h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>cheerup>

I worked some years in a shelterhome of abused children and women. Very scary was to understand that 5-6 year old boy thinks all this violence is normal, though just hard to stand. This is the new generation.

Deeply moved, and with nothing to say which can possibly help.

***B

It's not the new generation, really, it's a minority. Society's opinions go against theirs and what you learn at 5-6 (copied behaviour, that is) is not immutable. Thankfully, damaged children like that can be changed.
I'm an occasional optimist who believes in basic goodness.
(ps. Autumn, is Deackie aware of you cut+pasting her post as the basis of this thread?)

Hadn't expected this level of response
Hmm. Starting with post 3. . .

Unremarkable:
The author of the original comment accused me of sexism for bringing up male violence towards women, given that the poor ickle unarmed men only use their soft, gentle hands and feet, whereas women routinely perpetrate vicious attacks on men, using weapons. (Well she didn't say routinely, but that was kinda the impression I got)
At the time I just thought I ought to point out the physical differences between men and women.

Maruja's cousins would have reacted exactly the same way as you, which is one of the reasons she couldn't ask them for help.

Mostly (post 4):
1) Yes, she thanks her lucky stars that he DID kill the baby instead of letting her give birth to her (and also because the anger and grief she felt finally helped her get free of him)

2) How could it have been a 'vicious' attack? She was the sort of person who would never knowingly step on an ant. If she had been able to force herself to shoot it would have been through desperation and terror. Is that vicious?

Yes Ben, we walk an incredibly thin line.

EG Mel, you sound exactly like Maruja when SHE was 19, in everything you said.
She even had a friend, when she was 20 (friend was 24), who was beaten up by her boyfriend and forgave him - and she couldn't understand how a highly intelligent, independent, capable woman could let a man treat her that way.
The reality is, Mel, that they work on you. They seem to be personable, caring, sweet men. This one originally presented himself as a protector.
The oldies warned her that "working-class Northern English men" beat their wives.
She told them they were being racist, class conscious, snobbish, narrow minded...add your own - they won't be far wrong.
Hey, at your age this kid had been a radical feminist, member of ALF, AnimalAid, CND, Life, SPUC, Faith, FotE...you name it.
She too tended to think of men with amused contempt (They do rather bring it on themselves tho don't they )

Mel, those sort of men are wonderful till they have their hooks in you. (And a spirited girl like you is a real challenge for a control freak )
Then they start to work on you gradually, making you doubt yourself, subtly shifting the parameters. If they go too far they grovel and plead for you to help them be a better person. They learn to play you like a musical instrument. The first time they actually beat you, when you still have a chance to leave, they cry and wail and threaten to kill themselves and YOU end up comforting THEM.

The longer it goes on the less confidence you have, the fewer options.
You've lost touch with your friends and you've lost the certainty that they would unhesitatingly take you in (Besides, you'd be putting them in danger), and he doesn't stop watching you for more than a few minutes at a time. Even if he sends you to the shop to get his cigarettes you get beaten if you take more than 5 minutes, because that would mean you had been talking to someone. You don't know anyone for miles around (even hundreds of miles), all the locals know about you is what he's told them - and these men are plausible, believe me.

Maruja went to the police once. She rang them from the phone box and then set off to run the 5 miles to them 'cos she was too terrified to stay in her own village. The police car picked her up when she was almost there, gave her a lecture and took her home.
But then of course the policemen all belonged to the same Lodge as her husband, didn't they!
(AND they were white - Oh dear, my roots are showing)

Oh, by the way, she didn't have 3 screaming children. Only children who are confident of their safety dare to scream, or misbehave in any other way. She had three little mice who were very good at finding places to hide, but very quick when told to do something.

(I tell a lie. One of them was the incarnate, but he didn't understand the meaning of 'fear' and didn't react at all to pain - even when Pervy beat him black and blue with the coal shovel, so he stopped tormenting him, cos it was no fun.)

There's also pride Mel. At first it keeps you from going to your family and admitting they were right and by the time he has crushed your spirit and succeeded in killing your love for him and you could bear any humiliation if it offered escape it's too late - you can't get to them.

Battered women/children who kill aren't looking for revenge. It's escape, pure and simple. When you corner an animal it doesn't go for your throat because it wants revenge.

Maruja felt the same way as Spearcarrier does. She didn't have the right to take the life of another sentient () being. She also wasn't actually capable of killing another. She took the only other option available to her. She knew that even if the children's father didn't take them her family would, so she went upstairs, locked herself in the bathroom and slashed her wrists.

Mandragora, deackie's post wasn't the basis for this thread. Maruja's story was.
But I should think deackie is aware of this one. I let it be known in Corinth's thread that I was opening it as suggested (Though I hadn't actually figured out how to post the URL at that point )

Where?

Arpeggio, You're right I have no experience of this, I was 13 the last time a boy hit me (it was round the face with a can ), I didn't speak to him for 3 months, he used to be my best friend , but I still believe that if something happened to me I would have some where to turn, let me keep that hope, else why continue living?

If her family would take the kids, would they not take her?

Local villages, oooh I know what you mean I grew up in one, It's amazing how much the locals know though. The busy Body down the street doesn't believe everything she's told

Mel

*who is currently dating a Northern Lad who she loves very much, but like I said to him, if he pressures me to sex (I'm a catholic) or hurts me mentally or physically, I will leave him without hesitation, _I_DESERVE_BETTER_ (though I don't think for one moment he would )*

I've been thinking about this all day and a compromise solution has come to me .....
Yes she should have pulled the trigger BUT pointed the gun in such a way that he was injured enough to required lengthy hospital treatment (blown his g******s off maybe).
No life taken, a plea of temporary insanity in court (if she was charged in view of the previous history which could have been checked e.g. x-rays for previous damage), the whole situation exposed and then she could have got support to help her escape?

