Wednesday, July 2, 2014

Do you remember Alice Paul?

I've been working on some research on the early twentieth century for a story I'm writing, and while reading up on community property laws, I came across a notation about the Nineteenth Amendment. In case this historical reference has faded in your memory along with the words to the Gilligan's Island theme song, this is the amendment that prohibits restricting voting rights based on gender. The Nineteenth Amendment gave women the right to vote in 1920, by the way, fifty years after all males had been legally granted that privilege. An hour after reading about the struggles of Alice Paul and other women's suffrage leaders, I saw a news clip speculating about Hillary Clinton's probable presidential campaign, and the two items started me thinking. How is it women are still so poorly represented in congress? After the 2012 election, we had seventeen female senators, one of the largest numbers in history, but nowhere near equal. After 100 years (almost) of having the vote, we still don't elect ourselves equal representation. I mean, doesn't it make sense to have the feminine viewpoint represented more strongly in government? Do we women really believe men know better about every issue? Let's face it, when a United States senator refers to women as a "host" to a fetus, or a congressman states women can prevent pregnancy during rape, you have to conclude a female opinion might be needed here and there. Worst of all is how we women do this to ourselves. According to Phyllis Chesler, Ph.D, who wrote Woman's Inhumanity to Woman, we women are sexists. We hold our fellow women to a higher standard, expecting them to dress a certain way, balance their personal and public lives, to be neither too masculine nor too feminine, and on and on. We're half the population. We work and pay taxes. We have good brains. We have our rights, and we ought to use them more effectively. That's my opinion anyway, but then what do I know? I'm only a woman, right?

Wednesday, May 28, 2014

Too much news?

For the last few days I've been tracking down information on an old crime – a tragedy comparable to the familicides we hear of all too often these days. The story of what happened afterwards is unusual enough that I want to use it as the basis of a novel. As I was researching events from seventy years ago, I heard about the California shooting which took the lives of Santa Barbara college students. Because we hear about these sad affairs so often, I wondered about the frequency mass killings. An article in December, 2012 in the "Daily News" reported the following:
       Grant Duwe, a criminologist with the Minnesota Department of Corrections who has written       a history of mass murders in America, said that while mass shootings rose between the 1960s       and the 1990s, they actually dropped in the 2000s. And mass killings actually reached their       peak in 1929, according to his data. He estimates that there were 32 in the 1980s, 42 in the       1990s and 26 in the first decade of the century.
I have been surprised to learn the episodes haven't skyrocketed in the21st century. On the other hand, "Decoded Science" in January of this year stated "One obvious trend is that the frequency of such incidents has risen in the past decade; more accurately, in the past 8.5 years. When teen suicides grew substantially during the 1980's, the media all but stopped reporting on them due to the copycat phenomenon and guidelines issues by the Centers for Disease Control. My husband—who is a psychologist—cringes anytime a mass murderer is shown over and over on television, making his face and name famous, or infamous. He fears other troubled souls are noticing how mass violence creates celebrity and will follow with their own quest to be remembered. I've thought for a long time the birth of the twenty-four hour television news channels has produced an overexposure to negative events. How many times did you watch the planes crash into the twin towers in 2001? It's depressing every time. With so many stations and so many journalists all looking to "scoop" the others, the detailed coverage given to every horrific episode is overwhelming. If a guy didn't know how to go about unleashing his pent-up grievances, he has only to watch the news. For the victims, it's too awful to publicize. For the viewer, it's horribly depressing. I think I'll watch cartoons instead.

Thursday, May 1, 2014

Query Swamp

It's a weird thing, this writing business. You have to be a wordsmith, a business person, a salesman, and a rhinoceros. I suppose I should explain the rhinoceros bit. According to www.earthlife.net, the rhinoceros has the thickest skin, and I believe it after the youtube video I saw of a rhinoceros fighting off a crocodile. Today the crocs are snapping, and I'm wishing for some rhinoceros skin. Okay, okay, they're only agents, but they're wielding some sharp rejection letters. I've only really started trying to interest an agent in my second book, but already I remember the first time around and how, after about a dozen form letters saying "thanks, but not thanks," I went to a writer's conference and got lucky. I'll never be able to thank the editor at Echelon Press enough for rescuing me from the dangerous waters of Query Swamp. Before someone gets all defensive for the agents, I know they're just people. The ones I've met are even nice people. And yes, I know they have to make a living, and they're inundated with letters, but it still smarts no matter how gently they take a chunk out of your ego. Why is it so many of us keep doing this? Maybe it's because when I write, the only world I'm aware of is the one of my own making. And as I saw on a t-shirt once: they know me there. Time to put on my rhinoceros armor. I have another query letter to write.