The Victim Is Always to Blame... Or Overlooked

Image via WikipediaHave you been following the Penn State Uni child rape saga?

One thing I find encouraging is at least more people are talking about the rape culture.  That includes the presumption that somehow the victim "deserves" to be assaulted, based on what s/he wears, or behaves, or simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time.  Like the Congo, or Latin America, or being a boy on the grounds of Penn State in the company of a pedophile.

In a nutshell: Jerry Sandusky, who was the Defensive Coordinator for the Penn State football program for many years, was investigated in 1998 for inappropriate sexual conduct with young boys.  He was not formally charged, but he did retire in 1999.  (See timeline on Huffington Post.) As an alumni, he continued to have access to the grounds, an office on site, and other perks.

He had regular contact with young boys via a charitable organization he created in the 1970's called The Second Mile.  This program targeted children with absent or dysfunctional families (which made them particularly ripe for being victimized by someone with ill intent).  These children were taken by Sandusky to football games, guested for overnight visits in his home, given lavish presents, and brought onto the grounds on Penn State University on a regular basis.

According to the report of the Grand Jury, in 2002 a then graduate assistant (28 years old, 200 lb former quarterback) testified he walked in on Sandusky anally raping a ten-year old boy in the showers of the football building.  Said GA did not rescue the child, or call the police, but did call his daddy for advice, and then reported what he saw to Joe Paterno the following morning.  Who did not call the police, either, but kicked it upstairs, to his superiors.  Somewhere along the way, the anal-raping was minimized to "a little fondling." (After all, everyone knows it's perfectly normal and socially acceptable for a grown man to take a boy into the showers and fondle him, right?) PSU took Sandusky's keys away, and sternly told him - no more bringing boys onto the grounds!

Nobody called the police.  Nobody tried to track down the victim to find out if he was okay.  Nobody contacted The Second Mile, where Sandusky continued to "mentor" more young "friends," to suggest that maybe somebody should keep an eye on him.  Nobody said word one when for years afterwards, Sandusky squired other young boys from The Second Mile on outings, sat with them in the stands, brought them to the dinner table for meals with all his Penn State U buddies, including Paterno.  Somehow, nobody expressed the slightest squicky feeling about this whatsoever.

When arrests were being made and the stink about this got too big, the Penn State trustees fired President Graham Spanier and JoePa, and while there hasn't been much of a backlash about Spanier, a number of students are very upset - about Paterno.  How could they fire him - and so ignominiously?  After all, he wasn't a molester - he's just one of several people who didn't call the police.  He didn't see it himself, he was simply told by someone (trustworthy, who also relied on his judgment).  JoePa was a decent, honorable guy, who continued a relationship with the alleged molester and his young "friends" in the following eight years or so.

Can you imagine?  Somebody has come to you and said, "I saw this guy raping a ten year old in the showers," and being able to turn off that visual?  To share a meal with this guy, even as he's got another ten year old sitting right beside him?  "Pass the salt, please, Jerry."  But this is what happens in families where there is incest, there's this weird doublethink going on where everyone pretends it's not really happening, la-la, I can't hear you.

Something like this happened in several families I know, where many family members were more upset about the incest or domestic violence being made public by the victims, than by the actual incest or violence itself.

This is typical of rape culture - an acknowledgment of the victim(s), almost in passing - yes, wasn't that dreadful? and then a quick mental shift to salvage and protect the reputation of the accused - or the institution they represent.

In an (even more) appalling note, right now at Penn State some of the students are making jokes about "being Sanduskied."  In front of, though they don't know it, the sister of one of the victims.

This is why it is so hard for rape victims to come forward.  Rather than the blame being cast upon the rapist, quite shortly the victim's life gets put under a magnifying glass.  If s/he has not led a spotless life, then somehow s/he was "asking for it."  Or, there's evidence, perhaps, but not enough evidence.  Dominique Strauss-Kahn ring any bells?

People who are assaulted are almost always in a position of much less power than their rapist.  They may be children, smaller, drugged, or under extreme economic pressure; they may be on the losing end of a war or weapon. Those who do come forward, against the odds, are incredibly brave souls.

Nobody wants to imagine himself being assaulted in a shower, or anywhere else.  It makes sense that we want to find reasons/excuses to put the victim at blame.  Because, if in some way, the victim made it happen - then we can simply not do what they did, and we will be safe.

The ugly truth is, no matter how careful we are, no matter how we dress or what we drink or how carefully we choose our dates, we, or those we love, could still be raped or assaulted at any time.  So how do we deal with that without freaking out?

