Category Archives: health and wellness

Pride, not Prejudice.

June 30, 2019civic commentary, commentary, family history, Fundamentalism, gratitude, healing, health and wellness, human behavior, love, personal testimony, political commentary, psychology, relationships, religious belief, social behavior, social commentary, sociology, thoughts, truth, Uncategorizedbias in the workplace, gay pride, hiring practices, humanity, inherent bias, merit, merit and value in human choice, relevance of sexual identity, sexual identity, social acceptance, social bias, straight pride, subconscious biasruth ann scanzillo

I’m so happy and encouraged that everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, can feel loved and accepted now, at least in theory and, increasingly, by law.

Now, I hope that straight people and gay people alike can befriend, hire, promote, and even fire without regard for sexual identity.

Nobody ever likes to feel pre-empted because of sexual identity. Women hate it when men do it; men hate it when women do it; minorities hate it when majorities do it; majorities hate it when minorities do it; gays hate it when straights do it; straights hate it when gays do it.

Let’s choose our friends, our colleagues, our employees, our managers, our leaders, on inherent merit and value, alone.

Please.

Let’s at least try, and see if we can.

love XO,

Ruth Ann Scanzillo

littlebarefeetblog.com

A Letter From The Law.

June 26, 2019addiction, civic commentary, commentary, contemplation, Deep Questions, health and wellness, human behavior, letters, personal testimony, politics, psychology, relationships, social behavior, social commentary, sociology, thoughts, truth, Uncategorizedabortion, AC360, amoral action, Anderson Cooper 360, assault, collective position, definitions of rape, delusionals, E Jean Carroll, generational definitions of sexual fantasy, generational definitions of social behavior, husbands forcing themselves on their wives by law, law as enabler, law as scapegoat, law vs conscience, loopholes of law, notions of sexual domination, patriarchal domination, President Trump's behavioral history, rape, rape fantasy, removing the mask, reproductive rights, sexual assault, sexual connotation, sexual gratification through domination, social conversation, the bounds of the law, the letter of the lawruth ann scanzillo

Sometimes realization comes in the strangest costume.

Last night, I spent several significant minutes concluding that the latest female Trump accuser was, at best, unbalanced.

Watching the excerpted clip of the final two minutes of her interview with Anderson Cooper, I declared E. Jean Carroll a delusional loon with a rape fantasy. Tonight, taking the entire interview – which gave the final two minutes their proper context – I discovered a lucid testimony maker making a bold assertion: the man who attacked her was living out a rape fantasy. And, the point missed by so many: she claimed this within the framework of generational context.

Perhaps only old people will get it. Those, say, over 60.

What was society’s collective position on rape when a husband could force himself on his wife, by law?

I doubt that husbands behaving within the bounds of a law which served their patriarchal domination considered themselves rapists; to them, it was their estimable right to have their wives, whenever and however they so chose.

As such, this accuser described her attacker in the very terms; she implied that he acted within his perceived right, the embodiment of the residual effect of the letter of the law.

Now, how is it a different conversation to ask what society’s collective moral position was on abortion, prior to the connotation of the term “reproductive rights”?

For every option a man took, within the law, a woman had none; now, the law states that a woman can dispense with the very life carried in her womb. Could one law have led to the other? Whether or not, in both cases the letter of the law acts as enabler, driving morality to drink.

So, which leads: law, or conscience? How much longer will humanity use the law not as judge but as scapegoat for amoral action against another, before semantic label becomes libel?

It takes courage to remove the mask.

littlebarefeetblog.com

Naming Mental Illness: It’s A Mind Game.

June 7, 2019civic commentary, commentary, healing, health and wellness, human behavior, psychology, public education, relationships, social behavior, social commentary, sociology, thoughts, truth, Uncategorizeddefaming the innocent, detecting mental illness, diagnosing mental illness, distinguishing mental illness, mental illness, social norms, social protocol, treating mental illnessruth ann scanzillo

In the wake of multiple lives lost at the hands of another, lone gunman, we as a society pause yet again to face the truly disturbing: sick minds are a threat to us all.

And, the bigger problem looms. Our care and oversight with regard to detecting, diagnosing and treating the mentally ill is, to this degree, still woefully incomplete.

To begin with, I believe we use the term “mentally ill” far too loosely, and imprecisely; consequently, a “cry wolf” mentality seeps into the public consciousness. We misappropriate the term, applying it whenever we think we don’t particularly like or understand someone, and miss the truly deadly potential in those who really are unwell.

Let’s take a step back, and lay out some facts.

MentalHealth.gov, the official website on the topic, states:

One in five American adults experience a mental health issue;
One in 10 young people experience a period of major depression;
One in 25 Americans live with a serious mental illness, such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or major depression.

Yet,

“Half of all mental health disorders show first signs before a person turns 14 years old, and three quarters of mental health disorders begin before age 24.

Unfortunately, less than 20% of children and adolescents with diagnosable mental health problems receive the treatment they need.”

Given the above indisputable data, over 80% of those who are really ill get no treatment in their earliest years, when containment and rehabilitation is possible.

Meantime, we go about our days interacting with all manner of personalities. Somebody demonstrates a trait not common to our own notions of good protocol, rubbing us the wrong way. Perhaps louder, or more vociferously than we might, such an one misbehaves in public. One of us says to another: “She’s mental.”

Let’s not mistake acute passion, expressed in the presence of others, for imbalance.

Fact:

“The vast majority of people with mental health problems are no more likely to be violent than anyone else. Most people with mental illness are not violent and only 3%–5% of violent acts can be attributed to individuals living with a serious mental illness.”

How many of these lone gunmen were ever described by anyone who knew them as out acting? Rather, categorically, up until the moment of their psychotic break, each behaved in a manner decidedly well beneath the radar of public condemnation.

Even as we move forward to improve our detection and diagnosis of the mentally ill, let’s check our reactions toward each other at the door. Become more wary of the unusually silent, among our young and old; watch eye movement; document the absence of response, rather than each outburst otherwise easily recognized; and, communicate all observations to the appropriate resource as soon as they have been made.

But, withhold public declaration. Defaming the innocent is almost as deadly to our collective relationship as is missing one capable of suddenly taking yet another life.

littlebarefeetblog.com