The Search for Laura Gainey

By now you'll all have heard of the weekend long search for LAURA GAINEY, who was swept overboard by a "rogue wave" in high seas off the coast of Cape Cod Saturday night. She was sailing on the PICTON CASTLE, a tall ship - a clipper ship - down to the Caribbean for the Christmas holidays, with a full crew. She wasn't wearing a life jacket, nor was she lashed to any of the masts during the gale, which would seem to be the first of common sense safety measures in a harsh sea storm. Tall ships, like cruise ships, can't turn on a dime and return to pick up a "man overboard". The crew heard her scream for help as she went overboard, and immediately threw life jackets, life preservers, and markers into the sea.

We used to own a small 22' Tanzer sailboat. We both took sailing lessons, although mine consisted of a day long seminar so that I knew enough to tack back and forth and steer it so that I wouldn't perish on our open lake back home in Ontario. Even with such a small sail boat, it's impossible to turn around quickly to save anyone who's gone overboard. We worried so much about our children that we ended up getting babysitters when we went sailing, as we couldn't afford another $1000.00 for a back railing, and the kids didn't enjoy the heeling of the boat anyway. To go back to get someone who's fallen overboard, a sailboat would have to tack back and forth about four times to "come around", IF the winds were good, and I'd imagine it would take a good half hour to an hour for the person to be treading water to get rescued. If they were lucky, another boat would get to them faster. When I took rescue swimming in police college, we had to swim 2 miles in a front crawl, and tread water for 15 minutes. I remember how exhausting it was.

I can't help but think that Laura Gainey has died doing what she loved. Why her Captain didn't follow obvious safety measures is a question that someone will no doubt investigate. In a news report this morning he was asked "why" none of them were wearing life jackets in the middle of the storm. He answered, "well, the railings are tall enough that no one usually goes over." Oh really?I don't think "usually" is going to satisfy a grieving Mr. Gainey and his other three children, who've already lost a wife and mother to brain cancer. I know that if I were Mr. Gainey, I'd be suing that Captain and his boat company with the help of a good lawyer. Merry Christmas to you, sir!

FEMINISM AND THE '20-somthings

I did blog about Kathy Reich's book CROSS BONES, but it seems to have been lost in the ether, so I'm sorry to have been so long between posts. Summer, with it's blue-bowled skies over the prairies has been a siren call to us, whenever the heat hasn't been 33 degrees. Then the kids and I stay in with movies and the window air conditioner blowing full blast. I just dropped off our golden retriever to get shaved down so she doesn't suffer so much in the heat.

I read a very good article in CHATELAINE magazine by a 22yr old university student about being a feminist, how it affects her girlfriends ("I'm not a feminist but..."), and how she was smart enough to dump a loutish boyfriend who guffawed at her and her friends discussing "women's studies" as the best class they took that semester. He batted her on the behind, called her "wench" and told her to go get him a beer. At least the girl has a sense of self-esteem, never mind being a feminist.

So, why do so many women of all ages, go around saying "I'm not a feminist but..."? She's right; we didn't even get the vote till after the First WW, weren't recognized as persons till (I think - this wasn't in her article) sometime in the Depression, still weren't making a living wage even when we all went to work in factories in the Second WW, weren't on TV as anchors till Diane Sawyer and that's within my living memory when I went to college hoping to break into television in 1977 - told I wasn't good looking enough because I wore glasses - that was Greek for I wouldn't sleep with the Producer who was interviewing, I kid you not, it was 1977 after all and before sexual harrassment was a big thing. When I finally got "a job in TV" I was hired in the Film Department for $7500.00 per year and basically ran the department AND the Newsrooms cameraman/reporter schedule - when I left two years later after complaining of sexual harrassment I was making $8300.00 and got one months wages as a severance. Because this idiot wouldn't leave me alone.