Partly, by fighting back.  By saying, this may be how it is, now, but it isn't the way it has to be.  This is part of what SlutWalk is about, to start bringing about a change in the social consciousness: Rapists, not victims, cause rape.  If we want to end rape, instead of trying to teach women and children 120 ways to Tuesday to protect themselves and not "cause" a rape, we need to end rape culture.  We need to end a culture that says it is acceptable, even rewarded, when we take from or bully those who are weaker than ourselves.  Whether it is a 50-something man raping a 10 year old boy, or corporations that take government subsidies to move American jobs overseas (and to pay their top execs huge bonuses), it must become socially unacceptable for the strong to victimize the weak.

Image by Getty Images via @daylife

PSU Students gather to express
solidarity & support for the rape victims

And on bystanders... We need to make bystanders more interested in doing what's right, than doing the minimum amount required by law to cover their own a$$ (if they even do that).  We need to stop demonizing and punishing those who "squeal," "snitch", or "rat out" people who are behaving badly.

Then there was an interesting take on this by "Marna Nightingale," one of the commenters on the thread below (Omelas State University) on why the grad student didn't intervene when he saw the child being raped, or do more to speak up afterwards, when his father and everybody else was telling him, hey, no big deal:

I DO feel genuinely badly for that grad student, and I absolutely could have been one of those adults and I am grateful to God that I am not.

I hope to Hell I never am, but I have to say that looking over my past life, the times I’ve most obviously failed to act on a moral imperative have been those times when I’ve seen – something that I knew was wrong, and I was sure of my facts, but I was also up in a situation where this had been going on for awhile and so everyone around me was Utterly Sure That Everything Was Normal and Fine. And I am sure anyone looking at me would have said that I was obviously Utterly Sure That Everything Was Normal and Fine, too, while my brain was slowly turning Oh My God That Is Horrible What Do I Do into Everyone Is Calm and Cheerful so That Can’t Have Been What Happened, Right? Right? Please Let That Be Right, I Don’t Know What To Do Or How To Start Doing It.

And after a few hours or days or weeks, somehow… Everything WAS Normal and Fine. Except… not.

I’m not terribly brave. All I can do is to try to remember that I do that, and admit that if I do that and fail to act I deserve to pay the price of that.

This is a mindset I think we all need to be conscious of.  That horrible things, done over time, and with the agreement and apparent social pressure to act like everything is fine, just fine, can innure us to terrible injustice.

Just because it's been like this for a long time, doesn't mean it has to stay like this.  We can all think, we can all act responsibly.  We can all speak out against injustice, even if it means people won't like us.  Even if it costs me my job, I hope I've got enough moral fiber to not see a child being raped, and just close the door - literally or figuratively.


I can't get out of my head the testimony that the GA opened the door to the showers, saw the child and his rapist, and then left the room.  Maybe he was in shock, okay, he still could have dialed 911.  According to his testimony, he thought they both saw him.  That poor boy must have thought/hoped he was going to be rescued.  What must he have gone through, when that door closed again?  And all the poor kids that received "personal attention" from Sandusky, afterwards.  How can we possibly make it up to them?

Related articles

• Penn State Scandal Tiimeline (huffingtonppost.com)
• Joe Paterno Is NOT A Victim (collegecandy.com)
• Joe Paterno fired, Penn State president Spanier out (aol.sportingnews.com)
• Penn State students riot over firing of coach Paterno (windsorstar.com)
• Omelas State University (John Scalzi)
• Survivors of sexual abuse appalled by Penn State unrest (cnn.com)
• Sport Media Asks Molestation Victims What This Means for Joe Paterno's Legacy (the onion)

What's your take on this?
Do you have a rape victim or bystander horror story?

Have you had to share meals with an abuser?

Death of an Assclown

In case you're wondering, assclown is a marvelous word coined by the marvelous Natalie Lue who writes Baggage Reclaim.  Because calling a certain type of man a "player" or a "ladies' man" or a "Don Juan" is giving a sleazeball entirely too much undeserved respect and dignity.


Photo by :mrMark: at Flickr
(just a regular, not an AssClown)

"You know he’s an assclown when he liberally presses The Reset Button – He possesses a ‘special’ ability to reset the relationship to whatever point that he feels most comfortable with, which is effectively like erasing the past. This is how he breezes his way back into various exes lives, disappearing for long enough and then bamboozling his way back in and trying to force out the memory of his misdemeanours. You’ll either remember them but be so fricking relieved to have him back and feel like you’ve ‘won’ that you go along with his ‘brainwash’ or you’ll try to reason with him and explain your point of view about past events and he reacts negatively, effectively teaching you (see below with passive aggression) that if you ‘remember’, he’ll be offski or difficult to deal with." (from "How to Spot An Assclown")

So, I have this cousin who belongs in the Assclown Hall of Fame.

