Small Talk: Behavioral Gabbing Unit

[normasm]

Yay! You're back!

[Bookish Jen]

HOORAY! I can post again. Of course I had to start a whole new account in order to do so. This time though I have my password written down somewhere in case I accidentally get signed out again and can't remember it. Anyways some of you already know who I am but for those who don't I was formerly know as missmycat

Welcome back.

 

I have some news about my job situation but I need to calm down. I'm too angry. I feel like I've been thrown under the bus.

[ReidFan]

Welcome back.

 

I have some news about my job situation but I need to calm down. I'm too angry. I feel like I've been thrown under the bus.

>:-( :::rolling up sleeves::::  Okay, who do I beat up?

[Bookish Jen]

>:-( :::rolling up sleeves::::  Okay, who do I beat up?

I found out that I and another co-worker are leaving this special project earlier than expected. My seniority means nothing. Meanwhile, the gossipy pippy-poos, including one who is always on her damn phone and doesn't do any work is staying. Now I have to see about getting another special project to work on during the interim.

[normasm]

I'm sorry, Booky, that sucks.

[SSAHotchner]

Sorry, Jen. Maybe the next project will be great and this will turn out to be a blessing in disguise. 

[Bookish Jen]

Thanks for all the kind remarks; it means a lot too me.

 

I'm over the initial shock. And I did cry when I got home. I still feel some residual anger over how unprofessional this was played out. At least give us two weeks' notice and let us tie up some loose ends. I'm also peeved because I have more seniority than other people who work on special projects and am often commended for my professionalism and work ethic. What kills me is they are keeping other people who don't have these two things, including one who often bails at critical junctures and another one who, get this, wears slippers to work, is always playing on her smart phone, and was caught sleeping in her cubicle.

[normasm]

Booky, perhaps their poor choices will bite them in the ass, and they will know they made the wrong choice. But, from experience, I know that, even if they realize they made a mistake in letting you and the others go, they will most likely rationalize it as something you outgoing bunch did to curse things.

 

Never, ever, do people like this - who, rather than try to build a permanent, full-time team (which they would have to pay), will cobble together a group for a temp project in which they know a couple of you are the talent and the rest are the drones who will get it done in the end - actually care that they could build an active, creative team with you. They suck up your creativity on a contract basis, and, if, in the last stage of the project, they have the concept, structure and execution gleaned from you and others, they will cut you loose and have the lesser people implement it.

 

I've experienced this, too, many times. I wish I could tell you that you will see justice, but, nah, it's their world. Go be an artist on your own in between having to sell your soul. Know there are people who appreciate your artistry, and walk away from them idgits. They can't take that away from you.

[secnarf]

That is harsh, Booky :( Did they give any reason why they're taking you off the project?

It's unfortunate that there's always people who put in a great deal of effort and people who coast, in every workplace. I think having good management is key and without that, it's so easy for workplaces to turn toxic.

I hope that normasm is right at it comes back to bite them in the ass, and you can get a special kind of satisfaction from that :P Schadenfreude.

 

On the happier side of life, I recently found out that my best friend is pregnant! Which is even more exciting because her husband was told he might never be able to have kids due to multiple rounds of chemo as a teenager.

And now I need to learn to crochet, to make things for the baby! I'm terrible at it - my grandmother died before she had a chance to teach me :(

[Reghan]

What the heck...my boss scheduled me 9-6 next Saturday...Happy freakin birthday..

 

Who schedules someone nine hours on their birthday? UGH

[Reghan]

I'm turning 19 in about 6.5 hours...should I be more excited? 

[normasm]

Oh, go ahead, as my daddy would say.

[Old Dog]

By gosh I wish I was turning 19 again! Be excited - your life goes in a flash.

[Bookish Jen]

I'm turning 19 in about 6.5 hours...should I be more excited? 

Happy Birthday, Miss Whippersnapper. Have a glass of (illegal) champagne on me to celebrate.

[Bookish Jen]

I hope I'm not being too self-indulgent but here is a tribute I wrote for the late Harper Lee.

 

https://thebookselfblog.wordpress.com/2016/02/20/tribute-harper-lee/
 

[normasm]

That was lovely, Booky. 

My parents lived the last 21 years of their lives in Monroeville, AL, and knew Miss Nelle and her sister Miss Alice. My nephews grew up there (left when the oldest was 15), and played parts in the annual presentation of the play version of TKAM. Of course, I loved the book long before I had that family connection. I haven't read the Watchman book, but i will, knowing it was a draft that was not revisited past a certain point by her, and was pretty much left unedited. She was very talented, and a singular personality.

[Bookish Jen]

Thanks for your sweet comment. So cool your parents knew Miss Lee makes me a wee envious, but oh-so-cool on their part.

[Bookish Jen]

Last night I saw the "Post Secret" with some friends of mine. It was amazing; I highly recommend it. Perhaps I will post a secret that nobody in my family knows nor do any of my friends, but I have to work up the nerve.

[Bookish Jen]

Damn, even an Oscar winner like Patricia Arquette who is also on a successful TV show gets shit for leaning in.

http://jezebel.com/patricia-arquette-and-jennifer-lawrence-spoke-about-the-1761690776

 

[Danielg342]

I'm not sure how much I trust Jezebel on a subject like that. Sounds to me like Patricia Arquette knows that CSI:Cyber is likely a goner after this season because of poor ratings and she wants to save face.

 

I've read quite a bit about things like the gender pay gap and, as I was telling my brother earlier today, the problem with a lot of "identity politics" is that everyone oversimplifies things when the reality is far more complex. When it comes to the gender pay gap, there are plenty of factors to consider, such as social expectations (women are more likely to take time off for family than men), the job choices women and men make (i.e., women typically take jobs that pay less than the jobs men take, but in each field women and men make the same amount) and the dearth of women in leadership positions (in my factory, all the VPs, the CEO and the President are men, and we only have one female manager, who predictably works in Human Resources).

 

To me, solving a problem like the gap is like solving a lot of problems that identity politicians bring up- attitudes need to change (and that doesn't happen quickly) and the activists need to put a cork on their rhetoric, because- as they often do- advocating for tokenism just leads to more problems.

 

I would agree that there are cultural issues inherent in our society, but we're not going to solve anything if we keeping thinking everything is "cut and dry".

[Cobalt Stargazer]

Damn, even an Oscar winner like Patricia Arquette who is also on a successful TV show gets shit for leaning in.

http://jezebel.com/patricia-arquette-and-jennifer-lawrence-spoke-about-the-1761690776

 

Shortly after Arquette made the speech, there was a kerfuffle that amounted to people wanting her to sit down and shut up because she isn't a person of color and therefore "doesn't know the struggle". (Quotations and sarcasm mine.) Because for all the talk of how the discussion about the gender gap or whatever else needs to happen, apparently some people shouldn't be allowed to participate in the discussion.

