'I loved my father, but he destroyed my life' - child of domestic violence victim

[closeupready]

>>As a child I thought I had a pretty normal upbringing. I grew up in a village with my mum, dad and younger brother and we lived in a brand-new house. But Mum always seemed miserable - she was a compulsive cleaner, and the house was immaculate. Dad wasn't home much; he was a builder and spent most nights in the pub. He would come back drunk and although I used to think he was funny, Mum never laughed.

Then, in 1978, everything changed. I came home from a school trip one day and there was no one there to meet me off the coach. I was 10 years old and knew straight away something terrible had happened. When I got to our street I saw blue flashing lights. I remember a police officer telling me to get off the drive; I tried to fight my way into the house and being scooped up and handed to the lady next door.

That night I went to stay with my mum's parents. The next day they told me what had happened; my dad had killed my mother while my brother slept upstairs.<<

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/apr/10/domestic-violence-experience

[cali]

1. gulp. the line "I loved my father but he destroyed my life"

resonates with me. And my family looked perfect from the outside.

[closeupready]

2. sad and infuriating how common bad fathers are.

Why is that? Why does it seem like being a good father and husband is so challenging for so many men?

[poverlay]

3. The same can be said for bad mothers. The damage I've seen many, many bad mothers do is as

horrible and insidious as that of a bad father. My thinking is that it is sheer selfishness, ignorance, denial, and of course fear.

I feel the same anger and upset as you over bad fathers, but don't forget bad mothers. They are just as destructive in their own way as a bad father, and just as numerous. Possibly more so, because the mechanism for stopping them is nearly non-existent.

[closeupready]

4. Good point.

n/t

[zazen]

5. well, yes, but bad mothers don't murder their entire extended families and partners' coworkers

There are some exceptions (Susan Smith, I recall), but she didn't kill her ex, even. The swath of destruction by males who feel entitled to own their partners and their offspring is much, much wider.

Women certainly can be psychotically abusive, but this is mitigated by the amount of nurturing the population of women as a whole provide to humanity. Unfortunately, a solid 10-20% of men who are controlling, battering a**holes are giving the men who are trying to be wonderful fathers and partners a bad name. I wish those guys would hunt down the batterers with torches and pitchforks. It's not like the women can do it.

[poverlay]

8. Who do you think raises those "controlling, battering a**holes"? I'm sure some of their mothers

were good women, but a great many bad people are that way because their mothers raised them that way. I have 2 sisters and a sister in law who have raised little bastards. The things they've done wrong are legion, selfish, and downright horrible at times. Certainly not good effort motherly behavior. I've seen two of them drive off good men because those men couldn't bear to stand by and see their kids raised like that on top of the physical and emotional abuse those women were dishing out. Did society notice and take the kids from their mothers? Nooo. Almost never happens. Even when the mother is lost in a drugged out haze, alternately hitting(yes women are abusive too sometimes.), berating and belittling, and ignoring the child's needs they are usually not removed from a bad mother. Even when the father is a much better option and preferable to the kid.

I will be the first one with a torch and a pitchfork, but controlling/violent men cannot be stopped without paying attention to the root cause(At least the biggest one.), and that is bad parents. Fathers and Mothers are responsible, and until society recognizes this and is willing to take care of these children properly there will be no solution. It won't matter how many jerk fathers we kill unless we also at least admit the problem of jerk mothers.

Oh, and not to blame only the parents. We've all seen a**holes arise who have the greatest of parents. Not to mention the wonderful people who have over come abusive parents to become amazing blessings to this world.

[zazen]

15. daughters/sons are evenly distributed among bad parents, yet sons kill more

But I'm with you about dealing with jerk parents. I find however that I can't bring up such things like parent training and making sure you have the family support and resources to raise the children with whom you get pregnant with my progressive social set without being accused of being a "eugenicist" and racist (like this only applies to minorities). It seems defending the right of everyone, including uneducated women in the third world who have no access to birth control, political rights, or bodily self-control and probably don't want 12 children in the first place, to bear unlimited children by several men to whom they are not married and who've made no commitment to their care, is more important than the quality of care that can be provided to those children. God forbid we ask about the children. That means we're imperialist scum who use disproportionate climate-destroying resources as Americans and have therefore forfeited our right to be concerned about children dying of easily treatable diseases, starvation, and various forms of exploitation. Oh, and the millions more who are going to die in the next 40 years as a result of climate change and peak oil wars, despite whichever country is most to blame.