Well, had this cousin.  Because I just got the news he died of cancer, and I'm not sure how I feel about it.

Cancer is an ugly way to die for anybody.  I've been given to understand that Cousin D had reconciled with his estranged children, and had actually remarried Wife #1 (more on that, below) last February.  My aunt, his mother, is understandably grieving, as any mother would.

I did not hear if his two brothers or his sister, my cousins, are planning to attend the funeral, or if they were even on speaking terms in recent years.

Photo by NickPiggott at Flickr

So why is Cousin D an assclown?  Marriage #1 - I'm slightly unclear on the details, whether his wife was still pregnant with offspring #3, or whether offspring #3 was an infant.  What I do know, according to family legend, is Cousin D went out one day to pick up some milk for the family... and never came home.  Dead?  Wandering somewhere with amnesia?  Abducted by aliens?

Nope, as his worried family found out some years later, Cousin D was perfectly safe and healthy.  He had to get back in touch in order to get a divorce from Wife #1, in order to marry Wife #2, with whom he'd run away while playing milkman.

At such time, Aunt and Uncle were relieved to find their Baby Boy was alive... Wife #1 was, understandably, more than a trifle miffed; his offspring were angry (and hurt,) and his brothers, Cousins A & B were furious.  Declared Cousin D a total assclown, and demanded Aunt & Uncle choose whether to have contact with them, or with dishonorable Cousin D.  His sister, Cousin C, played neutral party as much as possible.

Eventually, for whatever reason, Cousin D's marriage #2 did not work out (could it have been him?)  But he married again, a lovely woman with two children of her own.  I met them all, briefly, when he brought them to our old hometown for a semi-family reunion.  Cousins A & B did not attend, but Cousin D's oldest son came to the house and everybody made nice.

Cut to: several years later.  Cousin D abandons Wife #3, but this time, no divorce, because, Surprise!  He's still married to Wife #2, he was never legally married to Wife #3 at all.  (See why he belongs in the Assclown Hall of Fame?)  Why they didn't put him in jail as a bigamist, I truly don't know.

Now, this guy was my cousin by blood, but we'd never been emotionally close.  He was about 15 years older than me, and we probably never exchanged more than 100 words during our entire lives. 

Apparently he exerted some magical, seductive power over women which I never saw, because despite the absolutely abominable way he treated her, Not-Quite-Wife #3 continued to pine after him for quite some time, asking me and others in the family how he was doing, if we could explain his thought processes (uh, no!) and so on. 


Photo from Willy D on Flickr


We're still FaceBook friends, and I wonder how she's taking the news, which my oldest sis, who'd gotten The Call from our Aunt, thus had all the info, was planning to break to her over the phone.  Sis and I agreed that, legal wife or not, #3 deserved to be informed, via an old-fashioned phone call.  Having lived as his wife for 10+ years, sending her a message on FB seemed... wrong.

And, as mentioned above, he and Wife #1 remarried last year (presumably after he did secure a legal divorce from Wife #2)

The mind boggles, truly it does.  I don't get it, why Cousin D (he wasn't bad looking, but he was no George Clooney)  had all these women ready to lay their lives at his feet, how he could treat them all so horribly and still sleep at night. 

I don't get them.  As badly as he behaved, as much as he cheated and lied and they watched him screw other women over, Cousin D's wives could still accept it and tell themselves, "Yes, but he's different with me," or, "It's different this time, he's changed."

And then, I look back at so many of my own romantic relationships, including the last one, and realize I've done the same kind of thing, accepted the intolerable, made excuses, told myself a man wouldn't treat me the way he treated the other women in his past. Or that he wouldn't treat me again the way he just had.  I, too, was a Queen of Doublethink and Denial.  <rolling my eyes and sighing at my younger self.>

Hopefully, this time I've changed.

And I don't get how I'm supposed to feel about Cousin D's death.  I'm kind of sad for those who loved him, I guess.  I know that in his later years, Cousin D did do quite a bit for his elderly parents, especially caring for his mother after his father died.  I know that cancer is a cruel beast (don't know what kind he had, but none of them are pretty) and the suffering he must have gone through may have been a bit of karmic payback.

And, if his children and (some of) his wives can forgive him, who am I to hold a grudge on their behalf?