[smoker]

Firstly, I want to say this is a sensitive issue and it's a problem in a lot of jobs, but there is an important question actors and actress need to understand when they make a statement like Patricia Arquette last year. Actors should be paid in relation with the amount of money they can collet. 

I think it's an insult they didn't want to pay "Scully and Mulder" the same salary, because they are equals so if the problem is Ethan Hawke was paid more in that film, I do agree with her because it wasn't fair.

However, if a film uses a lead actor/actress who ensures a lot of viewers like Brad Pitt, Tom Hanks or Julia Roberts (it doesn't have to do with their talent either), it's more about who makes more money for the industry. Would you pay the same to Harrison Ford in the 80's than any of the actress who worked with him?

Now if you watch Jobs, I think it's unfair Fassbender paycheck was bigger than Winslet's and yet who makes more money for the industry? 

Edited February 29, 2016 by smoker

[JMO]

Melinda Gates recently spoke out on the issue of gender inequality in 'unpaid work'.  I think she's right on.

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/melinda-gates-explains-why-time-poverty-is-one-of-the-biggest-challenges-of-the-modern-era-2016-2

[Danielg342]

I think what Melinda Gates says sounds nice, and in principle, maybe she's correct. However, I think it's overtly idealistic and I'm not sure it takes into account the various different realities that different countries operate under.

 

I mean, it's easy for Gates, as an American, to think "that because the U.S. works so well when both women and men work, other countries should follow suit", but she forgets that other countries are not like the U.S., or even the West, where it's culturally acceptable for both parents to work. I also noticed that Gates and the OCED only compared the amount of housework completed between men and women- it didn't take into account the amount of "economic" work undertaken by either gender. Personally, I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I can offer a "knee-jerk" analysis and speak anecdotally that a number of people who I work with at my factory- mostly all Tamils, though I know one Ecudadorian who does it as well- who work two jobs just to have enough money to feed their kids and their wives. This must be a cultural thing, since there's nothing stopping my co-workers from telling their wives to find a job themselves, but they choose not to do it. This makes me wonder if in places like Sri Lanka or Ecuador or Saudi Arabia you have the phenomenon where the wife works all day collecting water and doing the laundry while the husband spends all of his waking hours working for the economy.

 

Situations like that are not so simple to "fix" with a simple decree that the husbands "help out around the house more", because in many cases they simply can't. Now, perhaps those cultures don't have to assume that the woman stays home and the man works, but attitudes are very hard to change.

 

I also have to openly wonder how successful our "both parents working" society really works. We live in a generation full of coddled millennials who have a deluded sense of entitlement and narcissism (perhaps best encapsulated by Ethan Couch and Marco Muzzo), unable to adapt to the realities of the world around them because the world- unlike their parents- doesn't hand them a lot of stuff in general, let alone for free. Many of those millennials were raised by parents who- if they weren't divorced- were largely absent from their childhood lives because both worked all day, with the parents believing that showering their kids with "toys" would make up for that absence, when it doesn't.

 

Sure, an economist would definitely say that "the more people who work, the better" but I'm not sure that, socially, it's the best practice. I'm not here to say that women should stay home, but I certainly see the value of having one parent who at least can stay behind at home all day or part of the day to raise the children. I also think there's too many people in today's day and age that don't understand simple things like laundry and cooking. Economically our countries may have benefit, but I wonder if socially we're going to pay a hefty price for all the life skills we seem to lack- if we aren't paying that price already.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

Firstly, I want to say this is a sensitive issue and it's a problem in a lot of jobs, but there is an important question actors and actress need to understand when they make a statement like Patricia Arquette last year. Actors should be paid in relation with the amount of money they can collet. 

I think it's an insult they didn't want to pay "Scully and Mulder" the same salary, because they are equals so if the problem is Ethan Hawke was paid more in that film, I do agree with her because it wasn't fair.

However, if a film uses a lead actor/actress who ensures a lot of viewers like Brad Pitt, Tom Hanks or Julia Roberts (it doesn't have to do with their talent either), it's more about who makes more money for the industry. Would you pay the same to Harrison Ford in the 80's than any of the actress who worked with him?

Now if you watch Jobs, I think it's unfair Fassbender paycheck was bigger than Winslet's and yet who makes more money for the industry? 

 

Just as a random note, don't you mean David Duchovny? Because Ethan Hawke isn't and hasn't ever been involved with The X Files. :-)

 

As for Jobs, which I haven't seen yet, while Kate Winslet has an Oscar and Fassbender doesn't, Titanic is almost twenty years old, and Jesus typing that makes me feel ancient. But nothing else she's been in since then has been such a smash, at least not as far as I'm aware. Even Revolutionary Road, where she re-teamed with DiCaprio, didn't do as well, although it did make money. Conversely, Fassbender lucked into the X Men franchise when he landed the role of Young!Magneto, in addition to showing up in 12 Years A Slave and Inglourious Basterds. Not saying there's been anything wrong with the choice of roles Kate has made, but Michael Fassbender's raked in a fuckton of money for the industry.

 

 

I also have to openly wonder how successful our "both parents working" society really works. We live in a generation full of coddled millennials who have a deluded sense of entitlement and narcissism (perhaps best encapsulated by Ethan Couch and Marco Muzzo), unable to adapt to the realities of the world around them because the world- unlike their parents- doesn't hand them a lot of stuff in general, let alone for free. Many of those millennials were raised by parents who- if they weren't divorced- were largely absent from their childhood lives because both worked all day, with the parents believing that showering their kids with "toys" would make up for that absence, when it doesn't.

 

Sure, an economist would definitely say that "the more people who work, the better" but I'm not sure that, socially, it's the best practice. I'm not here to say that women should stay home, but I certainly see the value of having one parent who at least can stay behind at home all day or part of the day to raise the children. I also think there's too many people in today's day and age that don't understand simple things like laundry and cooking. Economically our countries may have benefit, but I wonder if socially we're going to pay a hefty price for all the life skills we seem to lack- if we aren't paying that price already.

 

Television reinforces that entitlement and narcissism, IMO, not to mention laziness. Watch commercials sometime, see how long it takes you to run out of fingers and toes to count the number of incompetent husbands and boyfriends who don't know anything about basic housecleaning or shopping. It's a subject that's been discussed often in the commercial section, the general lack of intelligence and that seven out of ten times, it's the man who can't buy the right brand of cat food or dish detergent without supervision, and certainly can't do something as simple as not trash the house when his wife's back is turned. Say what you will about traditional gender roles, but if the guy is too damn stupid to pour piss out of a boot, no wonder the woman is having to take up the slack. And somehow, I guess, this is supposed to be seen as humor, that husbands are clueless when it come to cooking and cleaning, to say nothing of child care.