Mel,

It is good that you feel safe. It is wonderful if your boyfriend treats you well. This is true for the majority (by a very small margin) of people. Even if they were not safe in childhood, that slight majority go on to live reasonably safe and caring/cared for lives. That is as it should be, and the only thing wrong is that it is such a small majority.

I wish my family of origin and my professional and other expertise (no coincidence) had not led me to the darkest, worst provinces of human nature. I would not have become sane and stable if I had not gone into a field where I felt I could be part of the solution. I would probably have killed myself, because my hideous life would not have had a context. Now it does. I know too much (I knew too much from the time I was an infant) about the human capacity for evil.

You are one of the fortunate ones. This is a gift, and a blessing, and not something that you can (or any of the fortunate ones can) afford to take for granted. You SHOULD be able to take it for granted, but that is like saying there SHOULD be a cheap, readily available, universal cure for AIDS - there's not much point in such 'shoulds'. Those of you who are not walking wounded end up carrying a lot of the social burden of the evil humans do. Taxes pay for the group-homes and social services which (inadequately) care for children who have been removed from dangerous homes. Donations pay for battered women's shelters and runaway shelters and homes for teenage mothers and orphanages. Taxes feed and house imprisoned child molesters, rapists, and felony batterers , and keep them in conditions which are not comfortable, but are nevertheless *better* than those in which street people, homeless people, and runaway kids live... ooo that makes me angry.

The fortunate ones, who are not disabled with Post Traumatic Stress, and not blinded by the enormities they have witnessed, are the ones who have to work to change things. The world needs those who are *intact* to step in, and help. So long as people who only know love and safety go blithely along, either not knowing, or not understanding that they are not 'normal', just fortunate, the evil stays and grows.

This is why I talk so much, and preach, and sing, and weep, and pray, and let the wounds show in polite company. Otherwise, how is anyone going to learn that safe and happy are not 'normal'? Who is going to save the children? Who will do the work we survivors are too badly damaged to do? The world needs everyone to participate to the best of hir ability. Your ability, energy, and age is greater, if your life has been happy. I am so glad it has been.

Arpeggio, for LeKZ

I like Nit-picker's approach ..in principle. Mrs Bobbit took similar steps. But the truth is, in a desparate situation, making a rational decision to wound instead of kill is just not possible. Again I point out that anyone who has never been in that desparate a situation cannot understand.
We've all heard about how vicious a wounded animal can become, so I doubt if simply wounding is a safe alternative, unless you can be sure of inflicting a completely disabling injury. In the heat of the moment, this is unlikely.
The real problem, as Arpeggiosvp has said so passionately, is the lack of facilities and resources to help people who are trapped in these cruel relationships. I have assisted battered women on a few occassions only to find that emergency medical help is begrudged them, the police aren't interested and the 'shelters' have six month waiting lists.
Those who have safe and happy lives tend to take a Darwinian view of the less fortunate, and secretly hope they will all die off.
peace
~jwf~

Those who have safe and happy lives tend to take a Darwinian view of the less fortunate, and secretly hope they will all die off.

Wow. Umm... I thought the most cynical person I knew was the one who said: 'If it is nasty, and it is possible, some human is doing it to another human'.

To which I added, more cynically still,'...for profit'.

~jwf~ here's hoping you're wrong.

Alas, I know for fact I and the other person were not.



Kassandra, for LeKZ

*Crossover alert*
Oh ~jwf~ you are SOOOO nasty (but subtle )
*End of crossover alert*

YAY! Let's hear it for Lorena

I think the possibility of the shot NOT killing the bar steward would be one of the main worries that would stop her doing it. Imagine how angry a guy like that would be after the rabbit turned round and injured him
The pain, the humiliation, the enforced rest - giving him time to plan. . .

Mel

Well, what can I say. I´d say under the circumstances she should have pulled the trigger. But I honestly don´t see any real solution to these problems. Except less dirty cops(those ar worse that murderers) and longer punishments for battering. Also because the batterers would just be killed by their wives instead.

About the people in prison, I don´t think that shows it is anything sexist. Just that homosexuals are chosen because they have a tendency to be more feminine, they also smuggle in dresses and make-up to make them look like women. This is probably just because as you said the people who do it are hetero, they want it to be a woman not a guy. Not because they are seeing it as a crime against women, but because they are attracted to women.

Most homosexuals aren't transvestites, you know.

Yeah, but they don´t put the dresses and make-up on volunteraly.

Bizarre. I suppose the fact that they're dressed like women makes their attackers in no way homosexual (since they're likely to be extremely intolerant of such things.)

I disagree with the maiming committee. A gun should be used as an absolute final recourse, when no other options are available. If you ever reach that point in a situation, then you should shoot to kill. Leaving him alive would only prolong the situation, and put murder in *his* mind. He's already vengeful, and by involving a firearm, you've escalated the situation. He'll not only murder you, but anyone else who happens to be near you at the time.

If you want to maim, then I suggest you use another weapon, such as a knife.

Only if he can't reach to take it from you!

Rape against women isn't sexually motivated. It's all about violence.

(who remembers)