Still, there's a piece of me that simply isn't sorry at all he's dead.  That thinks the planet would be a much better place if all Assclowns were gone from it, like, yesterday. 

Have you ever experienced a death, either of a former lover or family member, that left you with very mixed feelings?  Please click a Reaction or share in the comments (as much as you feel comfortable doing.)

NASCAR, Mental Illness, Women, & the Affordable Care Act

Contrary to popular stereotype, people who love NASCAR aren't inbred, big-bellied, red-necked hicks, but come from every walk of life.  I know plenty of smart, funny, well-educated people who follow Jimmie Johnson, Ryan Newman, Jeff Gordon and other drivers.  I've watched plenty of NASCAR races myself, and have even attended a NASCAR race, where I happily sat on Junior (okay, I sat on a Dale Earnhardt Junior cushion.  Never mind what my fantasies were.)

[Disclaimer:  This particular post is going to go a bit political, which is something I normally try to avoid here.   However, I strongly feel that taking care of those in our society who are vulnerable - children, pregnant women, the mentally ill and disabled, the elderly, and those who care for and love all of the above - is an important issue, related to my main blog subject.  Skip reading any further if you don't want to hear how that relates, IMO, to a currently controversial subject, the Affordable Care Act.]

Sorry, turned a bit left there (but then, if you know NASCAR, you know that it's all about turning left.)  Right now when everybody is being asked to sacrifice, where teachers are being told to suck it up and do more for less, when CEO's and those sitting on fat trust funds aren't asked to sacrifice at all, when many in Congress are complaining that we can't afford the Affordable Care Act, when mental health services are being slashed all over the country, because of costs, it seems wrong that one of the sacred cows, whose Budget Cannot Be Touched, is NASCAR.  With an annual price tag of 7 million dollars, plus two-three million more or so tossed in, but who's counting?

I'm not saying there aren't good reasons for the Army to sponsor NASCAR - there are.  I actually agree with the Pentagon's logic, that it makes more sense to advertise for Army recruits through NASCAR sponsorship than, say, at chess tournaments.  However, there used to be some perks attached to men earning more money and having ultimate power over women's lives.  If your ship hit an iceberg, men generally hung back and let the women and children board the lifeboats first.

Nowdays - no more perks for you, ha ha, you silly women who wanted equality!  We'll pretend to give it to you, but you'll still earn less than a man does for the same job skillset and experience, and you can get to the back of the line for the lifeboats, too!  If there are cuts to be made in funding, we won't apply them to everyone universally, just to the stuff that's less important (to men.) 

Here's one thing that I didn't realize. "Before the law was enacted, a 22-year-old woman could pay 150 percent more than a 22-year-old man for the exact same health insurance. Yet her coverage often failed to meet her needs. Thanks to the law, in 2014 it will be illegal to charge women extra for health insurance." From Dr. Carrie's Better Living

Now, you might read that and think, yes, but women get pregnant, and men don't, so it's only fair for women to be charged more.  Then I did some digging.  What "failed to meet her needs" means is, women were often offered plans that did not cover birth control, pregnancy, or childbirth, at all - and still had to pay more than men!  The little pink pill was not covered (birth control), but the oval blue pill (Viagra) was.  How fair (or smart) is that?

Original Photo via spaceodissey via Flickr

Have you ever been pregnant; perhaps had a miscarriage, or C-section?  Sorry, some insurers consider that a pre-existing condition! 

Did you ever experience or report domestic violence?   Good for you that you escaped, bad for you that you dared to report it.  But even if you didn't officially report it to the police, too many visits to the ER for "falling down the stairs" and you're high risk and could be denied health insurance in 8 states and Washington, DC.

Of course, mental illness is also a pre-existing condition.  For which, under ACA, insurance companies can no longer deny coverage.  This is huge improvement, if not a step far enough.

Used to be,  if you had a child born with a health problem, or diagnosed later with autism or a mental illness, heaven help you, because that's about all who would.  If you were even able to get health insurance coverage for the child, under the parents' health plan, when s/he turned 18, goodbye coverage, never mind if s/he was stable enough to attend college or get a job.
 
What the Affordable Care Act does, is level the playing field somewhat.  It makes the insurance companies play fairer (as long as they are based on "the bottom line" and turning a quarterly profit, insurance companies will continue to be more focused on cutting costs and denying services than on playing fair with their rate-payers.)  The ACA gives women, children, and men, too, a better chance at a healthier life, with expanded coverage for preventative care and vaccinations.  This saves every American taxpayer money, because healthier, insured people don't use the emergency room as their sole medical care, leaving the bill for somebody else to pay.

