I am waiting to head to my third doctors appointment in just under four weeks. I have been having joint pain; bad joint pain. So far I still have the pain but have no answers. Its making study near impossible and life pretty bloody awful. Chronic pain is something most people don't understand. The truth is that it affects every aspect of life and can make some people bloody unbearable. I have had it before and the depression that went with it was crippling. It was the deepest, blackest hole I have ever been in. My mum also had it and it scares me that I will end up like her. She was so demanding and self-centred. I couldn't do that to my kids. I refuse to. I wish I knew how to explain to people how scary this is, on top of the pain.When I do try I feel like such a drama queen and I hate it. I don't know where the line is between needing support and turning into a clone of my mother's sense of entitlement. And some of the things swirling around in my head are just not normal (well, normal for others. They seem to be for me). So I am going to see my doctor again, and risk being labeled as a hypochondriac. And next week I see my psychologist again, just to try and get on top of some of the things I am thinking and feeling.
I wish there was some way to explain all this properly but there isn't. Hopefully today's appointment will get me somewhere.
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Friday, April 6, 2012
Normalising the Sadistic
I am currently deep into research on IPSV for a unit of study for my degree in Social Science. It isn't the first time I have used my experiences as the basis of an assignment but I don't think I have delved quite so deeply into the subject before. And, as with every other time I have done so, it is bringing up a lot of things for me, things I believed that I had sorted, so it is a bit disconcerting that they can make me question my experiences. Again.
I don't discuss the details of the abuse I suffered at the hands of my ex very often. I feel like I did enough of that during the relationship; often in now embarrassing detail. When I did discuss it others had, at times, described his abuse of me as sadistic. And looking at it I can see that they are right. Some of the things he did to me were just sick; the type of things you might see in some of the more extreme forms of pornography. In all honesty it shocks and disgusts me that a person can do that sort of thing to someone they profess to love. And it shocks and disgusts me that I was the person who it was done to, and that I didn't fight it at the time.
I think that one of the main reasons I didn't fight some of the more extreme things he did to me was that they became normalised. I don't mean that they were normal, because they weren't. They were painful and humiliating and will, in some ways, haunt me for the rest of my life. But within the relationship they became the norm.
Normalising sadistic behaviours is a long process, and one aimed at surviving with some semblance of sanity intact. But at the same time it conspired to keep me in a situation that should have become intolerable a lot earlier. So how did it work?
For me it started with having my comfort zone pushed. This isn't always a bad thing. I was pretty inexperienced when I entered the relationship. Trying new things can be exciting, fun, and, sometimes, extremely pleasurable. But sometimes those things can be painful and extremely disturbing to the sense of self. How can a person, especially one with so little sexual experience, reconcile their body responding to painful and degrading acts with pleasure? Accepting arousal, and even orgasm, as a purely physical sensation is not easy. Let's face it; popular literature sells the big O as the be all and end all. Good sex is supposed to end in the simultaneous orgasm of two loving partners. Bells ring and fireworks explode. Nowhere do romantic novels talk about pain making the body respond as if it has been receiving pleasure.
Slowly but surely the comfort zone was pushed further and further. And when something he did hurt but made my body respond as if it had been pleasured it was hard to object. And when I didn't object this time it meant that I didn't feel like I had a right to the next time. Even if I did object it often meant nothing. If I complained something hurt he would stop, but only for a few minutes before he did it again. If I refused or objected to doing something he would, more often than not, just do it anyway. It would be nice to think he didn't know what he was doing but that sort of denial is what kept me in the relationship for far too long. After all, when you tie something around a person's wrist and they pull the other away so you can't tie that one as well its a pretty good indicator that they aren't consenting. If you then tie it to something else instead it shows that consent really isn't an issue that will get in the way of you having a good time.
So the sadistic became normalised. How long the effects of that will last is impossible to say. If I can accept that then maybe I can begin to accept that surviving with my sanity intact has been a true achievement. And maybe by talking about it someone else who has been through something similar, or still is, will understand and accept that it isn't their fault.
I don't discuss the details of the abuse I suffered at the hands of my ex very often. I feel like I did enough of that during the relationship; often in now embarrassing detail. When I did discuss it others had, at times, described his abuse of me as sadistic. And looking at it I can see that they are right. Some of the things he did to me were just sick; the type of things you might see in some of the more extreme forms of pornography. In all honesty it shocks and disgusts me that a person can do that sort of thing to someone they profess to love. And it shocks and disgusts me that I was the person who it was done to, and that I didn't fight it at the time.
I think that one of the main reasons I didn't fight some of the more extreme things he did to me was that they became normalised. I don't mean that they were normal, because they weren't. They were painful and humiliating and will, in some ways, haunt me for the rest of my life. But within the relationship they became the norm.
Normalising sadistic behaviours is a long process, and one aimed at surviving with some semblance of sanity intact. But at the same time it conspired to keep me in a situation that should have become intolerable a lot earlier. So how did it work?
For me it started with having my comfort zone pushed. This isn't always a bad thing. I was pretty inexperienced when I entered the relationship. Trying new things can be exciting, fun, and, sometimes, extremely pleasurable. But sometimes those things can be painful and extremely disturbing to the sense of self. How can a person, especially one with so little sexual experience, reconcile their body responding to painful and degrading acts with pleasure? Accepting arousal, and even orgasm, as a purely physical sensation is not easy. Let's face it; popular literature sells the big O as the be all and end all. Good sex is supposed to end in the simultaneous orgasm of two loving partners. Bells ring and fireworks explode. Nowhere do romantic novels talk about pain making the body respond as if it has been receiving pleasure.