 

I will say that there were those when I was younger, like in high school, who never so much as washed a dish in their parents' houses, but generally speaking they grew out of it. Because they had to, because no one was going to do it for them. I had chores when I was a kid, chores I had to do if I wanted my allowance that week, because my dad worked and my mom didn't, She went back to work, but not until long after I was an adult. I'm not saying that's ideal, or for everyone. And I'm sure this sounds like one of those "Everything was so much better when I was a kid!" that us cranks love so much, so you may take this post with as much salt as you like. :-)

[smoker]

 

Just as a random note, don't you mean David Duchovny? Because Ethan Hawke isn't and hasn't ever been involved with The X Files. :-)

 

As for Jobs, which I haven't seen yet, while Kate Winslet has an Oscar and Fassbender doesn't, Titanic is almost twenty years old, and Jesus typing that makes me feel ancient. But nothing else she's been in since then has been such a smash, at least not as far as I'm aware. Even Revolutionary Road, where she re-teamed with DiCaprio, didn't do as well, although it did make money. Conversely, Fassbender lucked into the X Men franchise when he landed the role of Young!Magneto, in addition to showing up in 12 Years A Slave and Inglourious Basterds. Not saying there's been anything wrong with the choice of roles Kate has made, but Michael Fassbender's raked in a fuckton of money for the industry.

 

Oh my God, in my mind everything sounded really well organized hahaha.

I apologize for my bad grammar, rewriting everything pains my brain so I'll explain myself better.

 

You are right, I mean Duchovny, when I named Ethan Hawke I was thinking in Boyhood which he costared with Patricia Arquette. And I think Gillian Angderson and P. Arquette (Boyhood) were right being mad about salaries.

 

Kate Winslet, you are right again hehe, her films aren't on the top of the box-office, even if both of them are talented as actors. People usually aren't going to theathers to watch the type of movies Winslet makes. It's unfair she didn't make as much money as him if we take into account they are main characters and they are wonderful in their roles, and yet, I only gave a try to Jobs because of Fassbender.

Edited February 29, 2016 by smoker

[Bookish Jen]

Well, this is rather appropriate:

http://www.readacrossamerica.org/

[Bookish Jen]

Ew, just ew. My yoni belongs to me, and me alone. And I just bet Daddy Fearest thinks the clitoris is a dinosaur at the Creation Museum. Meanwhile his wife is thinking, "You got that right, and that's why I have a Hitachi Magic Wand."

 

http://wonkette.com/599418/christian-daddy-seeks-godly-young-man-to-pry-open-daughters-box

Edited March 9, 2016 by Bookish Jen

[Bookish Jen]

Another rumpled hair gentleman I adore. Mark Ruffalo-talented actor, devoted family man, liberal activist, feminist and fellow cheesehead.

[thewhiteowl]

Talking politics is running with scissors. Please stop. Not allowed.

[Bookish Jen]

Had the extreme pleasure of talking with a potential Spencer today. As many of you know I'm a teaching assistant at my church. I deal with students in 3rd through 5th grade. Aiden, the young gentleman I talked with, just had so many questions and seemed so enthusiastic to learn more about the topic. He go fully engrossed in a book so I made sure to write down the name of the book and the author so he can check it out from the library.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

Second... on the Internet, unless you are Garcia, you can only go by what the people reveal about themselves. For all you know, that "woman" may not even be a woman. It may all be made up. Maybe it's all the work of a very sick, elaborate troll. You think she is evil for no reason because she has basically portrayed it that way

 

But that female Charles Manson in your planned story, although based on a "real" person, is your character. And you are free to reveal ANYTHING and EVERYTHING about her life. It baffles you that she, the inspiration, is evil for no reason-if there is a reason, what do you think it would be? Think about it that way.

 

Thing is, sometimes there is no reason. I finally watched the movie Spotlight, and I've got proof.

 

If you haven't seen it or aren't familiar with the title, I recommend it, because it's a very good movie. But you should have antacids or something handy if you plan to watch it, because you might end up needing them.

 

Real evil is surprisingly banal, and although you're right in that you can't know what goes on in somebody else's head, their actions - or inaction, in the case of Spotlight - tells you pretty much everything there is to be said. The way the movie tells it, almost everyone in Boston knew what was going on in the Church, or at least suspected it, and it still took decades for the stories of abuse and molestation to be told. It should have shocked me more than it did, but the truth is that sometimes there is no golden, shining hero, in blood-caked armor or out of it, who comes along to save the day and make everything okay.

[JMO]

 

Thing is, sometimes there is no reason. I finally watched the movie Spotlight, and I've got proof.

 

If you haven't seen it or aren't familiar with the title, I recommend it, because it's a very good movie. But you should have antacids or something handy if you plan to watch it, because you might end up needing them.

 

Real evil is surprisingly banal, and although you're right in that you can't know what goes on in somebody else's head, their actions - or inaction, in the case of Spotlight - tells you pretty much everything there is to be said. The way the movie tells it, almost everyone in Boston knew what was going on in the Church, or at least suspected it, and it still took decades for the stories of abuse and molestation to be told. It should have shocked me more than it did, but the truth is that sometimes there is no golden, shining hero, in blood-caked armor or out of it, who comes along to save the day and make everything okay.

 

I don't buy that premise.  I think there is always a reason, whether or not it is visible to someone else.  It's tempting to turn a blind eye to pathology, and simply describe someone as 'evil', because it gives a false sense of freedom to hate that person.  Usually all you really have is a human being who was deprived of love and affection from his earliest days, or himself victimized at the hands of another. Or someone whose neurochemistry is faulty.  Which means that we have to try to understand, so we can prevent it happening to someone else, and, just maybe, forgive.  That's not as cathartic as hating, but I think it's the uncomfortable truth.

 

The whole history of the concepts of child physical abuse and child sexual abuse is pretty astounding in how modern it is.  It's all happened in the space of my lifetime, and a good part of it in the space of my career.  While it was 'recognized' decades earlier, the 'landmark' article on The Battered Child (Kempe) came out in 1962.  The first protections of children, who were treated as property, occurred through the auspices of the ASPCA. 

