Males Are Abused, Too
I thoroughly enjoyed reading this week’s article, “Can Domestic Violence Be Prevented?” (by Barbara Solow, June 8). It presented some very valid points such as early intervention and also mentioned factors that sometime preclude an onset of attack or lack of knowledge/outlets that often contribute to its continuance. Having been a victim of domestic violence myself, I am fully aware of its lasting effects, both behaviorally and mentally. I applaud you for listing the contact information of agencies available to women.
I had a cousin who was killed June 23, 2004, as a result of domestic violence. This cousin was a male. His name was Rodney Council and he is very much missed by his daughters, family and friends. There are men living as victims of abuse because society shuns their cry for help, or ignores them altogether. Please do a follow-up article on which agencies are receptive to the male victims of abuse. Thank you for attention and please continue being brave enough to touch on such delicate topics!
— Kimm Williams, Charlotte
Women Provoking Men
Barbara Solow will never find the answer to her question “Can Domestic Violence Be Prevented?” as long as she places the blame only on men.
I once went to lunch with a group of women who bragged about how abusive their husbands and boyfriends were. When I said they must have picked the worst men they could find, they began laughing and unanimously agreed, “We’d rather be abused than bored!” When I said they should be careful what they wish for, they laughed even more.
The domestic violence issue can’t be resolved until women accept responsibility for deliberately provoking men into violence as a means of reinforcing their dubious image as helpless innocent victims.
— Tom Knight, Charlotte
Marginal Elements of the Workforce
While accusing minimum-wage opponents of depending on “old arguments,” John Grooms trotted out a few tired arguments of his own to promote an increase in the state minimum wage by a dollar (“Just Let Them Eat Vy-ee-nas,” June 8). His arguments have been refuted over and over again, yet never die, because too many Americans insist that minimum wage laws will work, just “because we wanna.”
The purpose of minimum-wage laws is to abolish the law of supply and demand in labor. Somehow, we are expected to believe that an artificial increase in the cost of labor won’t result in a decrease in demand (= unemployment). A minimum wage doesn’t raise anyone’s wages. It merely abolishes jobs below the floor amount. That’s why Jack the Dishwasher might not lose his job at Bob’s Restaurant. He acquired what skills he needed before the new wage took effect. But Homer the Aspiring Dishwasher won’t get his job, because his lack of skills might be justifiable at a lower wage, but not the higher. Minimum-wage laws exclude the bottom rung of labor from those entry-level jobs that might have given them a path out of unemployment and poverty.
Consider who works for minimum wage. It isn’t breadwinners. Grooms is correct that no one could support a family on the minimum wage. Rather, it is teenagers, especially black in the inner city, the disabled, and the elderly who work those jobs. In other words, the minimum wage limits the availability of jobs for the most marginal elements of the workforce. I guess they aren’t worthy of jobs in Grooms’s world.
— Rev. Christopher Cole, Charlotte
John Grooms responds: Mr. Cole’s Homer the Aspiring Dishwasher, “in Grooms’ world,” would be paid at least the minimum wage for his work and anyone who hired him and refused to pay him that would land in jail. Then again, “in Grooms’ world,” no one, including Mr. Cole, would be worshippers at the altar of Unfettered Free Market Forces. Minimum wage laws, originally enacted after the Great Depression, were designed to keep citizens from being squeezed to death by those forces. The fact is there are many people in America who work full-time at minimum wage and Cole is right: they’re not breadwinners. Congressional free marketeers, blind to the results of the system, have made sure those workers are never given that chance.
Another Powerful Woman
Scott Lucas’ wonderful story (“Hear Me Roar,” June 8) really caught the excitement of Purses, Platforms & Power, Women Changing Charlotte in the 1970s at the Levine Museum of the New South. It also caught us in an embarrassing error. Ruth Easterling, beloved longtime state representative known for her Smart Start and daycare advocacy, was not Mecklenburg’s first female legislator in Raleigh. That honor belongs to Martha Evans, who served in both the state house and senate during the 1960s. Thanks to Scott and CL, and please let readers know that we are correcting the error.
— Tom Hanchett, curator, www.museumofthenewsouth.org
Rodeos Are Abuse
Good for you, good goddamn for you, Sam Boykin, for your article on animal abuse (“Big Boys Don’t Cry,” June 1). Yes sir, it is a big man or woman or little boy/girl that takes joy in tackling a cow, goat, bull, sheep, etc. I am so impressed. I am being facetious, of course.
I have approximately 20 bumperstickers on the back of my vehicle, and am proud/anxious to defend each and every one. But most of all, the one that reads “real men are kind to animals.” Thank you, Sam, you did a hell of a job.
— Priscilla Carpender, Charlotte
This article appears in Jun 15-21, 2005.