From Texas' Comptroller's Office

Does the ACA "stick it" to small businesses or cause a loss of jobs?  No, it actually offers small businesses a tax credit for insuring their employees, and claims that it will result in lost jobs are rated totally false by PolitiFact.

How about the idea that the ACA increases the deficit - which the US really can't afford?  Not so in the long-term, says the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.  Much like repairing a roof before existing leaks cause major structural damage, the costs are significant up-front, but in the long run, save much more money than allowing the roof to fall in and having to rebuild roof, support beams, and walls.

Civilized societies find a way to take care of their weaker members: pregnant women, children, the elderly, the disabled, the mentally ill.  They support those who are thrust into a family caregiving role: taking care of Grandpa who has Alzheimer's, or an autistic child, or a soldier home from war with brain injuries or PTSD.  (Caregivers being usually, but not always, women.)  That the United States, wealthy as it is, can allow those living off inherited wealth, and large corporations to avoid taxes (legally, if not morally,) while we are told "but we can't afford to insure all Americans," and the middle class gets squeezed almost out of existence is obscene, IMO. 

There's a joke that goes, a corporate CEO, a union worker, and a Tea-Bagger are seated at a table.  In the middle of the table is a plate holding a dozen cookies.

There may actually be more than a dozen cookies here.

The CEO immediately grabs 11 of the cookies.  "Watch out," he says to the Tea-Bagger,  "That greedy union guy wants a piece of your cookie."

As Americans, we need to be standing together against greed and for fairness, and not be tricked by those who are hogging all the cookies, into squabbling over the crumbs.

But, some wail, most of the people for voted for ACA didn't even read the whole thing!  True.  (That's also true those of are calling for its repeal.)  

I have on my bookshelf two big fat tomes: Webster's Dictionary, and Roget's Thesaurus.  Must I read and analyze every single word before I decide if they're a helpful resource or not?  Or, can I decide based on spot-checks and professional reviews by non-biased sources?  If one takes the position that a Congress Rep can only vote for a bill that s/he has read in its entirety, the logical counterpoint is that a Rep can only vote against or move to repeal a bill that s/he has read in its entirety.  (Think that's gonna happen anytime soon?)

Is the Affordable Care Act perfect?  Hell, no!  Lots of places it needs to be tweaked, fixed, and adjusted - just like every other major piece of legislation that has ever been passed in America.  The idea that we can only have a good law if it's "perfect" and if everyone agrees on it, right from the start... that's really an OCPD-think, black-or-white argument. 

Somebody with OCPD will want to trash something out of general principal (aka Demand Resistance,) simply because s/he didn't have control over the process.  They'd rather do nothing, than take action to repair the roof that all agreed was leaking, if it can't be done all at once, perfectly.  And really, who can agree on how to fix the roof, when there are so many companies to get bids from, so many colors to choose for roofing materials, but if we choose, say, burnt sienna as the roofing color, will we still be able to get replacement tiles 15 years from now?  Or maybe we shouldn't get tiles at all, maybe we should get a slate roof, let's throw out all the bids and start the process all over again from the beginning...

Enough!  The roof was leaking, and it's been repaired.   Only a total idiot would rip off a roof and expose their house to the elements without having something better to immediately hammer into place.

The ACA is better - not perfect - but better - for working families and their children, than what we had before.  It's more fair to women than the previous free market free-for-all (which was free for nobody.)  It offers more protection and help to those with mental illness and disability.  Enough help?  No, but more than there had been.  We can (and should) work together to improve it, but enough of the babble about repeal.

And to those whining about the costs?  Sorry, you got drowned out by Ryan Newman revving his engine, I couldn't hear you.

Comments respectful in tone and language will be welcomed, 
along with any factual links.

Trolls will be sent back to their bridges.

Men, Women, Children and Domestic Violence

So, dear readers, I not only read your comments but give them a lot of thought.  Especially this one.

My as-yet unmet friend and fellow blogger Thalia had posted: 

But what I keep coming back to in my head is this:

If I were in the process of recovering from a bad relationship, and I recognized that it had been co-dependent and controlling, perhaps even abusive (though I do not know if you consider your recent relationship so), and I were trying to unravel all that, I would think it a very good idea to pay close attention to how I react to known abusers. Especially if I found myself downplaying or ignoring that abuse (which you say you did know about), and even more so if I found myself expressing sympathy for that person. Because it could potentially have a lot to tell me about my self-image and who I tend to side with in these matters.

What I hear you saying in this sounds awfully close to me to If we just love them enough they'll change.