I'd say feminism has brought us a long, long, way from suffragettes, and 1997. If I had a boss who tried that with me now, I'd end up with a nice, fat, settlement. I knew an OPP cop who did, and she went back to work until she got pregnant, took her maternity leave, came back just long enough to rack up the time to get pregnant again, took her maternity leave, and then got out. She told me, "All the joy of police work was lost once he did that too me, and I had to fight so hard for my settlement. So, I just used the system to my advantage. If they didn't like it that I got desk duty for all that time, too bad."

Aside from my basic interest in police work, I swore I'd never earn $8300.00 a year again. I did government work that took me up to $23,000.00 a year but I hit a ceiling when I wasn't bilingual, which in Canada means you have to be French and speak passable English. If you're English and can speak passable French, fuggadaboutit. My sisters were married and had a bright future with double incomes and I wanted a bright future too. Feminism got me that, in an environment where they had to pay me the exact same wages for the exact same job, much as the other cops might not like it.

And it's the "old pioneers" like me and Diane Sawyer who paved the way for the proliferation of female news reporters/anchorwomen on TV, and the 50 policewomen back on my hometown force, when I was the only one in 1984/85 till they hired a second one.

Bravo for that 22 yrs old girl who already knows that a political mind-set, ambition, and willpower will take you a long way in life. Self-actualization is a goal to be reached and some of us never get there. Feminism isn't a bad thing - it doesn't make you a bra-burning, card-carrying lesbian. (unless you already are one, and then, that's ok). It means you're a woman who can take care of herself, believes in herself, can protect herself from scavengers and predators of the male species, and contributes all that's beautiful about being a woman to the world around her.

And doesn't that sound like the heroines we're all trying to write about?

NOBODY TO BLAME

Bailey Stewart left an interesting comment about my last post. She mentioned a father on an Oprah show, who blamed a Spike Lee movie that his 16 yr old kept watching, for the crime this kid committed. Now, who was letting his son watch the Spike Lee movie, in his house? He was, that's who. Of course, Bailey and Sandra are both right about their comments that in our society these days, most people don't take responsibility for their actions. I was merely pointing out the reasons criminals don't take responsibility and where their mind-set is coming from re their actions.

In the two generations since the two WW's, we all know that social mores and attitudes have changed dramatically. The baby boomers were raised by parents who knew the horrors of war, of doing "without", and were only too happy to live in a better world and give everything they could to their children. Then *that* generation gave everything they could to my generation. We are now raising up this generation of youngsters that we complain about the most - no one is responsible for anything and we blame everyone but ourselves.

I'm going to suggest that we can blame two sets of people for this problem (and I'll be ducking tomatoes here, I know it!). First, we can blame ourselves as parents, and second, we can blame lawyers/judges. Whoohoo! There goes the first tomatoe whizzing by now! Parents and lawyers/judges??? What two sub-sets could be more different?

Let's start with the lawyers/judges first. Judges interpret our laws, and lawyers bring ridiculous lawsuits to court. Such as one that happened a few years ago in my home province, where a woman got completely intoxicated at her company Christmas party, had an acccident while driving drunk, and then suied her employer for letting her get that intoxicated. Did her bosses throw that booze down her throat? Of course not. But, she was no disabled and unable to work, so that judge decided her former employer could cough up a chunk of money to take care of her, rather than the government having to take care of her for the rest of her life. No personal responsibility - like having disability insurance, or being smart enough to call a cab, or just not get drunk in the first place.

Judges will make these kinds of rulings against tobacco companies, drug companies, or McDonalds because they will have to pick up the tab, not the government. Lawyers love making money from these kinds of lawsuits. It's at least three years of mortgage payments for them.

Now, parents. (there goes another tomatoe! no I mean really, my DH just came home and found another scratch on the truck, which apparently is my fault). Parents have a four year window with their kids to try and build a foundation of self-esteem, self-sufficiency, a conscientious, and values such as kindness, tolerance, integrity, truth-telling, etc. And I mean this starts from about birth to just around their 5th birthday. After the age of 5 going into kindergarten, they're pretty well set as to what they're going to be like as an adult. Any kindergarten teacher can tell you what kind of parenting a child has had.

