Who’s watching you? Men aren’t the only stalkers. Won’t Be Denied: a suspense novel -- a portrait of a female stalker.Written by C.F. Jackson
Atlanta, GA, October 19, 2004: For decades, label “stalker” has been tattooed as a gender-specific crime, committed by men. Things have changed drastically. Twelve to 13-percent of all stalkers are female. Although less in statistical number than males, female stalkers are just as predatory and dangerous.Stalking, for most part, is about relationships—prior, desired, or imagined. Sixty-percent of stalkers have a personal relationship with their victims before stalking begins. However, 22% of stalking cases involve complete strangers. Researchers and psychologists identify three categories of stalking: ·Simple Obsession Stalking – 60% of stalking cases are represented in this category, which includes all previous personal relationships (i.e., husbands/wives,boyfriends/girlfriends, domestic partners). This category is best defined as, “If I can’t have you, nobody will.” ·Love Obsession Stalking – The make-up of this category involves a stalker and victim who are casual acquaintances or complete strangers. The goal of stalker is to establish a personal relationship with object of his or her obsession—in disregard to victim’s desires. ·Erotomania Stalking – This category consists of deluded individuals who believe a relationship already exists between themselves and their victim. A recent case of female stalking involved actor Michael Douglas and his wife Catherine Zeta-Jones as victims. “When women engage in stalking behavior, they are as tenacious and as intrusive as their male counterparts, and are just as likely to threaten or damage property,” said Dr. Rosemary Purcell, in 2003 article “Female stalkers pursue doctors, psychiatrists.” The FBI estimates that two-percent of all stalking cases conclude in homicide. Twenty-five of female stalking cases have escalated to interpersonal violence. Also revealed in a study is fact that female stalkers chased their victims to establish intimacy.
| | You Can Have It All (Just Not At The Same Time)Written by Andrea Hayhurst
I was glancing at a local paper recently when an ad for a nearby health club caught my attention. There was a picture of an attractive, well-dressed woman who appeared to be pregnant. The ad started off by giving her first name and followed with a list of essential elements of her life, including fact that she has been married for 12 years, has 2 kids (with another on way) and owns her own business. The message of ad was that not only does she take care of her family, but she also makes time for herself by dropping her kids off at health club’s kiddie room so she can Aqua-cise on a regular basis and treats herself to a massage at club’s spa twice a month. There was a time, not so long ago, that seeing that health club ad would have evoked in me a mixture of envy, insecurity and guilt. Those advertisements and articles used to make me feel, as I’m sure they do many women, that there was something wrong with me. As a professional woman with a law degree, a good job, stable marriage and a beautiful daughter, why did I feel miserable most of time? Why did other women seem to juggle it all so effortlessly while I felt that minute I stepped out of bed every morning I was in a race to beat clock, a race which wouldn’t end until close to 18 hours later? It wasn’t until I had a second child and slowed down for a while after her birth that I was able to recognize and come to terms with what I had been feeling for so long. I was also able to take a look around and what I saw was that majority of women in this country seem to be feeling same things I had. I heard and saw same disillusionment from ordinary women such as myself and it didn’t seem to matter whether they had professional degrees or not. The hair colorist seemed to be just as disillusioned as medical doctor. I also began to notice more articles about women choosing to leave workplace to raise their children. I even read recent popular works of fiction in which use of nannies and struggle by one or more female characters to “have it all” was not portrayed as something to be desired. It seems that a new word has even been coined to describe this phenomenon-it’s called “sequencing”. To my understanding, it’s supposed to convey notion that at certain points in their lifetime women need, or want, to concentrate on different aspects of their lives and that once children enter picture women should be able to step away from workplace for however long they deem necessary in order to concentrate on their children and families. I knew that there must really be some mighty strong winds of change in air when I heard a medical student state on a nationally syndicated program that once she was married her family and children would come first and that she did not intend on being a working mother. She went on to say that she saw her own mother do it and was placed in day care herself from time she was very young and that she did not want to raise her own children in that way. She said that she felt so strongly about it that if she were to get married while she was still in medical school that she would drop out since it would be useless to pursue a medical degree if she was that close to starting a family. I also read now often cited piece by Lisa Belkin in New York Times about all those professional women “opting out” of their careers to be stay at home moms. But I also saw many non-professional women doing same thing. I think article in Times was only touching tip of iceberg. Yes, well-educated, professional women are giving up their careers to raise families, but so are women without advanced degrees. I think that this trend toward putting aside work to concentrate on family is about women in general in this country, not just about one subcategory of women. According to 2000 census, number of children being cared for by stay at home moms has increased nearly 13 percent in less then a decade. Two-thirds of mothers aged 25 to 44 now work less then 40 hours a week. Fifty-five percent of women with infants were in labor force in June 2000 (the most recent data), compared with 59 percent just two years earlier. That was first drop in that number in a full quarter century. And as for previously mentioned professional women, between a quarter and a third are out of work force. My informal education about topic seemed to indicate to me that contrary to what women in their 30's had all been raised to expect, it was nearly impossible to have a career, a contented marriage, children and time for yourself all at same time. Not in a 24 hour day anyway. I still don’t know how those supposed “superwomen” that I mentioned in beginning of article do it, but I am certain that they are in a very small majority. And I definitely know that I no longer feel either envious, insecure or guilty. As a matter of fact, first word that comes to mind when I see those ads and articles nowadays is pity. No matter how easy those women make it look, no one can keep all those balls in air for very long before getting very, very tired. Not even Superwoman. It also seems that public opinion supports novel idea of people actually raising their own children. A Gallup survey last year found that only 13 percent of respondents thought that ideal family situation was for both parents to work full time outside home. Forty-one percent believed ideal situation was for one parent to work full time while other worked either part time or at home. And another forty-one percent felt that one parent should stay at home solely to raise children while other parent worked to support family. Surprisingly, Department of Labor ranks full-time homemakers as largest single job category in country. And numbers are probably even larger then we know, since mothers who do any paid work at all out of their home, even if just for a few hours a week, aren’t even considered full-time homemakers by government, even if that’s how they categorize themselves. Before going any further, let me say that I wholeheartedly believe in all feminist principles and ideals that women fought so long and hard to achieve. I think that women absolutely should be free to pursue whatever path they choose and be able to do so without being pigeonholed by their gender. However, I also think that women for a long time felt that they had to be exactly like men to be considered equals with them. After feminist movement, women entered corporate world and began to compete on a man’s playing field. For decades now, women have been attempting to compete, achieve and succeed in a man’s world. But it seems that we women have forgotten that we are very different from men in some very real and important ways. But that in no way makes us less equal. While men and women are very different, those differences, on whole, are complementary. I think that for too long now women have been trying to push their femininity to background in order to compete in a man’s world. Isn’t it time we simply acknowledge very real differences between sexes and be proud of them? Women shouldn’t have to be carbon copies of men in order to gain equality. Different doesn’t mean better or worse-it just means different.
|