Let me address the last part first - if we just love them enough they'll change.  No. 

Well... maybe.  I believe that in some rare cases, love can "win over" somebody who has distorted thinking. 

Image via Karen's Whimsy

But when I say "love," I'm not talking about namby-pamby hearts-and-flowers let me get-that-fix-that be your adoring little doormat.  I'm talking love with muscles - love that sets firm, consistent boundaries, love that insists on therapy and emotional homework and does not tolerate being mistreated and disrespected for a single minute.  If you can show that kind of love, and if the other person realizes that if they don't change, you will walk out that door, never to return... in those circumstances, do I believe they will change?

I think it's possible.  I know a few people (very few people) who've done it.  I also believe that sometimes even with all the stars and moons and planets in alignment, with the best intentions in the world, the person with distorted thinking will not be willing or able to change.  And there's no amount of love - with or without muscles - that can make them.

I believe in most situations, sadly, change is not going to happen.  In hindsight, we might have done better to cut our losses and end it, sooner.  But we can only leave a relationship when we are emotionally ready to do so, no matter how little sense it makes to those on the outside, or how ready others think we should be.

Later, of course, we're asking ourselves What Was I Thinking?! 

If you're trying to be the good friend in a situation where someone is being abused, either verbally or physically, a good reference is Helping Her Get Free by Susan Brewster.

I know, with my ex
b-f, there is no going back.  I gave it my best shot, I swung and missed.  Ballgame over.  Time for the showers - and I'm talking a girly shower, with lots of fragrant shower gel and lather thingies and scented lotion.

On paying attention to how I think about abusers and abuse... I take it very seriously.  Although I recognize that there are false accusations of abuse out there, for the most part I also believe the woman, when an accusation is made.  Or child.  Or man.  I consider myself to have been in an abusive relationship, and just because it was "only" violent twice, and because I believe my former mate to be mentally ill, does not mean it did not have serious damaging effects on my heart and psyche.  For myself, the long-term, ongoing verbal and emotional abuse was far worse than the violence or threat of violence.  For another person it may be exactly the opposite.  We are all individuals, and what we went through will impact us in different ways.

I know that for myself, it's going to take much time and space and self-kindness and more time to recover myself.

On the "public" abusers... Thalia, you're right.  My personal jury is still deliberating, and I don't have one specifically reaction.  Am I too soft on them, to ready to make an excuse or find an extenuating circumstance?  Perhaps.  But as I sort out my many issues, I don't think that painting the world in black-or-white is healthy for me, either. 

Specifically, about Charlie Sheen - I know that I don't know.  I know that he has racked up a record of being arrested for domestic violence, and for threatening women in his circle.  I know that his recent behavior appears bi-polar.  This could mean he is bi-polar, or that his various drug abuses are mimicking the condition, or that he's putting on an act.  Or some combination of all three. 

I've now done some trolling on the Internet in search of the truth - and my conclusion is... I can't conclude.  Not without putting a lot more time into it, and frankly, I'm sick of it and him.  CS may be the biggest Male Chauvinist Pig of all time, who's gotten away with more than OJ Simpson and Kobe Bryant put together, or... "such a good person underneath all of it" as ex-fiance and shooting victim Kelly Preston recently claimed <rolling my eyes.>  I lean towards the MCP view, but who knows?  I don't really care about CS (not that I wish him ill,) except as an example for how difficult it is for families to "control" someone who seems to be mentally ill, no matter how publicly outrageous their behavior.

On abuse, in the generic: Sometimes I believe that abusers seeking Power Over a victim know exactly what they are doing.  That they can and do have control over their actions - for example, when they destroy possessions, they rarely destroy anything that they themselves value.  Those who batter their wives often choose to avoid the face or arms, because the bruises would show - that speaks to premeditation and control, in spades.  I believe that it's no accident that those who abuse the elderly or disabled in convalescent hospitals target those who are no longer able to speak coherently.  Or children.  Or hookers, the homeless, or smaller, frailer inmates - anyone perceived to be unprotected by society.