Slowly but surely the comfort zone was pushed further and further. And when something he did hurt but made my body respond as if it had been pleasured it was hard to object. And when I didn't object this time it meant that I didn't feel like I had a right to the next time. Even if I did object it often meant nothing. If I complained something hurt he would stop, but only for a few minutes before he did it again. If I refused or objected to doing something he would, more often than not, just do it anyway. It would be nice to think he didn't know what he was doing but that sort of denial is what kept me in the relationship for far too long. After all, when you tie something around a person's wrist and they pull the other away so you can't tie that one as well its a pretty good indicator that they aren't consenting. If you then tie it to something else instead it shows that consent really isn't an issue that will get in the way of you having a good time.
So the sadistic became normalised. How long the effects of that will last is impossible to say. If I can accept that then maybe I can begin to accept that surviving with my sanity intact has been a true achievement. And maybe by talking about it someone else who has been through something similar, or still is, will understand and accept that it isn't their fault.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Why RINJ makes me CRINJ
Last year I came across, or was directed to, a Facebook page called Sex Assault Is No Joke (SAINJ), which belonged to an organisation called Rape Is No Joke (RINJ). Their purported goal was to remove the pro-rape pages that had popped up all over Facebook. Pages with names like "Going at it softly so you don't wake your girlfriend" and "Knowing she's playing hard to get when you're chasing her down an alleyway" (Not exact names but I really can't bear to look them up). These pages disgusted me, to the point that I had, for a year or more prior to this, set up a page of my own dedicated to getting hate pages taken off Facebook.
For awhile I was quite happy to follow RINJ on Facebook and Twitter. They were raising awareness of rape and sexual assault by posting links to stories in the media, something, to me, that is very worthwhile, as it is only by talking about these crimes openly and honestly that we can break down the silence that surrounds them. They also seemed to have weighed in on the battle to have Kyle Sandilands removed from the airwaves late last year, after he, on air, called a journalist who had the temerity to report factually on his TV show tanking badly a fat slag, and threaten to hunt her down (And like most people I'm sure he didn't mean to give her a friendly hug or shake her hand). Again, noble aims.
I became concerned when I saw the following text posted as a note on their page:
I'm sorry?!? After reading it a few times all I could come up with was that this was an attempt to call all sex between teens and adults, at worst, statutory rape, and that there was no possibility that it was a result of being targeted by people with a sexual obsession based in age. I was so concerned about this that I voiced my disagreement with, and concern about, what had been written, in a comment attached to the note. Unfortunately I can't show you the text from that; it was removed and I was blocked from making further comments. Yep, in the time honoured way of those who support a rape culture, and as is frequently seen in abusive relationships, I was silenced. Permanently. As I am a member of a rape and sexual assault survivors message board I though it right to warn others about what I had seen. After all, RINJ were supposed to be working for survivors of sexual assault, not trying to further traumatise them. I also pointed out some really horrible victim blaming statements regarding domestic violence.
This resulted in another friend "unliking" both RINJ and SAINJ on Facebook, and, as she is a reasonable person, explaining publicly why. This resulted in some major backlash from a RINJer known as So Nya. She didn't like what had been said, and laid in to my friend, and any of us who agreed with her stance, or defended her actions. Personally I was accused of making a racist slur, something that still horrifies me. The level of venom was quite scary.
Shortly after this I was invited to join a Facebook group called CRINJ, so named because RINJ made the founder, and all of the subsequent members, cringe. The actions and attitudes of the RINJ members were quite horrifying. What had happened to me was, in comparison to what they had done to others, exceptionally mild. The level of anger in CRINJ about what RINJ had done was amazing, blinding even. But it spurred most of the members to start investigating RINJ/SAINJ, and what they have found is truly disturbing. I am not going to regurgitate it all here. CRINJ have a blog HERE and a Facebook page HERE that can spell things out pretty clearly. Let's just say that removing comments and blocking people is but the nicest of their tricks. Inviting donations for a competition in which all entrants were disqualified, stealing the story of a human trafficking victim, using porn star pictures for profile pics, and one IP address for many administrators of their Facebook pages, are all in there. It's one of those situations that if it happened n a movie or book you would laugh, because it is simply too fantastic.
So I urge everyone to read what CRINJ have to say. They are legitimate, and they are not pro-rape in any way, as RINJ have said outright, in an effort to discredit them. While I am no longer a member of CRINJ (due to the fact that my life is quite full as it is) I fully support their actions, and will continue to do so.
In the meantime I have one major question for RINJ: If you are a legitimate organisation whose administration is above board, and whose actions are truly honourable, why will you not allow open and honest debate on your pages, and why do you not allow commenting on your blog? What are you trying to hide from the world? Or maybe, given your refusal to answer, we should assume that CRINJ have it right.
For awhile I was quite happy to follow RINJ on Facebook and Twitter. They were raising awareness of rape and sexual assault by posting links to stories in the media, something, to me, that is very worthwhile, as it is only by talking about these crimes openly and honestly that we can break down the silence that surrounds them. They also seemed to have weighed in on the battle to have Kyle Sandilands removed from the airwaves late last year, after he, on air, called a journalist who had the temerity to report factually on his TV show tanking badly a fat slag, and threaten to hunt her down (And like most people I'm sure he didn't mean to give her a friendly hug or shake her hand). Again, noble aims.