It really is true that you go through more screening to adopt a dog from the pound than you do to bring a human being into the world. Of course, screening parents could be horribly abused in the wrong hands, but there's got to be a third way.

I'll sign off before I get flamed by the lets-criticise-children's-rights-advocates-as-eugenicists-and-racists crowd.

[iverglas]

18. eh?

I've seen two of them drive off good men because those men couldn't bear to stand by and see their kids raised like that on top of the physical and emotional abuse those women were dishing out. Did society notice and take the kids from their mothers? Nooo.

So, evidently, these good men left their children with these appalling women?

Why, what good daddies they clearly were.

Yeesh.

[poverlay]

19. I can't believe you just said that. If you really need me to spell it out for you I will.

I'm so disgusted by your post, and it's disrespectful sarcasm, that I'm not even going to attempt to respond to it today.
Tomorrow I'll explain in vivid and horrible detail exactly why those good daddies weren't in these particular screwed up, potentially future abusive, children's lives.

Just for you.

[poverlay]

22. I know more than a few men who are rarely allowed to see their children and have no legal control

over how those children are raised. These are good men who have done everything possible to help their children and be involved in their lives. These men are frustrated and angry at the horrible way their children are being raised. Some of them have lost everything they've had in protracted court battles. Not all children even have crappy fathers available. Sometimes fathers die. Sometimes they are never informed they have children. There are plenty of possible reasons for a child not to have a father other that your lame assumption that it must be an asshole male somewhere not taking responsibility.
One of my friend had multiple affidavits stating that the mother of his child was involved in check fraud, drug use, and several other "issues". He had a good job and no past problems. The judge still only gave him weekends and some holidays(Not Christmas.). These children should not be with the mother at all. Everyone that knows them knows this, but it did absolutely no good. Sometimes you get a judge who can be fair, but "Mother's rights" overwhelmingly trumps everything, even good sense much of the time. If there's ANY black mark against the father, or even a friend of the mother willing to lie, there's no chance in hell for the daddy. No matter how good he is.

So NO, these good men, GREAT daddies, did not leave their children with "these appalling women". They were taken from them. They were forced away. They were reduced to bit players in their children's lives for the sole fact that they were men. Why is that? Why are good men not allowed to raise their children? I have little doubt that attitudes like yours and all those who demonize men as the only negative force in a family's existence is the cause of far more violence than you will ever admit. Men are absolutely NOT the only destructive, or violent factor in a family's life. The problem, as so many maintain, is certainly not just because they are men and have testosterone.

I imagine sarcastic, closeminded, attack attitudes like yours are immensely helpful in fixing the problem. You must be so proud.

[iverglas]

23. and now, back to what you actually said

that I responded to:

I've seen two of them drive off good men because those men couldn't bear to stand by and see their kids raised like that on top of the physical and emotional abuse those women were dishing out.

... leaving much of your subsequent post looking just kinda irrelevant.

When it comes to "attitude", I think I've seen yours before. If I google "men's rights", I find lots of it.


I have little doubt that attitudes like yours and all those who demonize men as the only negative force in a family's existence is the cause of far more violence than you will ever admit. Men are absolutely NOT the only destructive, or violent factor in a family's life. The problem, as so many maintain, is certainly not just because they are men and have testosterone.

I think I'll exit before I choke on all the straw.

[poverlay]

24. Not original. Do try and understand before you attack. It makes you sound intelligent....

A man who objects to how his wife is treating his children, is divorced, and denied access to his children, is a completely self-explanatory concept to most people. Happens every day. Apparently a joyous event, regardless of justice, in your "attitude". Which explains your rabidity and automatic rejection. Your snide comment was in regards to why the men didn't stay around. Making all of my post only necessary to, well, you.
Not understanding is your problem, not mine.

If you're going to try and google: "logic" and come up with some other logical fallacy to pretend to understand, start with "ad hominem" and "composition", then move on to "confusing cause and effect".