I think about this, and often I think that those who abuse - physically, sexually, emotionally - are evil, sadistic sociopaths.  And I feel a great deal of rage, and if I could wipe them off the earth simply by pressing a button, I'd get calluses on my button finger from jabbing it so many times! 

from Nagzi at Flickr Creative Commons

And then I think of all we are learning about the brain these days.  That certain areas of brain function - controlling long-term decision-making, for example, mature later in life.  That there are patterns of anosognosia in people with organic brain damage, which are strikingly similar to what people with certain mental illnesses exhibit.  We now know certain diseases, like Alzheimers, are due to build-up of plaque and tangles which inhibit brain function.  We know that damage to certain areas of the brain reduces impulse control.  I lost a dear friend to MS a few years ago, and saw the gradual loss of body control and function that was a result of the deterioration of the myelin sheaths... in his brain.

from Boaz Yiftach at FreeDigitalPhotos

My grandmother was left-handed, and she grew up when the mindset was that being left-handed was simply a matter of "being stubborn."  That she could easily learn to use her right hand as well or better than her left, if she would only try.

I am no longer 100% convinced that all abusers are evil sociopaths.  Some are, I have no doubt.  Others... may be doing their best, struggling against the ways their brains are wired, or damage to the brain due to exposure to lead or who knows what substances, legal or illegal.  Or they may be mentally ill.

Does that make it okay for them to abuse others?  No.  If you are on the receiving end, whether of a punch, or a curse, does it make it feel better, to think "Gee, I guess he can't help himself?"  Hell no.  You are still bruised, and in many ways, hurt worse than if some stranger had come up to you, mugged you and stolen your money.  There is an awful, awful betrayal when somebody you are supposed to be able to love, supposed to be able to trust, is the very person you can't trust.

I think perhaps what Thalia voiced was she was hearing support and sympathy for the possibly mentally ill perpetrator, and not so much for the victim.  Maybe I did sound more sympathetic to the abuser than the victim (though I consider those coping with a mentally ill family member or loved one to be heroes first, victims second.)

My number one priority is for the victim.  We should support and help the victim, and never for a moment stop saying, "Not your fault.  You did not and do not deserve to be: hit, slapped, punched, threatened, berated, screamed at, belittled, ridiculed..." and not run past them in a rush to shower the abuser with sympathy for the stress s/he must have felt, being compelled to abuse, poor baby!

On statistics: I know statistics indicate that far more women are seriously injured by abusive men than are men by women, women by women, men by men... Not sure who takes the lion's share of abusing children, or the elderly but I'm guessing that's probably men, too.  Men usually have a size advantage over their mates, and are often (though not always) the primary breadwinner of the family.

Still, IMO going off on a "bad men vs. abused women" angle is not going to solve the problem.  We want abuse to stop, and in order to do so, we have to enlist everybody: men, women and children to be a part of the solution.  Segregation did not end in America because the African-American community was unhappy about it; the majority of (male white) lawmakers and the general population had to also become opposed to it.  It takes time to turn public opinion around on an issue.

I am not that old (at least, I'd like to think I'm not!) and I remember a time when it was both legal and socially acceptable for an American man to beat up and rape his wife, unless he really "went too far" and put her in the hospital.  Then people would frown, perhaps even whisper about him (although even then he would rarely go to jail.)  Thankfully, this is no longer considered okay.  So I have hope that social attitudes can continue to evolve in a positive direction, even if they're not moving as fast as I'd like.

Men who are not abusing women, but who have, perhaps, been abused by women (and I personally know several), or who know another man who has been abused, are not going to eagerly sign onto taking a stand against Domestic Violence if they perceive men are being singled out and blamed as the sole cause of the problem, and that abusive women are getting a free pass.  This cannot be "just" a women's issue - it needs to be an everybody issue, because everybody is hurt by Domestic Violence.

Children are terribly damaged by witnessing abuse in the home, whether it is fathers to mothers, or mothers abusing fathers, or perhaps an elderly relative in the home, or one sibling who is the family "goat," even if they themselves are not abused.  But I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say, whether they are boys or girls, children who witness abuse committed by men or women are more likely to bully other children in school and grow up to be abusive themselves, than children who do not grow up with an abusive parent of either sex.  Even if they do not become abusers, they are likely to be vulnerable to tolerating unacceptable behavior from future romantic partners (which is part of my own picture.)

IMO, as a society, we need to take a stand and say "Abuse is not okay.  Period."  We need to teach children that abuse isn't okay, regardless of who it comes from: mothers, fathers, stepfathers,  stepmothers, grandparents, teachers, religious leaders, neighbors, other children.  Never, under any circumstances, is verbal, emotional, or physical abuse acceptable.

That said, since we can't just push a button and cleanly get rid of abusers, we need to figure out what else we can do.  I do believe there are some shades of gray here, that someone may lash out physically once or twice in a lifetime, or during a mental illness crisis.  While that's still unacceptable behavior, absolutely, I am not sure that abuser is on the same "level" as somebody who routinely batters a partner, children or parent.  If these people are contrite, if they are ashamed and truly don't want to be verbally or physically abusive, let's see if we can retrain their brain patterns, so battering with fists or words isn't their go-to reaction in times of stress or frustration. 