I became concerned when I saw the following text posted as a note on their page:
For some bizarre reason, when a man is found to be having sex with a fully developed teenaged person in the United States, police attempt to brand the accused person as a pedophile to get themselves more attention and to further vilify the accused above and beyond the truth of the case.
The strange and dangerously inaccurate thing is that the crime is described by police and local media as pedophilia to get more national attention from the shock and awe they have created, meanwhile the list of allegedly known pedophiles is further diluted by another indiscriminate skirt chaser with maybe with bad eyes or bad judjment or both.
So the USA now has many offenders branded as pedophiles but who are not pedophiles and it is now impossible to identify real pedophiles who may well be the most dangerous offenders in modern society.
It is impossible to identify which treatment programmes work best for real pedophiles in the U.S. because the USA is treating so many people who are NOT pedophiles.
This is a very serious and dangerous disease and we know nothing accurately about it in the United States because real pedophiles are hidden among normal males who get their hormones over-pumped by Hollywood's focus on youth, sex, bare midriffs and promiscuity.
Pedophilia is a disease wherein the infected cannot be aroused by a fully developed post-pubescent person. A real pedophile is ONLY ever found to be having sex with pre-pubescent children. Pedophilia is a serious illness not to be confused with men who like young women as sex partners but it's about men or women having sex with children prior to puberty who are not in any way developed and should not under any circumstances be involved in any sexual contact because they are babies per se.
The error is a typical American problem and it seriously skews statistics.
Older than 14-year-old post-pubescent fully-developed females in many U.S. states may indeed have legal sex if the person they are with is the same age.
In Europe, in many countries, a 14 year old may have sex with anyone. Age of consent around the world ranges mostly from 13-16.
http://en.wikipedia....nsent_in_Europe
The definition of pedophilia is unequivocal and the danger from real pedophiles is so extreme because in all their lives the will not have sex or be satisfied by sex with a post-pubescent person. A pedophile will only seek out little children who are undeveloped, pre-pubescent.
Pedophilia is a term that is misused in the United States where education standards concomitantly are also very bad. Whenever American media describe a man charged with having sex with a young person and call it pedophillia, we make clear the age and circumstance because the person deserves a fair trial and because The United States is a very bullying nation state that jails more of its people than any nation on earth and uses a bizarre set of religion-driven common laws that deviate from international law in the extreme and tend to deviate from the truth for the sake of rallying more bullies and winning heir case rather than finding the facts of the matter.
I'm sorry?!? After reading it a few times all I could come up with was that this was an attempt to call all sex between teens and adults, at worst, statutory rape, and that there was no possibility that it was a result of being targeted by people with a sexual obsession based in age. I was so concerned about this that I voiced my disagreement with, and concern about, what had been written, in a comment attached to the note. Unfortunately I can't show you the text from that; it was removed and I was blocked from making further comments. Yep, in the time honoured way of those who support a rape culture, and as is frequently seen in abusive relationships, I was silenced. Permanently. As I am a member of a rape and sexual assault survivors message board I though it right to warn others about what I had seen. After all, RINJ were supposed to be working for survivors of sexual assault, not trying to further traumatise them. I also pointed out some really horrible victim blaming statements regarding domestic violence.
This resulted in another friend "unliking" both RINJ and SAINJ on Facebook, and, as she is a reasonable person, explaining publicly why. This resulted in some major backlash from a RINJer known as So Nya. She didn't like what had been said, and laid in to my friend, and any of us who agreed with her stance, or defended her actions. Personally I was accused of making a racist slur, something that still horrifies me. The level of venom was quite scary.
Shortly after this I was invited to join a Facebook group called CRINJ, so named because RINJ made the founder, and all of the subsequent members, cringe. The actions and attitudes of the RINJ members were quite horrifying. What had happened to me was, in comparison to what they had done to others, exceptionally mild. The level of anger in CRINJ about what RINJ had done was amazing, blinding even. But it spurred most of the members to start investigating RINJ/SAINJ, and what they have found is truly disturbing. I am not going to regurgitate it all here. CRINJ have a blog HERE and a Facebook page HERE that can spell things out pretty clearly. Let's just say that removing comments and blocking people is but the nicest of their tricks. Inviting donations for a competition in which all entrants were disqualified, stealing the story of a human trafficking victim, using porn star pictures for profile pics, and one IP address for many administrators of their Facebook pages, are all in there. It's one of those situations that if it happened n a movie or book you would laugh, because it is simply too fantastic.
So I urge everyone to read what CRINJ have to say. They are legitimate, and they are not pro-rape in any way, as RINJ have said outright, in an effort to discredit them. While I am no longer a member of CRINJ (due to the fact that my life is quite full as it is) I fully support their actions, and will continue to do so.
In the meantime I have one major question for RINJ: If you are a legitimate organisation whose administration is above board, and whose actions are truly honourable, why will you not allow open and honest debate on your pages, and why do you not allow commenting on your blog? What are you trying to hide from the world? Or maybe, given your refusal to answer, we should assume that CRINJ have it right.
Monday, February 6, 2012
Victimisation as privilege, and acting for the Silenced: Or, "My Psychic Scars are Bigger than Yours"
An interesting weekend had led me to once again dust off the blog and say a few choice words that I can't say elsewhere without censure or censorship (or maybe just a verbal/written arse kicking).
As those who know me know, I try, in my own quiet way, to advocate for those who are or have been in circumstances similar to mine. While they may not be ready to use their voices I can use mine and hopefully be heard, while ensuring those I advocate for know that they aren't alone in their battles. I don't pretend to be representative of all women who have experienced intimate partner sexual violence, rape and sexual assault, and/or domestic violence, but I hope that by sharing my story I can make a small difference. In my naivety I hoped that all advocates worked in much the same way. Indeed, those I admire most do. But alas it isn't true for all victim/survivor advocates.
