income people who can afford a college education that won't leave them in the coal mines (they'll have equally or more lucrative career options with less danger to their health and safety). I know Leah gets some type of compensation for the show, so I'd be interested to know how that all works and to hear his motivation for choosing this job.

Jo and child support

This argument is a he-said, she-said battle. Kailyn says that Jo isn't around when Isaac visits him, and that Jo wants to split Isaac's expenses right down the middle -- something she thinks is unfair given their unequal incomes and the fact that Jo still lives at home with his parents. Jo thinks that Kailyn is trying to get Jo to support her -- claiming that she wants to live off him and the government, refusing to get a better job because she wants to work with her boyfriend.

I'm not sure what the arrangement was, but Kailyn isn't in the wrong to formally ask for child support. They've had trouble in the past coming to verbal agreements when it comes to custody and had to go to court for that, and Kailyn seems to be struggling even with nonprofit assistance with her housing. Jo isn't supporting Kailyn, but providing her with money to feed, clothe, shelter, and provide for Isaac -- costs they should be splitting down the middle anyway.

And does anyone else take issue with Jo just devolving to call Kailyn a bitch whenever he isn't getting his way? She's a bitch, a piece of shit, etc., always being called these things in front of their son -- it just makes me cringe.

Jenelle's running mouth

As an aside, does anyone else notice that Jenelle speaks so assuredly that everyone around her just nods their head, agreeing that her logic makes sense, when really she is just spouting bullshit? I think I've heard her say that she needs to "get established" and "establish herself" about 974 times ever since her episode of 16 and Pregnant, and I still have no idea what it means.

It's very peculiar, literally watching someone deceive themselves on camera -- watching a teenager talk pretty maturely as if she knows everything about the world but then lives as that immature, still-learning young person who only seems like she actually knows what she's talking about. Having the knowledge -- yes, I need to go to school and get a job and stay away from my deadbeat boyfriend -- to create a formula for success, but completely not listening to her own advice.

I think I find it fascinating because I have a tendency to try and find assurance in my own decisions by talking to other people, explaining my thought process and the reasons why I did something in an effort to really convince myself -- rather than them -- that my decisions were the right ones. I think people especially do this when they know deep down they're making poor decisions, but they want to display a confident exterior so people won't question or challenge these poor decisions.

Santorum: Life-saving abortion not OK (unless it's my wife)

Mon, 9 Jan 2012 11:01:31 -0500

I've been a bit zoned out of this race for the Republican presidential nomination, but I've known one thing for a very long time: I don't like Rick Santorum.

He's sexist (thinks women should stay at home and not work; he wants to eliminate federal funding for contraception; and don't worry, his stance on abortion is the meat of this blog post); he's racist (saying just last week in Iowa that he doesn't want to "make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money"; he also said last year that Obama should be anti-abortion because he's black, which could be taken in several racism-driven directions); and he's homophobic (he wants the tax code to reward traditional, heterosexual married couples; he's compared homosexuality to loving your mother-in-law, incest, adultery, polygamy, and bigamy).

Keeping with his tendency to spout complete bullshit out of his mouth that makes no sense at all, it's impossible to ignore his stance on abortion. That it should be banned even in cases of rape and incest; that he thinks exceptions to save the life of the mother are bogus; and even that abortion is to blame for Social Security problems.

Which is why I find it so interesting that his own wife suffered pregnancy complications that threatened her own life, leading to the induced delivery of a fetus that was not, and would have never been, viable. There is debate on whether this was an abortion (his wife went into early labor, and doctors induced further rather than trying to stop the labor), but I agree with Jezebel's Erin Gloria Ryan on this: The real problem here is extremists who outright condemn something like, say, taking any medical steps to save the life of the mother if those will harm the fetus -- that is, until that fetus is harming someone who they care about.