When I was Executive Director of a Crisis Shelter for street youth, I really got my eyes opened as to the kind of parenting these kids had and why they were on the street in the first place. The common adage I fought constently in the media was "they could go home if they wanted to - they're welfare bums - they should get a job". The truth was, they had parents who shouldn't have owned a dog, never mind have had a child. These kids were more handicapped then most "special needs" kids I already knew; they were mentally/emotionally crippled, had already been into crime and substance abuse, and were usually so socially damaged it would take years of therapy to get them working again - therapy they weren't going to get.

And there are normal-everyday-parents out there, working, trying-hard parents, who miss that 4 yr window, or parts of it, without meaning to. Somehow their kids miss parts of the wholeness that makes up the total package of a functioning; person who takes responsibility for themselves and their fellow human beings and contributes meaningfully to society. And if these parents have been raised permissively themselves, they'll pass that on to their kids. They take away consequences and don't discipline their kids because it's too much work. So all of a sudden, they have a 16 or 17 yr. old who doesn't listen to them (because they've never had to before), or do anything around the house (because they weren't required to before), and the parents go ballistic. It's like the parents suddenly wake up from some daydream they've been in for the past 15 or 16 yrs and now try to make the kid into something he or she isn't, and fail misterably. So, the tensions mount and the family will break apart.

If you've never taught little Johnny to clean his room at 5, he won't do it when he's 15. Ditto his laundry, washing the car, doing the dishes, or vacuuming. If he's never done chores for an allowance, he won't be motivated to find work for extra money, he'll be hanging out at the mall. If your home was "child-free" all through elementary school to keep it "clutter-free" because you were too tired after work - it'll be "teen-free" now and you'll never know who he's hanging out with.

Parents who let their kid watch Spike Lee movies and then blame their 16 yr old kid's crimes on them, have no one to blame but themselves. It would be nice if the judge would take the kid's pre-court evaluation report into consideration and put some onus on that dad to be part of the reparation for whatever the crime was, because dad was part of the responsibility too. Spike Lee movies are restricted, so technically the kid shouldn't have been watching it, am I right? And, as I said in my last post, watching these things repeatedly is what brings out the need to duplicate something in realitiy to goes beyond the fantasy. So, kid and dad are both to blame.

These are just my opinions on child-rearing from what I saw at the crisis center and on cases I saw in court. Any psychologist will tell you children are highly impressionable and any interaction you have with a young child will leave marks on him/her for good or ill. Something else to think about when we're writing our characters. Not to mention those powerful or dorky lawyers and judges.

POLITICS OF GRATUITOUS VIOLENCE

Sandra Ruttan is one of the Killer Year Debut Authors over at Killer Blog (see link right), and on June 28th she wrote an insightful post called "There's so much comedy on television. Does that cause comedy on the streets?" It's about a writer's responsibility regarding gratuitous violence in his/her books, in a society that blames video games, movies, and our upbringing for the violent acts individuals commit against each other. You really should pop over there and read it in it's entirety - it's food for thought.

As I had too much to say in the Comments Section, I thought I'd post my own thoughts on my Blog.

In a previous career incarnation I was a municipal police officer - one of the reasons I love the above TV shows, and why I love to write suspense and hopefully, thriller fiction. I've seen alot of things that most people just research, or think up. In fact, I had a hard time convincing an editor that I hadn't gotten the idea for a certain book from reading "another book", because it was so realistic...she didn't buy my book "because it's too much the same." I bought the other book, and it was nothing like mine, but convincing her I had the real dope on being a cop was impossible. Sometimes truth really is stranger than fiction. But, as they say, I digress.

