To: K-list
Recieved: 1999/03/08 20:49
Subject: Re: [K-list] relationships
From: Candewtoo
On 1999/03/08 20:49, Candewtoo posted thus to the K-list:
Response to molecularbreeze
Am I for real? I believe I am.
I make no claim of wisdom. Not that it would satisfy the primal appetite that
was voiced in your post. Nor did I intend to arouse the Shiva like rage that
was exhibited. But I will respond which is perhaps further evidence of the
fact that I have no legitimate claim to wisdom.
I speak from personal experience of the power of false allegations of abuse
that have opened my eyes to a hysteria that has swept the legal and
psychological community that in time may make the Salem Witch trials look like
a Sunday picnic.
In custody disputes the mere suggestion of abuse is a commonly used tactic to
sever the relationship of a father from his children. In Civil courts a very
low standard "reasonable fear" is sufficient. Proof is not required. What is
reasonable to one person is not always reasonable to the another.
Thousands of children are cut off from good fathers because of the way the
courts cave in on this issue.
There are also fathers rotting in jail under abuse statutes for alleged or
actual disciplinary practices. I do not intend to defend the cases of spanking
and so on that may or may not agree with prevailing notions of child rearing.
I do however, consider it a serious threat when the power of the State which
is a force more destructive than any "spanking" presumes to have the "wisdom"
to distinguish real from exaggerated allegations of physical or emotional
threats to a chills welfare. As much as we would like to think that the State
is capable of protecting real "victims" it simply isn't.
I point to the nationally publicized cases regarding child sexual abuse of
Wenatchee in Washington State, The Sousa's in Massachusetts and the less
definitive case of Fells Acres north of Boston. These are examples which if
examined should make any reasonable person very suspicious of the legal and
psychological industries that have shaped and driven policy on this issue.
Two points.
One is that there are very broad definitions of abuse which make any male who
is unfortunate enough to find himself in a conflict with a woman culpable to
applications of the law. The "reasonable fear" standard is basically a
subjective standard which opens the door to its own form of abuse which has
become quite commonplace in family and district courts and has become an
automatic exercise for Judges who are more interested in protecting themselves
than victims.
Second is that the "experts" can't really define what abuse is. They all seem
to agree that it has something to do with power and control. It stops there,
however, since once you begin to look at the real operations of different
kinds of power you end up in an ideological battle. That is why I believe that
the whole concept of abuse is essentially a political concept and not a moral
one.
With that said, perhaps the respondent has had real experience of children who
have been sexually molested and women who have been beaten up. It happens and
it is horrible. My previous note is not intended to minimize or belittle this
horror. What I object to is enfolding these very real occurrences into a
broader phenomenon. For lack of a better word, I call this the politics of
abuse. I believe that this is informed by a political agenda which should be
examined on its own merits without the demagoguery of abuse horror stories
which feeds on a very dark urge to generalize and create an enemy defined by
gender.
If a woman is beaten up or raped or violated in any way, there are laws on the
books that can and should be enforced which carry more serious consequences
than the slap on the hand that offenders of the abuse statutes often get. I
don't believe these victims are served by protecting them under the same laws
that are used to intrude on more minor forms of domestic conflict. I also
don't believe it is right to create a special legal status for "victims" under
abuse statutes which waives due process and tramples on some very fundamental
rights that every person accused of a crime except men (and some women)
accused of abuse enjoy.
This may seem somewhat far afield of the topic for this list. I would like to
propose that perceptions of abuse provoke a sense of rage that leads to
destructive reactions and distorted thinking which escalates the cycle of
violence to institutional levels which are more insidious than their brutal
origins. I would hope that some who participate on this list might see that.
DISCLAIMER!
Home | Archive Index | Search the archives | Subscribe
K. List FAQ | Kundalini FAQs | Signs and Symptoms | Awakening Experiences | K. list Polls | Member Essays | Meditations | List Topics | Art Gallery | Cybrary | Sitemap | Email the moderators.
symbol.