Logic is logic, regardless of whether the one reading it understands it, or falsely applies it. Try applying your arguments/statements to a compound formula and you'll see what I mean. Then you can actually feel justified in spreading your intolerance far and wide. If you can make it fit. Oh, and if you can, please let me know, I'd love to see the proof in detail.

[iverglas]

25. I wonder who you're speaking to

No evidence so far that it's me.

Apparently a joyous event, regardless of justice, in your "attitude".

Apparently you have no compunctions about making completely false, and entirely unfounded, allegations about complete strangers.

Your snide comment was in regards to why the men didn't stay around.

My comment was about something specific you said. Not any of the rest of your obviously agenda-driven bumph.

If you're going to try and google: "logic" and come up with some other logical fallacy to pretend to understand, start with "ad hominem" and "composition", then move on to "confusing cause and effect".

If you feel like teaching someone to suck eggs, I suggest you start with someone whose first degree wasn't in philosophy and who didn't practice law, including family law, for quite a few years. If you feel like making yourself look silly, keep going.

If you'd like to try inclusive language, btw, I offer you: ad locutorem, i.e. against the speaker.

Then you can actually feel justified in spreading your intolerance far and wide. If you can make it fit. Oh, and if you can, please let me know, I'd love to see the proof in detail.

I'd love to have a clue about what you imagine you are talking about.

Oh, well, not really, eh? I actually couldn't care less.

[poverlay]

26. The evidence is in the logic proof. If you're so very superior then why

not show the proof? It should be no problem whatsoever for one with your schooling in egg sucking.

Oh, and the phrase I believe you think you're saying is: ad hominem (possibly locutorIUm, but as I haven't spoken against any parlors that couldn't be it), not "ad locutorem" for example: "So, evidently, these good men left their children with these appalling women? Why, what good daddies they clearly were. Yeesh." and: "... leaving much of your subsequent post looking just kinda irrelevant. When it comes to "attitude", I think I've seen yours before. If I google "men's rights", I find lots of it."

Unless you decided to go on to equivocation and amphiboly -- you're welcome.
Is that inclusive enough for you?

[iverglas]

27. I'm sorry

I'm too old to be able drink the amount I would need to drink in order to think any of your posts make sense.

Don't let me stop you though.

If you'd like lessons in Latin declension, perhaps you can take an evening course.

[poverlay]

28. The utterly useless and

petty meanness in your posts is what doesn't make sense.

You should be ashamed for attacking good and decent people in situations you know nothing of.

I find it rather sad when apparently confused, malice ridden people like you realize you can no longer fake superiority to justify your pointless venom, and devolve into base attacks and feigned ignorance. Although "devolve" may be a bit inaccurate in your case, as you began at that point with me. While we have all been mildly amused at your fumbling attempts with logic and latin, you are a bit of a time waster.
I recommend you try a bit more in the way of real kindness, understanding and setting aside the superior attitude. It'll gain you so much more in the end.

If this is simply how you get your jollies, please spare me, and DU. That's not what we're here for.

[Scout]

29. you seem to be the only one "wasting time" trying to debate

"While we have all been mildly amused at your fumbling attempts with logic and latin, you are a bit of a time waster. "

speak for yourself bub.

we women can speak for ourselves just fine.

[poverlay]

31. I was speaking for myself, as well as all 26 people in this office. 16 of them women, and they can

speak for ourselves/themselves.

Or do you imagine you speak for all women?

[Scout]

32. you've got 26 other people in your office discussing this thread?

do they know you are speaking for them? can't they participate their own little selves?

i was speaking about this thread ... who is the one trying to debate with iverglas, besides you? anyone?

do you imagine you speak for all women? for the men you're defending?

get over yourself.

now i'm done wasting time with you.

[poverlay]

33. Most of them, yes. Odd, I haven't seen any other posts in this thread from you at all. Just

being a bit of a busybody are you? Have a stake in the discussion do you?

Who is trying to debate with iverglas? Hard to debate someone who can only engage in hit and runs. Everyone here is laughing at iverglas though, and that was my point. Everyone, and now you..