Re the idea that people watching violent video games, television, and movies will cause copy cat violent acts. This has been proven in countless studies, and countless courtrooms. Why? Because people (predominantly males 18-24) who have mental problems will watch these addictive items over and over and over again, inciting their fantasy until it becomes real to them. Then the rush it gives them isn't enough and the next thing is to *live out* their fantasy. Video games are especially a problem, which is why several of them, eg. "Grand Theft Auto", (I believe) have been revamped and restricted. An entire new rating system was devised after several copy-cat crimes happened in the States from several high-profile video games of this type.

A prominent movie that had copy-catted crimes in the States was "Natural Born Hero". Does this mean that everybody who sees these movies or plays these games will go out and steal cars and kill people? Of course not - but there are marginalized sociopaths, who will copy something that clicks with them and grabs them as the perfect fantasy. And they don't have to be individuals - there are gangs of kids who find them attractive to play out as role games.

Sandra suggests that everyone blames everyone in society but themselves for their actions - as an ex-cop I can say that that is definitely true. It's part of the criminal mentality that they are victims of the "system"; whether foster homes, criminal justice, family, school, etc. Sociopaths have no concenscious anyway, so they aren't to blame for anything. Sandra is being a bit simplistic here in forgetting who commits crimes out there. It isn't the soccer mom down the street, or the husband who had one too many after work. (although in the right circumstances they can be held up in the criminal justice system). Criminals tend to be lifers: they learn it early, it's a lifestyle, they're not that smart, and they DO blame everyone but themselves.

Sandra's final question was whether anyone had "felt compelled to stop reading a book, stop watching a movie, or change a scene you wrote because you felt it was gratuitous and irresponsible?"

I liked this question. It's great food for discussion - again, do books promote acts of violence the way the above media do? I say no. Most criminals aren't stimulated by the written word the way they are visually. Her earlier question about our responsibility for writing in such a way as to not promote copy-cat killings of vicious murders can be summed up by that answer, I think.

Have I felt compelled to stop reading a book due to it being gratuitous and irresponsible? YES. It was a Beatrice Small historical. I had no idea of how "hot" her medievals were and was completely disappointed in her one and only novel I picked up at a used book store. I didn't get past the second chapter and pitched it. The blurb promised so much, but the sex was so gratuitous...

Have I felt compelled to walk out of a movie? Hmmm......Deep Throat which was shown as part of a Pyschology class back in college in the '70's. You can imagine how much shunning I took for that act. By now, you likely think I'm one uptight Lizzie, but I have an erotica author on my right hand links - Robie Madison - so I'm not that bad! But gratuitous, and plain awful? Yep! And I didn't see how it had anything to do with Pyschology either, except that the prof wanted an excuse to see it himself.

Change a scene I wrote? I did once - it was a rape scene that I decided was too graphic after my sister read it. I figured if she was uncomfortable with it, most people would be too, and what was the point in that - there were better ways of getting my character's suffering across. The final scene worked much better and I learned something - subtlety is far superior to high detail when giving a character's POV in most cases.

When I was a cop I saw some pretty graphic things, even though I was in a small city. I don't think there's anything to be gained by crime writers glorifying the psychopathic horrors visited upon victims of some child murders, sex crimes, or murder/suicides. Most people can get the broad strokes of the thing with plain good writing. Do we have a responsibility not to glorify violence for violence's sake? Yes, I believe we do.

For the sake of the victims of crime out there, who may pick up our book at the airport thinking that it's about some other theme and then realizing it's about a kidnapped teen whose body parts are scattered along a highway. For the rape victim who buys your book not realizing that the heroine gets stalked before the hero Lt. McGregor tracks him down in LA. For the sake of all the parents who have kidnapped children, had their home/business hit by arson, got mugged, or car-jacked. Because for every scenario we come up with, it's happened in some way to somebody out there in the public arena. Maybe they're not going to be reading suspense or thrillers because of what happened to them....but while we do have a responsibility to build suspense for our readers and give them the best story possible, I don't believe we have the right to glorify the horror of what has happened to real life victims.

See why I couldn't fit all this in Sandra's Comments Section? :)