Victimisation as Privilege
Lately I have come across a small but very outspoken number of advocates who seem to wear their victimisation as a badge of privilege. I am not suggesting that their trauma isn't real, or that it is less important than mine, but I am objecting to the fact that they use their victimisation as a weapon against others, and as a justification for denigrating other people and services.
On a website which I frequent (which shall remain nameless to protect the innocent, or at least me from getting into trouble and not being welcome there anymore) a frequent contributor has taken to screaming "What about me? at regular intervals. Rather than acknowledge what is being posted as a reality for at least the original contributor they use it as an opportunity to explain why exactly they are so down trodden, marginalised and silenced. Now yes, their circumstances are some that do tend to be minimalised by a large section of society. But screaming "What about me?" every time something doesn't fit their circumstances does nothing more than shut down discussion and make other users feel as if their problems simply aren't problematic enough, thus continuing their silencing. The best example is the constant cry of "What about MEN (as it always seems to need capitalisation)?" in discussions about everything from cancer and rape to domestic violence and divorce. Small hint; talking about one person or group's experience does not take away from another person or group. If anything it opens up wider communication for everyone.
Take rape, for example: The second-wave feminists made huge strides in having it seen as a social issue. They fought for and developed support services, legislative change and definitional change. Yes, they did this primarily for women. However, by starting the conversation they have made it possible to acknowledge the rape of men and boys. Stating the gendered nature of intimate partner violence, rape and sexual assault is not a slap in the face to the males of the species. Nor is it blaming all men for the actions of perpetrators. And most of all it is not labelling different experiences as non-existent, not important or less damaging. It is simply putting forward a theoretical standpoint that happens to have a lot of research to support it, and reflects the lived experiences of many.
Unfortunately there seems to be a small pool of advocates who aren't willing to accept that. Instead they want to make it all about them. They look at the research and services and demand equal or better, that addresses their own specific circumstances, and they want it now, preferably with as much fanfare and kow-towing as possible to their greatness and position of privilege. What they aren't prepared to do is work for what they want. "Breast cancer gets umpteen million dollars in funding and support - right, give us the same for prostate cancer." And when it isn't forthcoming then they complain that it is because their chosen cause isn't "sexy" enough (I would love to know where all these people who think that any sort of cancer is sexy are. I've certainly never met any of them.) They discount the work put in by people that have been effected by the cause personally, and they most certainly won't get off their privileged arses and work for the cause they believe in. Nope, instead it's all "political" or a conspiracy against them personally.
Victimisation as a Right to be a Perpetrator
Recently I came across a Facebook group called Sex Assault is No Joke, a front for the advocacy group Rape Is No Joke (RINJ). I thought their aims were wonderful; to rid Facebook of groups that are supportive of using rape as a basis for humour. I decided to "like" them and kept a periodic eye on their activities. That is until Saturday when I came across a post I disagreed with. I commented on the post, politely and respectfully. I did not swear, nor did I denigrate others. I just pointed out what I believed to be errors. I would send you a link to the post and my comments but I have been blocked and my comments removed. Yep, RINJ seems to think that they way to deal with differing opinions to to remove them and prevent people from commenting. I complained about this elsewhere, but truly wasn't too worried. It was obvious that this was a group I wanted nothing to do with. A friend was not impressed, both with RINJ's treatment of me, and of a victim blaming post that was obviously considered appropriate by those in charge. She made her feelings known and a shit-storm ensued, during which it came out that many others have become disillusioned with RINJ. One person commenting is one of the organisers of RINJ. She accused me of making a racist slur (something that still both upsets and pisses me off) and managed to tell an amazing group of women, many of whom are survivors or rape, sexual assault, and/or domestic violence, that we knew nothing. This person used her victimisation as a reason to be a bully and exhibit attitudes commonly seen in many perpetrators. (I must say how proud I am of the other women caught in this shit-storm as none of them felt the need to stoop to this person's level, although flinging hurtful, denigrating comments would have been easy. Yet compassion for what this person had been through was what shone through.)
Victimisation is never a reason to become a bully or to act in the same manner as a perpetrators. While these is some evidence to show that the victimised sometimes come to be the victimiser there are a heck of a lot of people out there who don't feel the need to do so. Instead they understand the damage that has been done to them and will do anything and everything they can to stop it happening to anyone else. This person though, was like a husband who, while being emotionally and sexually violent, can honestly stand among his mates and declare that he has never hit a woman, and come out smelling like roses, and leaving his victim wondering what the hell is wrong with them.
So let us be clear: Being a victim does not make you someone special. It does not give you privileges over others. It does not give you the right to be a bully. It does however make you a person who needs support and help. Ask me for that and I will be beside you all the way. Trying to make yourself into the biggest, most misunderstood, most marginalised and minimised person in existence however will see me walk away from you and your cause. I do not need it and I don't need you. And I will do my damnedest to make sure others know who and what you're really about.
As those who know me know, I try, in my own quiet way, to advocate for those who are or have been in circumstances similar to mine. While they may not be ready to use their voices I can use mine and hopefully be heard, while ensuring those I advocate for know that they aren't alone in their battles. I don't pretend to be representative of all women who have experienced intimate partner sexual violence, rape and sexual assault, and/or domestic violence, but I hope that by sharing my story I can make a small difference. In my naivety I hoped that all advocates worked in much the same way. Indeed, those I admire most do. But alas it isn't true for all victim/survivor advocates.