 

The formal recognition of the concept of child sexual abuse didn't occur until the mid-1970s (Sgroi).  While the perpetrators of the abuse obviously knew the truth, it took some time for their superiors in the church to reconcile themselves to the concept that it was happening.  I actually understand that.  They didn't really have a point of reference.  The same happened with teachers, and scout leaders, and others who had frequent, unsupervised interactions with children.  And then there was the McMartin preschool fiasco (1982), which put everything back into question. 

 

Once things settled down, and the idea of real child sexual abuse became more widely accepted, there were programs developed to try to 'treat' the perpetrators.  At that point, many of the clergy about whom complaints were made were referred to those programs.  Church leadership was assured that treatment would work.  Up until that point, it's hard to point a finger at anyone but the perpetrator.  But it turned out that the treatments weren't successful, and there began a round of re-offending.  It's at that point that church leadership should have realized the extent and recalcitrance of the problem.  It didn't.  Wouldn't?  Couldn't?  Don't know.  But that point probably occurred in the neighborhood of 1990. It's been in the forefront, albeit not always well-handled, since the turn of the century. 

 

Long intro into the idea that the abuse may have been going on for decades, but the response to it is much more complex than is often portrayed.  There is some righteous outrage, and it's completely understandable.  Many children's lives were put into shambles by it, and many suffer into adulthood.  Assigning blame is actually helpful for the victim.  But it isn't all that helpful for the society that wants to avoid such circumstances in the future.  For that, we need to dissect, and analyze, and understand.  Films such as Spotlight become important in that process, but they don't replace real research.  

[Danielg342]

Two things, CobaltStargazer:

 

1) I'm with JMO- just because we "normal" people can't fathom why some do what they do it doesn't mean that the perpetrators haven't rationalized it themselves. In many, many cases, criminals tell themselves things to make them feel that whatever crime they will commit is okay- like, "sure, child sex abuse is wrong...but Billy really likes having me around more than his own parents and I like the way he touches me". Even the most disturbed of criminals will have a reason for what they are doing, from voices in their head to belief of a government conspiracy to all kinds of grandiose things. Bottom line is that there is a reason.

 

As for the Church and their sexual abuses, many reasons have been proposed, like a feeling among clergy that because they are "morally superior" they can engage in the abuse or the fact that since priests enter celibacy when they are teenagers, their desires never get past the "teen" stage. Priests themselves state that seminary training does not adequately prepare them for a life of celibacy, and the Church's strict policy on celibacy is largely seen as the culprit.

 

Personally I don't think there is one singular reason, but I do believe each abuser has their reasons. We just don't agree with those reasons.

 

2) For storywriting purposes (as Mislav's comment came from the Fanfiction thread), it's just not that interesting to have an antagonist who has absolutely no motivations whatsoever. What's the reason to care? It's not simply enough to make someone evil to be an effective villain- that villain at least needs to have a goal or a motivation to do what they are doing, preferably one that tells the protagonist they're enough of a threat they need to be dealt with right now. Otherwise, the story just goes through the motions- sure, there's evil abounding but evil is everywhere, and people always think, "if it's not affecting me, why should I care?"

 

This isn't to say that you can't have a story where the antagonist acts like an animal or actually is an animal- it just means that the writer needs to focus more on the struggles of the protagonist. We need to see the protagonist get stymied again and again, with each frustration affecting them more and more. In the case of a detective series, you can have superiors breathing down the protagonist's neck, driving the protagonist to stress-inducing migraines because the superiors keep on demanding action despite the fact the detective truly is trying but doesn't have a lick of evidence to work with.

 

In a story like this, the primary antagonist is not the villain actually committing the crimes but the people who are frustrating the protagonist, because it's those frustrations that drive the story. Sure, technically the overbearing Commissioner and the worried townsfolk aren't evil- they're really well-meaning folks- but they still act like an antagonist, because they provide something the protagonist needs to overcome.

 

So if you're going to write an "evil for the sake of being evil" villain, you need to ensure that the protagonist struggles in other ways- otherwise, it's not an effective story.

[zannej]

I want to Like JMO's post more than once. Very good description of the situation.

 

My mother and her sisters were all sent to Catholic school and the nuns that were teaching there were revered, even though some of them were self-righteous, arrogant, abusive assholes. One of them would break several rulers a day on students and she would hit them for minor things. One time she backhanded 5 students at once because they were trying to put their homework on her desk when the bell rang. Normally they were supposed to have the homework on her desk and be in their seats when the bell rang, but she opened the door late, so she just took a swing and hit all of them on their faces.

 

And then there was the "mother superior" who was mad at my grandmother over something so she decided to take it out on my aunt by humiliating her in front of the class-- calling her ugly and saying her hair made her look like a dog, and when she cut her hair she said it made her look like a pig or something. And because the parents didn't question it because it was taboo in that time to question the actions of a nun or clergy.

 

Of course, it doesn't even have to include religion for there to be abuse. There are quite a few horror stories from where I live about that. This state has Liability Immunity so teachers can't be sued or prosecuted for physically abusing children.

 

Part of the problem is that abusers seek positions of access and power over their victims-- and teaching and clergy positions include those things.

 

On the psychological motivation thing, I don't have the link right now, but there was a Youtube video about the youngest children to have committed murder. Some got off with no sentence at all due to their youth, some got 3 years, and one boy got life in prison without possibility of parole-- and his crime was not even as brutal as some of the others that got lesser sentences. It's interesting (and sad) to see the unequal implementation of the law when dealing with the crimes.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke.

 

Were they good people, these parents, these teachers, these friends and neighbors who knew that there had been "incidents", to use a polite word for it? Sure, they might have been. They probably mowed their lawns and bought groceries and spent time with their families just like everybody else. And there were a few people who raised a stink about it, tried to get the police involved, and then they got leaned on. By the Church, by lawyers who worked for the Church, by the police themselves, who didn't want the "responsibility" of having to slap the cuffs on a member of the clergy. Hell, it took an outsider to the community named Marty Baron, who took over as editor of the Boston Globe, to even get the newspaper staff to start and investigation, because it turned out that they had been alerted years before and buried the story. And even Baron initially got pushback because the Globe's subscribers were something like sixty percent Catholic.

 

As the investigation continued, it turned out that ninety-three priests had been investigated in-house, and most of them were simply quietly moved on to different parishes. Ninety-three, as opposed to the relatively small* number of thirteen they'd originally thought. And yes, it turned out that some of the priests had been molested as children, but isn't that what makes it doubly awful, that it had happened to them and they went and did it to someone else anyway? I don't believe that anyone comes out of the box as a pedophile, but so many of those kids were utterly destroyed by what had happened to them that they couldn't function as adults either. Drug addictions. Alcoholism. Crippling depression. Suicides. How much of it might have been prevented if attempts to get the story told hadn't been silenced?