Because really, it's easy to stand at a podium and say abortion is murder, but it's more complicated than that. Many abortions, especially late-term abortions, are because of medical complications that threaten the mother's life and/or make the fetus inviable. Karen Santorum's fetus was actually becoming an infection that would inevitably become fatal, so how would letting her die be some heroic move? How are all-out abortion bans anything but a manifestation of stubbornness, an unwillingness to admit that, yes, unfortunately, the body can naturally struggle with a pregnancy? Things go wrong, and the priority should be ensuring that the mother doesn't die in the process.

But it's different when suddenly it's not some un-wed teenage mother trying to get an abortion -- suddenly, it's your sister; your wife; your friend; suddenly, politicians are faced with the shocking fact that pregnancies with complications can happen to them, and that women -- who have only been seen as baby incubators in campaign speeches -- actually have names, faces, families, and futures. That life-saving procedures aren't just "tactics" to foil abortion bans, but they are "tactics" to save lives.

I think that's about the end of my rant -- anti-abortion politicians aren't my cup of tea, but those who want all-out abortion bans, even when the mother's life is in danger, really baffle me. But I think when actually faced with a situation where these politicians' relatives and loved ones were the women who might die without medical intervention -- which would subsequently end the pregnancy -- they wouldn't be singing the same tune.

As Ryan said it best, this is called "hypocrisy," so I'll add yet another thing to list of reasons why I don't like Rick Santorum: He's a hypocrite.

Teen Mom: Maturity = talking about sex, not just having it

Wed, 28 Dec 2011 00:12:16 -0500

New Year's resolution: Start blogging again! It's not January yet, but I did just watch an episode of Teen Mom 2 that caught my attention. Nothing like getting a head-start on my resolution!

So, this week Kailyn decided to get an IUD, an intrauterine device, which is T-shaped and can stay in the uterus for as long as five years. It works to prevent egg fertilization, and it's something Kailyn decided to try because she had trouble remembering to take her pill every day. Though she is using protection when having sex with her boyfriend, Jordan, she makes the decision to further prevent any possibility of pregnancy with the Mirena IUD.

What gets me is that Jordan was extremely squeamish when Kailyn told him about the IUD. She admitted beforehand that they never really talk about sex -- they just have sex -- and her prediction that Jordan would be awkward was right. She wanted to let him know about her decision, and he looked uncomfortable, remarked that it was embarrassing, and later apologized for his awkward reaction.

My theory is that if you're mature enough to have sex, then you need to be mature enough to talk about it. Talking about sex can be awkward, especially when you haven't brought up the topic with a partner before. But this lack of communication has a significant affect on the lack of contraceptive use, whether it's people feeling awkward about mentioning using protection during the act or one partner assuming the other has the birth control covered without any verbal confirmation.

So you have to weigh -- is this awkward moment more difficult to deal with than an unplanned pregnancy? And if you're afraid of what your partner will say, is that a red flag regarding your relationship? If you take contraception seriously but you're afraid your partner won't agree to use any, is that really something to compromise about? But all these questions assume a certain outcome -- you won't actually know your partner's response until you talk about it.

According to one study, kids whose parents talked to them about sex as a teenager were more likely to delay sex and practice safe sex than kids whose parents did not talk to them about sex. And it's important to start those conversations early, for the air of shame and humiliation to be taken away from sex -- because yeah, it's awkward as a parent to talk to your kid about sex. But if you set the example that talking about sex is taboo, then an unhealthy cycle of silence begins -- then young people think it's unacceptable to talk about sex, and they feel uneasy about voicing concerns and asking questions.

It's obvious I haven't blogged in a while, as I'm just being long-winded here for the sake of hearing myself type. Anyway, it was an interesting scene -- two adults who have no qualms about having sex with each other, having difficulty actually talking about something they do regularly. This communication problem is something adults of all ages experience, and addressing it begins with removing the stigma about admitting out loud that, yes, you're having sex and there's nothing to be ashamed about.

What do shoes, Frappuccino and birth control have in common?

Fri, 5 Aug 2011 15:08:27 -0400

That unlike many women in this country, Fox News commentator Dana Perino can afford all three, or at least that's what I infer from this tidbit:

Now, I might be for [free birth control], if I didn't see a lot of people out there able to buy a new pair of shoes. I mean, we have to be able to make some choices here ... How are we going to define poor? Because who is not in that category now who can't get free birth control anyway? ... If you can afford a $5 Frappuccino at Starbucks, look, you can pay your $5 co-pay.