Victimisation as Privilege
Lately I have come across a small but very outspoken number of advocates who seem to wear their victimisation as a badge of privilege. I am not suggesting that their trauma isn't real, or that it is less important than mine, but I am objecting to the fact that they use their victimisation as a weapon against others, and as a justification for denigrating other people and services.
On a website which I frequent (which shall remain nameless to protect the innocent, or at least me from getting into trouble and not being welcome there anymore) a frequent contributor has taken to screaming "What about me? at regular intervals. Rather than acknowledge what is being posted as a reality for at least the original contributor they use it as an opportunity to explain why exactly they are so down trodden, marginalised and silenced. Now yes, their circumstances are some that do tend to be minimalised by a large section of society. But screaming "What about me?" every time something doesn't fit their circumstances does nothing more than shut down discussion and make other users feel as if their problems simply aren't problematic enough, thus continuing their silencing. The best example is the constant cry of "What about MEN (as it always seems to need capitalisation)?" in discussions about everything from cancer and rape to domestic violence and divorce. Small hint; talking about one person or group's experience does not take away from another person or group. If anything it opens up wider communication for everyone.
Take rape, for example: The second-wave feminists made huge strides in having it seen as a social issue. They fought for and developed support services, legislative change and definitional change. Yes, they did this primarily for women. However, by starting the conversation they have made it possible to acknowledge the rape of men and boys. Stating the gendered nature of intimate partner violence, rape and sexual assault is not a slap in the face to the males of the species. Nor is it blaming all men for the actions of perpetrators. And most of all it is not labelling different experiences as non-existent, not important or less damaging. It is simply putting forward a theoretical standpoint that happens to have a lot of research to support it, and reflects the lived experiences of many.
Unfortunately there seems to be a small pool of advocates who aren't willing to accept that. Instead they want to make it all about them. They look at the research and services and demand equal or better, that addresses their own specific circumstances, and they want it now, preferably with as much fanfare and kow-towing as possible to their greatness and position of privilege. What they aren't prepared to do is work for what they want. "Breast cancer gets umpteen million dollars in funding and support - right, give us the same for prostate cancer." And when it isn't forthcoming then they complain that it is because their chosen cause isn't "sexy" enough (I would love to know where all these people who think that any sort of cancer is sexy are. I've certainly never met any of them.) They discount the work put in by people that have been effected by the cause personally, and they most certainly won't get off their privileged arses and work for the cause they believe in. Nope, instead it's all "political" or a conspiracy against them personally.
Victimisation as a Right to be a Perpetrator
Recently I came across a Facebook group called Sex Assault is No Joke, a front for the advocacy group Rape Is No Joke (RINJ). I thought their aims were wonderful; to rid Facebook of groups that are supportive of using rape as a basis for humour. I decided to "like" them and kept a periodic eye on their activities. That is until Saturday when I came across a post I disagreed with. I commented on the post, politely and respectfully. I did not swear, nor did I denigrate others. I just pointed out what I believed to be errors. I would send you a link to the post and my comments but I have been blocked and my comments removed. Yep, RINJ seems to think that they way to deal with differing opinions to to remove them and prevent people from commenting. I complained about this elsewhere, but truly wasn't too worried. It was obvious that this was a group I wanted nothing to do with. A friend was not impressed, both with RINJ's treatment of me, and of a victim blaming post that was obviously considered appropriate by those in charge. She made her feelings known and a shit-storm ensued, during which it came out that many others have become disillusioned with RINJ. One person commenting is one of the organisers of RINJ. She accused me of making a racist slur (something that still both upsets and pisses me off) and managed to tell an amazing group of women, many of whom are survivors or rape, sexual assault, and/or domestic violence, that we knew nothing. This person used her victimisation as a reason to be a bully and exhibit attitudes commonly seen in many perpetrators. (I must say how proud I am of the other women caught in this shit-storm as none of them felt the need to stoop to this person's level, although flinging hurtful, denigrating comments would have been easy. Yet compassion for what this person had been through was what shone through.)
Victimisation is never a reason to become a bully or to act in the same manner as a perpetrators. While these is some evidence to show that the victimised sometimes come to be the victimiser there are a heck of a lot of people out there who don't feel the need to do so. Instead they understand the damage that has been done to them and will do anything and everything they can to stop it happening to anyone else. This person though, was like a husband who, while being emotionally and sexually violent, can honestly stand among his mates and declare that he has never hit a woman, and come out smelling like roses, and leaving his victim wondering what the hell is wrong with them.
So let us be clear: Being a victim does not make you someone special. It does not give you privileges over others. It does not give you the right to be a bully. It does however make you a person who needs support and help. Ask me for that and I will be beside you all the way. Trying to make yourself into the biggest, most misunderstood, most marginalised and minimised person in existence however will see me walk away from you and your cause. I do not need it and I don't need you. And I will do my damnedest to make sure others know who and what you're really about.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Victim - Time to Reclaim the Word
I am so sick of the fact that the word victim has such negative connotations when it comes to people who have been raped or sexually abused, or lived with child abuse or domestic violence. My dictionary defines victim as "a sufferer from any destructive, injurious, or adverse action or agency." It doesn't say "....any destructive, injurious, or adverse action except for rape, sexual assault, child abuse or domestic violence." So why do we have such a hard time accepting that those of us who have experienced such things are NOT weak if we refer to ourselves as victims instead of survivors?