And hate is maybe too strong a word, because I think it's way overused. People say "I hate that sweater" or "I hate the guy who cut me off in traffic" or "I hate string beans." It's more like contempt, really, for those who knew and did nothing, even when it was their own kids. Stanley Tucci, who played Mitchell Garabedian, the lawyer for some of the victims, had a line that's going to stick with me for a while: "If it takes a village to raise a child, it takes a village to abuse one."

 

*I realize that considering the subject thirteen is not actually a small number at all, but compared to ninety-three it's minuscule.

[Danielg342]

When it comes to Spotlight, as you've pointed out, CobaltStargazer, the primary antagonists are not the priests- they're the people in the town who all have an interest in maintaining the cover-up: the Boston Globe editors who buried the story, the police who refused to investigate, the local townspeople who refused to believe the problem existed, etc. I haven't seen Spotlight, but I assume that the movie dealt more with the motivations for the cover-up than than the priests themselves, which is why you never saw the priests' motivations, as the story wasn't about the priests but the battle against the city who refused to do anything about it.

[JMO]

To clarify---my comment on resorting to 'hate' was in reference to the idea that there might be intrinsic evil without a precipitating cause.  It's an idea I don't espouse, and, having not espoused it, I believe that there is always some pathology involved in wrong behavior.  That makes 'hate' wrong, and 'trying to understand', the way to go----in my book, anyway.

 

As to the issues of Spotlight, the issues you point out were real, but they were all surface issues, by which I mean, we're given the facts, but without understanding the 'why'.  Sexual abuse of children has not been acknowledged as an entity for all that long, and the dynamics surrounding it are still emerging.  It is not in the least surprising that early reports were discarded, whether by clergy, police, citizens, etc., because it took a good long while to emerge as a legitimate possibility. With such lack of knowledge about it, it's not surprising that the Church's initial response to it was to move the priest.  That would be grievously wrong now, with all that's emerged in social and medical science about it, but that was a different era.  

 

Denial surrounding sexual abuse, whether coming from the perpetrator, the victim, the family, the law----it's prevalent, but it's also incredibly complex.  There are always reasons, whether good or bad.  Most of it comes from a vision of the fallout of disclosure.  Disclosure puts an end to the abuse (usually), but it precipitates a whole cascade of response that often hurts the victim as much as the perpetrator.  No one wins, with sexual abuse.

 

My main point is that one must always delve beneath the surface, to study the facts as well as the dynamics of the time.  That's the only way we'll learn enough to apply any lessons learned to our own times.  For example:  a perusal of headlines leading up to some of the major crises of the last century is a fascinating exercise.  We know how the story ends (world wars, holocaust), but it wasn't understood in its time.  Does that make everyone of that era culpable?  Should they have known?  Or is it only obvious in retrospect?  Either way, shouldn't it alert us to look for those early signs in our current headlines?  

[Danielg342]

Denial surrounding sexual abuse, whether coming from the perpetrator, the victim, the family, the law----it's prevalent, but it's also incredibly complex.  There are always reasons, whether good or bad.  Most of it comes from a vision of the fallout of disclosure.  Disclosure puts an end to the abuse (usually), but it precipitates a whole cascade of response that often hurts the victim as much as the perpetrator.  No one wins, with sexual abuse.  

 

Not to hijack the discussion, but the protesters angry at Jian Ghomeshi's acquittal could sure learn about this. Much like anyone else who believes there are "simple" solutions to sexual assault.

[secnarf]

Not to hijack the discussion, but the protesters angry at Jian Ghomeshi's acquittal could sure learn about this. Much like anyone else who believes there are "simple" solutions to sexual assault.

Pretty much everything about the Jian Ghomeshi case makes me angry, but based on what we knew happened at trial, I was completely unsurprised at his acquittal. The one thing that did catch me off guard, and made me angrier than anything else, was the part of the Judge's decision where he said that based on the women's actions after the alleged assaults, he doesn't think they were as traumatized as they claimed. There are so many things wrong with that, including the implication that there was in fact some level of trauma there.

 

I do think that case will seriously hinder reporting and prosecution of sexual assaults, though. I don't think that alone is reason enough to convict, but it is an inevitable result of his acquittal, and I think that is part of the reason people are so upset.

[Danielg342]

Pretty much everything about the Jian Ghomeshi case makes me angry, but based on what we knew happened at trial, I was completely unsurprised at his acquittal. The one thing that did catch me off guard, and made me angrier than anything else, was the part of the Judge's decision where he said that based on the women's actions after the alleged assaults, he doesn't think they were as traumatized as they claimed. There are so many things wrong with that, including the implication that there was in fact some level of trauma there.

 

I do think that case will seriously hinder reporting and prosecution of sexual assaults, though. I don't think that alone is reason enough to convict, but it is an inevitable result of his acquittal, and I think that is part of the reason people are so upset.

 

I do agree there were problematic parts of the judge's decision, such as using the bikini picture or the picture of Lucy DeCoutere cuddling with Jian Ghomeshi as factors, since it seems like the judge focused on stuff that wasn't relevant (abuse victims aren't always cowering in fear while in their relationship- there are always moments when the relationship appears great, plus the only real relevant part of any assault incident is what happened at the moment of the assault).

 

However, I'm not convinced that even if this case had went as swimmingly as the rape activists would have hoped that this would somehow make reporting rape that much easier. We're talking about an event that most of us would think is the worst thing that could happen to someone, so already from that vantage point I'm not sure there will be that many willing to recount it. Obviously, it's not a preferable situation, but reality isn't always ideal.

 

Regardless, what bugged me more about the Ghomeshi trial was the "cheerleading" that went on, with people actively rooting for Ghomeshi's conviction. I get the sentiment, but it's over the top- I just want to tell those people, "imagine if people were rooting for your conviction, how would they feel?" We had people who made it life or death based on the result of the Ghomeshi trial, when such a thing forgets the fact that Ghomeshi's case is just one of many- he isn't the first to be accused of sexual assault nor will he be the last (in fact, Ghomeshi has another sexual assault trial in June). I'm not saying that the disappointment isn't justified- people can feel whatever they want- but whatever problems we have dealing with sexual assault aren't going to go away if Ghomeshi were convicted.

 

Could a conviction have produced hope? Maybe...but with so many other cases out there, it'd be minuscule at best. I mean, what if Ghomeshi got convicted but the other 90 rape cases resulted in wrongful acquittals? Is that a better result? Conversely, what if those 90 rape cases resulted in rightful convictions while Ghomeshi walked free (let's say it was correct, for the sake of argument)? If the issue with sexual assault is systemic, wouldn't it be better to look at the entire system instead of insisting of examining just one of many cases? Not to say that if a case finds the wrong decision that it is somehow okay- it isn't- but it's important not to make a singular case more than it is.