Where oh where to begin? I guess I'll just make a list:

Sometimes people need new shoes? Is Dana Perino's definition of poor that you need to be walking around barefoot and unable to afford a pair of shoes, and then she'll consider that you need free birth control? People just don't look poor enough to her yet. Maybe she means that she sees a lot of people buying shoes, and knows they are buying Louboutins instead of a Nuva Ring? Maybe the "lot of people" you see buying shoes aren't the same ones who can't afford birth control. Just a thought.
We do have to be able to make some choices! Like the choice not to get pregnant! But it's unfortunate when things like income don't cover or just barely cover bills, basic necessities, etc. That often takes away women's financial ability to afford birth control, which takes away her choice to prevent unplanned pregnancies. I know, I know, maybe she just shouldn't have sex. Shouldn't a woman have the choice to engage in intercourse though? How about with her husband? I guess this point is moot if you think sex is only for procreation, as you probably wouldn't want women to have the choice to have sex for pleasure at all.
You know, free birth control currently doesn't just fall from the sky. When you try to take away government funding for family-planning clinics like Planned Parenthood or shut down family-planning clinics by re-regulating them as hospitals, you are attacking the very institutions that give out that free birth control. So yeah, thanks for suggesting women already have places to go for free birth control while simultaneously trying to shut those places down. That makes a lot of sense.
You know, this "you aren't poor unless you can't afford to put shoes on your feet" definition for low-income is a bit ridiculous. There are plenty of people who live paycheck-to-paycheck, and birth control isn't "free" for them using a sliding scale like Planned Parenthood does when deciding how much patients will owe for birth control. There are a lot of women who fall into this "I make too much money to qualify for free birth control," but "I don't make enough money to afford expensive co-pays" category.

Also, being poor doesn't mean that free birth control magically appears on your doorstep. Being eligible to "get" it and actually having the means to "get" it are different. You have to travel to get it. Sometimes, you have to travel really far to get it, because there are only one or two places in your entire state where you can get free birth control. That takes time, a mode of transportation, and the money to use that transportation. I guess you could walk a few hundred miles to get there, just don't let Dana catch you buying new shoes for the journey.
Does everyone really think birth control only costs $5? Some generic, really popular forms do, but not all birth controls are made alike. Women react differently to different kinds, health histories would steer your doctor away from prescribing you certain kinds, and they can cost $50 or more per co-pay. That's a lot of foregone Frappuccinos.

Not all forms are taken orally, either. Nuva Rings and IUDs are very effective, but Nuva Rings cost $50 or more each month, and an IUD is an upfront cost of $175 to $500. Now if I just stop drinking my daily frappuccino before work, I can afford an IUD in ... five months. Oh, that's assuming I have enough money to enjoy an expensive drink at Starbucks everyday, but really, who doesn't?

And she wasn't the only one with something to say about birth control. Also on the panel was Andrea Tantaros:

Most poor people can [afford birth control], it's already provided. Why should taxpayers have to fund breast pumps, birth control -- look, women should be responsible for their own ovaries. That is the bottom line.

I think we already covered that not everyone has access to and/or should be taking the free or relatively cheap kinds of birth control. Taxpayers should fund it because birth control for all women serves a greater community purpose. Fewer unplanned pregnancies, less strain on government assistance, less people needing to forego an education to take care of a child -- all good things.

But I'm so glad to see Andrea talking about women being responsible for their own ovaries! Women should be responsible for their own ovaries, in fact, their entire uterus and all those other reproductive organs, too. Which is why they want to take birth control, but there are financial barriers that make it difficult to do consistently or at all. So this removal of co-pay only facilitates responsibility!

All this talk about women having choices and how their ovaries are their own responsibility makes for great pro-choice arguments! Thanks for the talking points, ladies!

(Thanks to Ms. for originally blogging about this.)