And let's give those with whom they live enough training to recognize the danger signs and get out before their unstable members do start shooting, slicing, or otherwise "going postal" on the family.  Enough resources to be able to leave an unbalanced relationship, and to know that they are worthwhile people, that none of this is their fault.

I do have, perhaps, a rosy-glasses view of the world.  I would like to believe that Andrea Yates and Jared Loughner and Stanley Neace were not in their right minds when they killed.

I would like to believe that with more education, people will recognize mental illness earlier and find a way to get sick people help before tragedy occurs (even as this is made harder by cuts by many states in mental health funding due to budget shortfalls.)  I don't believe that wish is incompatible with the desire to end domestic violence and the worldwide oppression of women and children, but rather, is of a piece with it.

Maybe it's OCPD fleas, maybe I want to control what is uncontrollable, but I find it less frightening to live in a world where most people harm others because they've "gone crazy," because at least in theory, that can be prevented.  I don't want to believe I live in a world where most people who harm others, do it coldly, sanely, and rationally... just because they want to.

***

Please note, this very incomplete list of resources are not just for physical violence, but can offer help to those suffering verbal and emotional abuse as well.  Don't feel you have no "right" to ask for help because you've never been hit.  Abuse includes emotional, verbal, and financial, and these resources are there for you, too.

USA:
National Domestic Violence Hotline - 1-800-799-SAFE (7233)  TTY- 1-800-787-3224 
National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (includes downloadable guides for helping women in abusive relationships)
National Alliance on Mental Illness, aka NAMI

Canada:
National Clearinghouse on Family Violence - you will need to opt for English or French

UK:
Women's Aid - 0808 2000 247

Australia & New Zealand:
Domestic Violence Information Manual - phone numbers vary by territory

For Male Victims:
Menweb
Why Men Stay in Abusive Relationships

Your thoughts?
Got more links?

What Was I Thinking?

I was recently validated as not being the only woman on the planet looking back on a relationship (or, alas, more than one relationship) and asking myself, What Was I Thinking?

They've got stories from 58 women asking themselves the same question.  So, I'm not the only slow learner.

I'm sure, if you asked a bunch of gay women, gay men, or straight men, they'd have similar "light bulb moment" stories about their girlfriends, boyfriends, and ex-spouses. 

Unfortunately, sometimes we turn the bulb out again.

From the Intro:

What Was I Thinking? is a collection of personal essays written by women describing that moment in a relationship when, no matter how much you think it should work or want it to work or need it to work, it becomes clear to you that it's not going to work.

The really hit me - too much of the time we focus on exactly that: "I think it should work" and "I want it to work" and "I need it to work" and we don't want to pay attention to: Hello?  It's not working.  They say you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, but we get wrapped up in trying to help somebody else overcome their problems and live up to their potential.  Maybe our partner doesn't want to be a silk purse.

...this is not necessarily the moment of the actual breakup.  Rather, these stories describe the instant when logic, common sense, and simple self-interest triumph over the human need to be loved - or, at least, the need to be in a relationship.  The relationship may not last beyond lunch, or it may linger for weeks or even longer.  But inside, you know: He's going to be an ex.

Trying to remember when the first time I knew with OCPD ex b-f it was not going to work out.  There were so many, many moments, and I just kept overruling my common sense and gut instincts.  Was it the time he started in with the Shower Rules?  The jealous spazz attacks about my boss and co-workers?  The way he would come in to "touch base" with me (aka, constant interruptions) whenever I was trying to write?

I just kept telling myself, with enough time and love and patience, I would be able to make it work.  I was an idealist.


They cleaned this up just a smidge for the broadcast version.  The written version describes the guy as being built, not like a 16 oz can of beer, but like two 16 oz cans of beer, stacked on top of each other.  <wincing yet?>

I dated a guy like that for a while, and concocted an excuse to break up, because, well, sex wasn't fun because of his can-cans.  (Or big banana, take your pick.)  Couldn't think of  a tactful way to tell him that, though.

I'm having fun reading the stories and watching the video clips.  Apparently Nicole Hollander (cartoonist, Sylvia) was once married to somebody with OCPD - seems he felt she deliberately ruined his soup by making it with noodles that were the wrong width.

Aiiieee!

Well, I'm glad they rediscovered this holiday, and I'll definitely be celebrating.

Have you had a "Come To Your Senses" moment?

What triggered it for you?