 

Which leads me to the next problem with the Ghomeshi case, something I've said many times about sexual assault in general- there's just too much emotion and not enough "rationality". I can't think of another topic where, no matter what you say, someone will already have a view on it without you having even said a word. It drives me nuts, since there's hardly anyone really willing to listen. I understand that the nature of the crime makes people's blood boil- it makes mine boil- but, ultimately, those very emotions are what holds any attempt at a solution back. Finding solutions require looking at things objectively, which is impossible if all we do during the discussion is yell and scream at each other and refuse to listen to counterarguments.

 

(I should probably say that the above paragraph doesn't just apply to feminists- you get enough "men's rights activists" who will hem and haw over how many rape accusers are just in it for "the notoriety" or to "extort the accused" with the automatic assumption that an acquittal must mean the accuser was lying. That's equally as wrong as feminist activists who insist the accused should just be convicted outright- forget the trial. I shouldn't have to discuss the issues with that sentiment)

 

I think the central problem is that in any discussion about sexual assault, there's an over-reliance on anecdotes. Sure, I understand that compiling statistics on sexual assault is extremely problematic- we're dealing with a crime where, through its very nature, will have people who do not report the event, which is impossible to measure with any kind of empirical certainty (I know there are studies that purport to show this, but they rely on self-reporting, which isn't reliable). This just leaves the anecdotes, but people seem to forget the issues with anecdotal evidence- they're just one person's account and, oftentimes, there's no way to verify what was said. I should caution that this doesn't mean that the anecdote is false- it just means that there's no way of knowing if it is actually truthful. It could, but it might also not be. There's no way of knowing for sure.

 

Unfortunately, because of these anecdotes, you get activists who are stuck in the 1960s and seem to forget that, at least on the surface, a lot of things have changed in favour of the victims, like rape shield laws, outlawing martial rape, counselling services, the fact that law enforcement officers who are immediately and openly dismissive about accusations are soundly criticized with many removed from their posts (as they should be) and a better sense, at least on a wide level, what consent is. Sure, problem cases still occur but I'm not sure how representative they are anymore, and I think, as a whole, a country like Canada is a far better place than places like Saudi Arabia or India when it comes to attitudes towards sexual crimes and the confidence in maintaining the safety of its citizens.

 

More importantly, the anecdotes take away from what I think is the real issue with prosecuting sexual assault- the very nature of it being "he said/she said". We're asking people to prove something that likely only the accused and accuser have witnessed, which is a zero sum game. It's small wonder that judges, like the Honourable William Horkins, who throw up their hands and say "what can I do?" What fears me is that the only solutions that ever get proffered are the ones that activists seem to favour, and that's to immediately throw the accused in jail and forget the trial, because the accuser's word should be good enough. I shouldn't have to explain how problematic that sentiment is- I get the reason behind it, but it would be societal chaos if that ever came into effect. Imagine if you could get convicted of a crime just because someone "said something", even if what was said wasn't true. That's hardly a solution.

 

To me, there's a few credible solutions:

 

1) The media shouldn't sensationalise false reports. As bad as the incidents involving "Jackie" and the Duke lacrosse team were, they're just two of many other accusations of sexual assault. By making the stories "bigger than they are", it hurts victims' abilities to report their own crimes because it helps fuel the perception that society- and LEOs in particular- won't listen to them. I also don't think false accusations are all that numerous- just by its very nature, I can't imagine something as traumatic as rape would be something a lot of people would make up on a whim.

 

2) No more knee-jerk reactions. Like the college tribunals or California's "active consent" law. The former looks to be a mess where colleges seem to operate them merely "just to look good" (the presence of several lawsuits over show trials leads to the perception that "the accused will always be convicted...unless your name is Jamies Winston, 'cause the Seminoles really need him on the field"), while the latter is just cosmetics (because who really thinks a rapist isn't going to try to get out of the charges by saying "there was verbal consent all the time"). If we're going to solve the problem, we should come up with meaningful solutions- not do things just to say "we're doing something".

 

3) Focus on serial rapists. Though it didn't work with Ghomeshi, it did work in the case of Daniel Holtzclaw in Oklahoma and the Jerry Sandusky case. Just by its very nature, an abuser isn't likely to stick to one victim- there are always more, and with more, there's more evidence and less of an ability to deny something happened. So LEOs would be advised not just to talk to the accuser but anyone else the accused would have interacted with- chances are, the accused has done it before with someone who didn't go to the police.

 

4) Use psychologists. Likely the Ghomeshi prosecution would have benefited from a psychological evaluation of the accusers. It's a lot to go through and it's also not perfect, but a psychologist would be better able to understand if the accuser's lapses in memory and other inconsistencies in their story is the result of lying or the trauma of sexual assault. We already do this in murder cases- why not for sexual assault?

 

I apologize this was long-winded, but I had a lot to cover.

[secnarf]

I do agree there were problematic parts of the judge's decision, such as using the bikini picture or the picture of Lucy DeCoutere cuddling with Jian Ghomeshi as factors, since it seems like the judge focused on stuff that wasn't relevant (abuse victims aren't always cowering in fear while in their relationship- there are always moments when the relationship appears great, plus the only real relevant part of any assault incident is what happened at the moment of the assault).

 

However, I'm not convinced that even if this case had went as swimmingly as the rape activists would have hoped that this would somehow make reporting rape that much easier. We're talking about an event that most of us would think is the worst thing that could happen to someone, so already from that vantage point I'm not sure there will be that many willing to recount it. Obviously, it's not a preferable situation, but reality isn't always ideal.

 

Regardless, what bugged me more about the Ghomeshi trial was the "cheerleading" that went on, with people actively rooting for Ghomeshi's conviction. I get the sentiment, but it's over the top- I just want to tell those people, "imagine if people were rooting for your conviction, how would they feel?" We had people who made it life or death based on the result of the Ghomeshi trial, when such a thing forgets the fact that Ghomeshi's case is just one of many- he isn't the first to be accused of sexual assault nor will he be the last (in fact, Ghomeshi has another sexual assault trial in June). I'm not saying that the disappointment isn't justified- people can feel whatever they want- but whatever problems we have dealing with sexual assault aren't going to go away if Ghomeshi were convicted.