I believe it is because to be a victim is to essentially be a passive participant in these crimes, and that is seen as unacceptable. The verb of victim is victimise, and that is something that is done to us. The verb of survivor is survive, something that is seen as being an action we do ourselves. Passive participants in rape, sexual assault, child abuse and domestic violence are seen as weak, unable or unwilling to protect themselves, and therefore seen as bearing some level of responsiblity for what happened to them. Why else would the commonly heard questions about these crimes be directed at the victim's actions or inactions rather than the perpetrators?
Yet the same standards aren't applied to victims of other crimes. It is perfectly acceptable to be a victim of a hit-and-run, or of a bag snatch, or even of a mugging or random assault. Their passivity isn't disparaged. Their actions or inaction isn't studied under a microscope to ensure that they are worthy of our sympathy. We don't demand of them a certain level of sobriety, a particular mode of dress, an instant telling of what has occurred to someone, within minutes of it occurring. We don't expect them to define themselves as survivors just so as they can be seen as almost normal people recovering from something horrible.
So, I am reclaiming the word victim, in its truest sense. I have been a victim of rape and sexual assault, more than once. It does not mean that I am weak. It does not mean that I am fishing for sympathy. It does not mean that I am looking for special treatment. It does not mean that I am not a capable, intelligent, mostly happy human being with dreams, ideals, likes and dislikes. It simply means that I have been victimised by another person or people, in a situation in which I had no control. Yes, I survived and therefore can also be called a survivor. But it does not take away the fact that I have been a victim, and that it wasn't my fault.
I believe it is because to be a victim is to essentially be a passive participant in these crimes, and that is seen as unacceptable. The verb of victim is victimise, and that is something that is done to us. The verb of survivor is survive, something that is seen as being an action we do ourselves. Passive participants in rape, sexual assault, child abuse and domestic violence are seen as weak, unable or unwilling to protect themselves, and therefore seen as bearing some level of responsiblity for what happened to them. Why else would the commonly heard questions about these crimes be directed at the victim's actions or inactions rather than the perpetrators?
Yet the same standards aren't applied to victims of other crimes. It is perfectly acceptable to be a victim of a hit-and-run, or of a bag snatch, or even of a mugging or random assault. Their passivity isn't disparaged. Their actions or inaction isn't studied under a microscope to ensure that they are worthy of our sympathy. We don't demand of them a certain level of sobriety, a particular mode of dress, an instant telling of what has occurred to someone, within minutes of it occurring. We don't expect them to define themselves as survivors just so as they can be seen as almost normal people recovering from something horrible.
So, I am reclaiming the word victim, in its truest sense. I have been a victim of rape and sexual assault, more than once. It does not mean that I am weak. It does not mean that I am fishing for sympathy. It does not mean that I am looking for special treatment. It does not mean that I am not a capable, intelligent, mostly happy human being with dreams, ideals, likes and dislikes. It simply means that I have been victimised by another person or people, in a situation in which I had no control. Yes, I survived and therefore can also be called a survivor. But it does not take away the fact that I have been a victim, and that it wasn't my fault.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
I know what I know but what if it's wrong?
I am feeling exceptionally frustrated with uni at the moment. My field placement is happening but I am still unsure how I am feeling about it. And as for my Issues of Protection unit....argh!
I guess the biggest issue at the moment really is the Protection unit stuff. Last week's topic was Family Violence (the name the uni chooses to use for domestic violence or intimate partner violence). Now this isn't something I know nothing about. Learning more about DV has been a natural extension of my quest to find more about IPSV. So I went into the topic feeling pretty confident about my level of knowledge. Yet by today I am questioning all of that knowledge.
Part of the problem is the text book. The section on family violence shows a clear bias towards the "women are as violent as men" school of thought. This doesn't sit well with me as it goes against the majority of academic research about DV. I have also read more than one article about why the studies that lead to that conclusion need to be taken with a humongous grain of salt (many use the Conflict Tactics Scale which makes no differentiation between severity of violence or attack and defence). Yet this is in the text book we are using and we have not been given anything to balance it out. Nor is there any mention about the fact that this point of view does not reflect the majority of academic research on DV.
So that was the first thing that really got my back up. Then there was the reading on substance abuse and family violence. Whoever wrote that presented a very weak argument for his point of view (being that family violence and substance abuse are linked). He quoted general statistics (26% of children from an alcoholic home are victims of sexual violence) but made no effort to explain the findings he used. For example, if this information came from a study about children who have come to the attention of protection authorities then we would expect that the number of children abused would be higher than general population prevalence studies. We are also not given a figure of how many families or abused children were included in the study. If it was only 100 then a 3-4% difference between that figures and the standard ones used about sexual abuse (1 in 3 girls, 1 in 10 boys = approx 21.5%) isn't that big. (Of course both statistics are horrifying).
So that article didn't do much to endear me either. So far less than impressed with the reading material for the unit.
Then comes the discussion forum. Each week we do one of these. Well if the readings horrified me then this outright shocked me. We were given a case study to respond to. The case was a married woman with two kids ringing a crisis line to find out if what is happening in her marriage is normal (deja vu much. I remember wondering the same thing). She says that she doesn't get black eyes but is pushed and shoved by her partner, verbally abused and threatened. She also says that she and the children make an effort "not to upset daddy." The woman has raised her concerns with both her husbands shrink and a minister and both time basically been told she is misreading things and needs to take the good with the bad. So anyway, we had to name the types of abuse she is suffering (physical, verbal, emotional/psychological), comment on the appropriateness of the responses she had received (completely inappropriate) and then spell out what we would say to her (name abuse, ask about immediate safety, offer info on support services). I was pretty happy with my responses and thought that I had done well with them. Indeed I haven't received any dissenting opinions on my comments. But the responses of some of the other students really shocks me. Basically saying that there isn't enough info to define they types of abuse, that what she says should be taken with a grain of salt, that the emphasis should be on assisting the family to stay together.
Now, I don't think I proposed immediate separation and divorce proceedings in what I said. My point was to give the woman the knowledge to name what is happening to her and some resources to help her cope and decide what to do. At all times I emphasised her safety. One of the other respondents made the point that the male brain chemistry is different to the female brain and it is normal for a man to be upset with his wife and kids at times. He said outright that any woman who disagreed with him believed that all men are evil. Another person tried to write everything off as a possible clash of cultural ideals, although we were given no information about the cultural background of the woman. I am shocked at this type of attitude and am honestly scared for the future clients of the people who responded in this way.
The whole lot of this stuff combined really has me questioning my knowledge. Not my knowledge about what happened to me. That I know I am secure about. But my academic knowledge. Have I not been reading widely enough? Am I being brainwashed by the feminist side of he argument? I am reasonably sure in answering both of those questions as no. But that leads me to wonder about the quality of the education I am getting when the readings suck so badly and the other students can be so damn ignorant of the dynamics of DV and the accepted safe way of doing things (one person suggested one on one counselling for the woman but to bring the rest of the family into it over time. Couples counselling in cases where there is DV is a big no-no if the violence is still occurring).
Basically I am left with a really bad taste in my mouth about the whole thing and am seriously wondering if I have misplaced my passion. I wish there was somebody I could really sit down and discuss this with but I wouldn't know how to bring it up. It seems kind of a petty thing to have me so riles and fucking confused.
I guess the biggest issue at the moment really is the Protection unit stuff. Last week's topic was Family Violence (the name the uni chooses to use for domestic violence or intimate partner violence). Now this isn't something I know nothing about. Learning more about DV has been a natural extension of my quest to find more about IPSV. So I went into the topic feeling pretty confident about my level of knowledge. Yet by today I am questioning all of that knowledge.
Part of the problem is the text book. The section on family violence shows a clear bias towards the "women are as violent as men" school of thought. This doesn't sit well with me as it goes against the majority of academic research about DV. I have also read more than one article about why the studies that lead to that conclusion need to be taken with a humongous grain of salt (many use the Conflict Tactics Scale which makes no differentiation between severity of violence or attack and defence). Yet this is in the text book we are using and we have not been given anything to balance it out. Nor is there any mention about the fact that this point of view does not reflect the majority of academic research on DV.
So that was the first thing that really got my back up. Then there was the reading on substance abuse and family violence. Whoever wrote that presented a very weak argument for his point of view (being that family violence and substance abuse are linked). He quoted general statistics (26% of children from an alcoholic home are victims of sexual violence) but made no effort to explain the findings he used. For example, if this information came from a study about children who have come to the attention of protection authorities then we would expect that the number of children abused would be higher than general population prevalence studies. We are also not given a figure of how many families or abused children were included in the study. If it was only 100 then a 3-4% difference between that figures and the standard ones used about sexual abuse (1 in 3 girls, 1 in 10 boys = approx 21.5%) isn't that big. (Of course both statistics are horrifying).
So that article didn't do much to endear me either. So far less than impressed with the reading material for the unit.
Then comes the discussion forum. Each week we do one of these. Well if the readings horrified me then this outright shocked me. We were given a case study to respond to. The case was a married woman with two kids ringing a crisis line to find out if what is happening in her marriage is normal (deja vu much. I remember wondering the same thing). She says that she doesn't get black eyes but is pushed and shoved by her partner, verbally abused and threatened. She also says that she and the children make an effort "not to upset daddy." The woman has raised her concerns with both her husbands shrink and a minister and both time basically been told she is misreading things and needs to take the good with the bad. So anyway, we had to name the types of abuse she is suffering (physical, verbal, emotional/psychological), comment on the appropriateness of the responses she had received (completely inappropriate) and then spell out what we would say to her (name abuse, ask about immediate safety, offer info on support services). I was pretty happy with my responses and thought that I had done well with them. Indeed I haven't received any dissenting opinions on my comments. But the responses of some of the other students really shocks me. Basically saying that there isn't enough info to define they types of abuse, that what she says should be taken with a grain of salt, that the emphasis should be on assisting the family to stay together.
Now, I don't think I proposed immediate separation and divorce proceedings in what I said. My point was to give the woman the knowledge to name what is happening to her and some resources to help her cope and decide what to do. At all times I emphasised her safety. One of the other respondents made the point that the male brain chemistry is different to the female brain and it is normal for a man to be upset with his wife and kids at times. He said outright that any woman who disagreed with him believed that all men are evil. Another person tried to write everything off as a possible clash of cultural ideals, although we were given no information about the cultural background of the woman. I am shocked at this type of attitude and am honestly scared for the future clients of the people who responded in this way.
The whole lot of this stuff combined really has me questioning my knowledge. Not my knowledge about what happened to me. That I know I am secure about. But my academic knowledge. Have I not been reading widely enough? Am I being brainwashed by the feminist side of he argument? I am reasonably sure in answering both of those questions as no. But that leads me to wonder about the quality of the education I am getting when the readings suck so badly and the other students can be so damn ignorant of the dynamics of DV and the accepted safe way of doing things (one person suggested one on one counselling for the woman but to bring the rest of the family into it over time. Couples counselling in cases where there is DV is a big no-no if the violence is still occurring).