 

Could a conviction have produced hope? Maybe...but with so many other cases out there, it'd be minuscule at best. I mean, what if Ghomeshi got convicted but the other 90 rape cases resulted in wrongful acquittals? Is that a better result? Conversely, what if those 90 rape cases resulted in rightful convictions while Ghomeshi walked free (let's say it was correct, for the sake of argument)? If the issue with sexual assault is systemic, wouldn't it be better to look at the entire system instead of insisting of examining just one of many cases? Not to say that if a case finds the wrong decision that it is somehow okay- it isn't- but it's important not to make a singular case more than it is.

 

...

 

I think the central problem is that in any discussion about sexual assault, there's an over-reliance on anecdotes. Sure, I understand that compiling statistics on sexual assault is extremely problematic- we're dealing with a crime where, through its very nature, will have people who do not report the event, which is impossible to measure with any kind of empirical certainty (I know there are studies that purport to show this, but they rely on self-reporting, which isn't reliable). This just leaves the anecdotes, but people seem to forget the issues with anecdotal evidence- they're just one person's account and, oftentimes, there's no way to verify what was said. I should caution that this doesn't mean that the anecdote is false- it just means that there's no way of knowing if it is actually truthful. It could, but it might also not be. There's no way of knowing for sure.

I think Jian Ghomeshi's case has more weight than 90 others because it was publicized so much more, since he is such a public figure. There is also the "Fifty Shades of Grey" aspect to it, which catches people's attention. Also, it's not that his case is the minority where the accused is acquitted - that is the majority. The issues with the Ghomeshi case - he said/she said, lack of physical evidence, judgement based on the behaviours and actions of the alleged victims - are issues that affect nearly all sexual assault cases and are very often the reason for acquittal.

 

Also, fwiw, I think people over-rely on anecdotes in nearly all aspects of their lives. Just look at pretty much any field of science - there are people who claim that x happens because of y, despite a plethora of evidence to the contrary. Anecdotes are easier for people to relate to, compared to numbers and hard facts. In the absence of concrete and tangible evidence, anecdotes are even more appealing as a source of information.

[zannej]

I found it disturbing that the part of the reason the judge dismissed the claims was because he didn't think the alleged victims acted enough like he expected rape victims to act. Not all women react the same way.

There was a case in Louisiana fairly recently where a cop was going around pulling women over and raping them. He was mostly doing it to women who already had been arrested for something-- even minor things-- and was getting away with it through intimidation. He threatened those women with incarceration and trumped up charges, but, as one survivor stated, "he picked the wrong woman" to attack one day when he pulled over a woman who had no criminal record and assaulted her. She was highly pissed off about it and reported his ass and fought tooth and nail to make sure he was convicted and inspired other survivors to come forward. She didn't act like the stereotypical victim. She was angry and confident.

Btw, the marital rape laws are not equal in all states. I think not all states even had marital rape criminalized until the 90s (I think one of the Carolinas didn't make it law until 1993), but it is a sort of softer law. In some places, it is not considered rape unless the spouse uses a gun or knife-- even if a man beats the shit out of his wife and holds her down forcefully, if he doesn't use a weapon, it isn't counted as rape. And in, I think North Carolina, drugging a spouse and/or raping them while they are unconscious doesn't count-- and even if someone is convicted of marital rape, there is a cap on the sentence so there is diminished punishment for the offense. It really is sad.

[secnarf]

I found it disturbing that the part of the reason the judge dismissed the claims was because he didn't think the alleged victims acted enough like he expected rape victims to act. Not all women react the same way.

There was a case in Louisiana fairly recently where a cop was going around pulling women over and raping them. He was mostly doing it to women who already had been arrested for something-- even minor things-- and was getting away with it through intimidation. He threatened those women with incarceration and trumped up charges, but, as one survivor stated, "he picked the wrong woman" to attack one day when he pulled over a woman who had no criminal record and assaulted her. She was highly pissed off about it and reported his ass and fought tooth and nail to make sure he was convicted and inspired other survivors to come forward. She didn't act like the stereotypical victim. She was angry and confident.

Btw, the marital rape laws are not equal in all states. I think not all states even had marital rape criminalized until the 90s (I think one of the Carolinas didn't make it law until 1993), but it is a sort of softer law. In some places, it is not considered rape unless the spouse uses a gun or knife-- even if a man beats the shit out of his wife and holds her down forcefully, if he doesn't use a weapon, it isn't counted as rape. And in, I think North Carolina, drugging a spouse and/or raping them while they are unconscious doesn't count-- and even if someone is convicted of marital rape, there is a cap on the sentence so there is diminished punishment for the offense. It really is sad.

I had no idea marital rape was considered different from non-marital rape, so I went and looked up the laws in Canada (where I live) and marital rape wasn't criminalized until 1983! But now, case law actually considers a spousal relationship between the accused and victim to be an aggravating factor in sentencing, "by recognizing the additional harms that abuse of trust and power can have on marital rape victims".

 

It's also worth noting that soft laws against marital rape make it even less likely that such crimes will be reported. It could easily be argued that no crime occurred, based on the state's laws, and so then it's really easy for people to say that there's no reason to look into changing the law, because those sorts of crimes don't really occur anyways.

In the states with weak marital rape laws, can someone charge their spouse with assault?

[Danielg342]

I think Jian Ghomeshi's case has more weight than 90 others because it was publicized so much more, since he is such a public figure. There is also the "Fifty Shades of Grey" aspect to it, which catches people's attention. Also, it's not that his case is the minority where the accused is acquitted - that is the majority. The issues with the Ghomeshi case - he said/she said, lack of physical evidence, judgement based on the behaviours and actions of the alleged victims - are issues that affect nearly all sexual assault cases and are very often the reason for acquittal.

 

Also, fwiw, I think people over-rely on anecdotes in nearly all aspects of their lives. Just look at pretty much any field of science - there are people who claim that x happens because of y, despite a plethora of evidence to the contrary. Anecdotes are easier for people to relate to, compared to numbers and hard facts. In the absence of concrete and tangible evidence, anecdotes are even more appealing as a source of information.

 

Then it goes back to my previous point- if Ghomeshi had been convicted, but 90 others wrongly walked free, is anything really all that different? I understand and agree fully that no one should ever walk free if they don't deserve to, but I still think the perspective has been lost here.

 

Which goes back to my greater point that the activists tend to focus on the wrong things. This isn't to say that stuff like uncaring police officers is okay- I just think at some point we have to get past it and understand the real challenges to securing a rape conviction- the fact that in the vast majority of cases there are only two witnesses, the accused and the accuser. Three years ago, a UK lawyer told The Guardian the same thing, and I think this is what led to Ghomeshi's acquittal.

 

I found it disturbing that the part of the reason the judge dismissed the claims was because he didn't think the alleged victims acted enough like he expected rape victims to act. Not all women react the same way.