Basically I am left with a really bad taste in my mouth about the whole thing and am seriously wondering if I have misplaced my passion. I wish there was somebody I could really sit down and discuss this with but I wouldn't know how to bring it up. It seems kind of a petty thing to have me so riles and fucking confused.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Rights and Responsibilities
When I was in high school it was made very clear to us, as students, that we had certain rights. It was also made clear that alongside those rights we had certain responsibilites. From what I have seen of my children's school it is much the same there. What is sad is that it doesn't seem to translate to humanity in general.
We hear much about rights. Human rights, men's rights, prisoner's rights, women's rights. But maybe it's about time that the responsibilities that go with those rights are clearly articulated. For example:
Right: To live free of violence
Responsibility: Not to be violent to others
Right: To be treated humanely.
Responsibility: To treat all others humanely.
Rights are all well and good but unless they are tied to responsibilities then they are next to meaningless. One example I have seen recently is a commentator on an Opinion e-newspaper. He rabbits on about the evil of feminism and how it's destroying the world and how men's rights groups are the only ones to have it right. But never does he mention the responsibilities that men have. It is like a little kid who wants everything and won't shre. One of his favourite hobby-horses is the evils of the Family Law Act, in regards to fathers (leading many other commentators to speculate that he has been done over by that system). He talks about the rights of fathers to know their children, to have equal access and time with their children. Nowhere does he mention the children's rights to live free of fear and intimidation, to have a stable and happy life. Nor does he mention the responsibilities men have regarding their children. That responsibility does not start and end with paying child support, as so many think it does (Not all. There are many men who fight not just their rights but their responsibilities). There is a responsibility to treat your children as people in their own right, not as extensions of themselves. There is a responsibility to provide for your children, beyond what is required in child support. That means a safe environment to go to when with their fathers, proper meals and other requirements when they are with their father (clothes, shoes, entertainment). There is a responsibility to ensure your children's safety. This can range from ensuring they have proper safety equipment for activities they my do with the father, such as bike riding, to ensuring that they get sufficient sleep, are not around illegal drug use and are not taken to places where their physical and emotional safety may be put at risk. It should go without saying that these responsibilities belong to BOTH parents, however it often doesn't seem to be the case.
A mother also has many responsibilities. One of those, as put forward in the Family Law Act is to be a "friendly"parent. While friendly parent provisions apply to both parents, in cases where 50/50 shared care is not in place the onus is on the parent who has physical custody of the children for the greater proportion of time. This generally means the mother. Friendly Parent provisions require parents to facilitate and encourage the children's relationship with the other parent, regardless of any safety issues to themselves or the children. It is a part of the Act that is very open to mainpulation as it does not take much to paint one parent as being "unfriendly" to the other.
To get back on track.....
Maybe it is time we all stopped putting our rights to the front and centre and looked instead at our responsibilities. I believe that if we all met our responsibilities, as implied by our rights, then the world would be a safer, happier place.
We hear much about rights. Human rights, men's rights, prisoner's rights, women's rights. But maybe it's about time that the responsibilities that go with those rights are clearly articulated. For example:
Right: To live free of violence
Responsibility: Not to be violent to others
Right: To be treated humanely.
Responsibility: To treat all others humanely.
Rights are all well and good but unless they are tied to responsibilities then they are next to meaningless. One example I have seen recently is a commentator on an Opinion e-newspaper. He rabbits on about the evil of feminism and how it's destroying the world and how men's rights groups are the only ones to have it right. But never does he mention the responsibilities that men have. It is like a little kid who wants everything and won't shre. One of his favourite hobby-horses is the evils of the Family Law Act, in regards to fathers (leading many other commentators to speculate that he has been done over by that system). He talks about the rights of fathers to know their children, to have equal access and time with their children. Nowhere does he mention the children's rights to live free of fear and intimidation, to have a stable and happy life. Nor does he mention the responsibilities men have regarding their children. That responsibility does not start and end with paying child support, as so many think it does (Not all. There are many men who fight not just their rights but their responsibilities). There is a responsibility to treat your children as people in their own right, not as extensions of themselves. There is a responsibility to provide for your children, beyond what is required in child support. That means a safe environment to go to when with their fathers, proper meals and other requirements when they are with their father (clothes, shoes, entertainment). There is a responsibility to ensure your children's safety. This can range from ensuring they have proper safety equipment for activities they my do with the father, such as bike riding, to ensuring that they get sufficient sleep, are not around illegal drug use and are not taken to places where their physical and emotional safety may be put at risk. It should go without saying that these responsibilities belong to BOTH parents, however it often doesn't seem to be the case.
A mother also has many responsibilities. One of those, as put forward in the Family Law Act is to be a "friendly"parent. While friendly parent provisions apply to both parents, in cases where 50/50 shared care is not in place the onus is on the parent who has physical custody of the children for the greater proportion of time. This generally means the mother. Friendly Parent provisions require parents to facilitate and encourage the children's relationship with the other parent, regardless of any safety issues to themselves or the children. It is a part of the Act that is very open to mainpulation as it does not take much to paint one parent as being "unfriendly" to the other.
To get back on track.....
Maybe it is time we all stopped putting our rights to the front and centre and looked instead at our responsibilities. I believe that if we all met our responsibilities, as implied by our rights, then the world would be a safer, happier place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)