There was a case in Louisiana fairly recently where a cop was going around pulling women over and raping them. He was mostly doing it to women who already had been arrested for something-- even minor things-- and was getting away with it through intimidation. He threatened those women with incarceration and trumped up charges, but, as one survivor stated, "he picked the wrong woman" to attack one day when he pulled over a woman who had no criminal record and assaulted her. She was highly pissed off about it and reported his ass and fought tooth and nail to make sure he was convicted and inspired other survivors to come forward. She didn't act like the stereotypical victim. She was angry and confident.

 

I could be wrong, but it sounds like the Daniel Holtzclaw case. He's from Oklahoma, though, but that was his modus operandi- rape victims who were already in custody. He did it multiple times and got sentenced to over 250 years, I believe. It's a very sad story.

[zannej]

Complete subject change, but the potential unsub kid I mentioned in the past-- the one who wet the bed and was violent toward animals-- just set the house on fire (accidentally) and burned it down. His mother and little sister were nearly killed because they were trapped inside (my friend who is dating the kid's mother was at work but fortunately it was just down the street-- so he ran to the house and literally ripped an entire window frame out to rescue is girlfriend and daughter) and all of the pets that were inside died. And the kid has absolutely no sense of remorse or sorrow over the lost pets. He looked at the bodies and said it was ok because everything can be replaced. The kid is almost 7 years old and you'd think a kid at that age would have more of a grasp on things. Even the 3-year-old seemed to understand what was going on more than he did.

 

His family is now homeless and all he seemed to care about was that some of his toys survived. His douchebag father came to pick him up-- dude hasn't paid child support in a year and was driving a new sports car with a $2,000 sound system in it. So the kid's mother AND father suck. It worried me that the kid didn't seem to learn a single thing from what happened and I'm hoping he won't end up in jail when he gets older. I admit, when it first happened, I was really pissed off at the kid, but I know he didn't actually mean harm-- he's just very slow mentally (his father is actually on disability for being mentally slow). But I still can't help but think the kid is a sociopath from the way he reacts to things. He seems incapable of empathy.

[Danielg342]

I'm so sorry...I can't put that into words. That's just a horrible thing to happen.

 

I hope the kid gets help soon. He doesn't probably realize he's a danger to himself as well.

[Droogie]

Complete subject change, but the potential unsub kid I mentioned in the past-- the one who wet the bed and was violent toward animals-- just set the house on fire (accidentally) and burned it down. His mother and little sister were nearly killed because they were trapped inside (my friend who is dating the kid's mother was at work but fortunately it was just down the street-- so he ran to the house and literally ripped an entire window frame out to rescue is girlfriend and daughter) and all of the pets that were inside died. And the kid has absolutely no sense of remorse or sorrow over the lost pets. He looked at the bodies and said it was ok because everything can be replaced. The kid is almost 7 years old and you'd think a kid at that age would have more of a grasp on things. Even the 3-year-old seemed to understand what was going on more than he did.

 

His family is now homeless and all he seemed to care about was that some of his toys survived. His douchebag father came to pick him up-- dude hasn't paid child support in a year and was driving a new sports car with a $2,000 sound system in it. So the kid's mother AND father suck. It worried me that the kid didn't seem to learn a single thing from what happened and I'm hoping he won't end up in jail when he gets older. I admit, when it first happened, I was really pissed off at the kid, but I know he didn't actually mean harm-- he's just very slow mentally (his father is actually on disability for being mentally slow). But I still can't help but think the kid is a sociopath from the way he reacts to things. He seems incapable of empathy.

Su, this is horrifying, and I can corroborate and identify with the feeling that this kid is a potential Unsub.

Several years ago in nursing school, I encountered a similar child. Part of my pediatric clinical entailed visiting a school for special children and I met this kid, five years old. Very cute. Clearly spent the better part of every day in "the bad chair." He told me he wanted to play "cops," and promptly pulled my wrist up between my shoulder blades, to the point of pain. Asked me my favorite movie and the subsequently told me his -- I'd never heard of it so I googled it when I got home. It was violent porn.

Three months after I met him, he burned down his house, killing his baby sister in the process.

[zannej]

Su, this is horrifying, and I can corroborate and identify with the feeling that this kid is a potential Unsub.

Several years ago in nursing school, I encountered a similar child. Part of my pediatric clinical entailed visiting a school for special children and I met this kid, five years old. Very cute. Clearly spent the better part of every day in "the bad chair." He told me he wanted to play "cops," and promptly pulled my wrist up between my shoulder blades, to the point of pain. Asked me my favorite movie and the subsequently told me his -- I'd never heard of it so I googled it when I got home. It was violent porn.

Three months after I met him, he burned down his house, killing his baby sister in the process.

Yikes! That is scary.

If my friend hadn't gotten a boost of strength from adrenaline, his girlfriend and daughter might have been lost in that fire as well. I'll have to find the link again, but I uploaded a video of what it looked like going through the house. Only two rooms had little to no damage-- one was the most recently renovated room that had double walls and unpainted drywall. The rooms with wood paneling on the walls burned worse-- and the back bedroom, where the girlfriend and 3-year-old were trapped) was burned on one part, but the ceiling was very hot even after the fire was put out. It had spread into the attic and the girlfriend had minor burns and some holes in her clothes.

If she had remembered where the fire extinguisher was, she might have been able to stop the fire from spreading before it was too late-- but she panicked and tried to put the fire out with a dry towel. I don't think she'd ever been taught what to do in case of a fire though.

So, it is a reminder that every family really should discuss and possibly practice what to do in case of a fire. I'm going to go buy a fire extinguisher or two now. And fire alarms. When we moved back the fire extinguisher and fire alarms in the house were all gone thanks to the deadbeat tenants.

[Bookish Jen]

Egad, Zannej. Reading your story about the potential unsub send shivers down my tailbone. Sometimes you look at kids with extreme behavioral issues and you just wonder if it is nature, nurture or a combination of both. I know of a young man in his twenties who had a childhood that was extremely violent and abusive physically, mentally, emotionally and sexually. And he was abused by both parents. Not only that but the extended family looked the other way and did nothing to help this young man.

 

Today this gentleman has a good job and a host of good friends. He volunteers a lot in his community and has an active social life. What kept him from being an unsub? Well, I do think he was born with a genuinely kind and empathetic spirit. But along the way certain adults reached out to mentor him and be a positive light in his life. So it really takes a village to raise a child, or as my friend Myra put it, "Be the adult you wish you could have had when you were a child."

Edited March 31, 2016 by Bookish Jen