Ohhang on


Hello,
My name is Becca and I'm "Poverlay's" friend. You are lame to jump into a conversation you've had nothing to do with thusfar, attack a very smart man for something that he hasn't done, and then do that very thing you're attacking him for. Do you peoople even listen to yourselves? You sound like those jerk people you are always complaining about. We are not as passionate about politics as Poverlay and that's why we don't join DU, but it doesn't mean we don't read it from time to time. I am a woman and Poverlay speaks for me and several other besides. So stop being a freak and get over YOURself.

Haha, I totally had to edit out a bunch of very bad things she just called you.

I'm not going to let the other people who want to pile on have their way with you because you are wrong and I'm sure someday you will realize that. If you want to keep going back and forth, I can let them have at you, but I really don't see the point.

Now,
I will speak for whoever you attack and can't speak for themselves.
Women are just as responsible for the destruction of families and partially responsible for the violence in the home that is currently such a big problem in the world as men are. To make it simple for you: It is not solely the fault of men, nor women. You have done nothing to prove otherwise. If you had, this might be a debate.

If you don't like it, too bad. Reality doesn't care what you like or are offended by and neither do I.

[Scout]

34. so big strong man Poverlay DOES speak for you poor little womens in your office

:rofl:

how did we know he was a man, before you told us? :rofl:

you all need to develop some reading comprehension if you are going to try to post here. you're just making up shit that no one said, just as your knight in shining armor did. at least I can speak for myself.

you are truly pitiful.

[poverlay]

36. lol, you sure told us. Too bad you

two had to get so upset. Perhaps if you had paid attention and addressed the issue you might have learned something besides the fact that I'm a man. Which I didn't realize was such a big deal to you. you know, all you had to do was ask... I'm amused that you act like it's a bad thing. I suppose, for someone like you, it is. Sorry about whatever happened to you in the past to make you so bitter. I guess not every woman can be confident, intelligent, loving, and powerful like my Becca. Ah well, I think you're about due for another outburst so, by all means, carry on.

[Hello_Kitty]

48. What? Wait....I thought you said Becca was a co-worker

"I guess not every woman can be confident, intelligent, loving, and powerful like my Becca." That's a pretty intimate description of a co-worker.

Please, don't tell me you're her boss. :puke:

[iverglas]

37. y'know, I don't actually give a crap

What some imaginary woman has to say about anything here.

This forum is called WOMEN'S RIGHTS.

Does something you're saying have to do with that topic?

[iverglas]

38. If "Becca" is going to write for DU consumption

She may want to read the DU rules.

So might you.


To make it simple for you: It is not solely the fault of men, nor women. You have done nothing to prove otherwise.

This may not be sufficiently simple for you, whoever you may be, but this is what we call a straw-person argument.

No one has done anything to "prove otherwise", because no one ever said it was otherwise.

[Scout]

39. don't waste any more time on them ... neither can comprehend

what they read, and both are more interested in trying to push their own agenda.

they sure are good at making up shit and arguing with the strawMEN they create though, eh?

[poverlay]

41. "May want", "So might you." ? .. If you are going to refuse to

notice the obvious, expecting you to understand anything more profound is an obvious exercise in futility. Did you read more than every other word in my posts? You "may want" to read the one you "might" be referencing again.

"..no one ever said it was otherwise."
No one has to explicitly state the opposite to avoid a straw man. Aristotle, Theophrastus, Averroës, I seem to remember even Erasmus, and likely hundreds of others have discussed the mistake you are making in depth.
The answers are there for anyone who desires the truth to find.

[Hello_Kitty]

44. Oh dear God. There are two possible scenarios with this.

1. Becca is a sockpuppet you made up to look like other people support your asinine views.

2. There is an actual Becca, an unfortunate creature who types "you are so lame" and "stop being a freak" into a computer while being a grown woman.

I can't decide which possibility is worse. :scared:

[iverglas]

46. and here I didn't think

the thread could get funnier!

:toast:


edit -- I was hoping for Becca's views on Latin nouns ...

[poverlay]

47. Lol, the sock puppet definitely, and it's crying in my drawer right now. Well, I'm off to

start a "Sock Puppet's rights" forum. I just hope they don't end up snarky, bitter and rude to non-sock puppets.

[Scout]

55. i bet they'll be weak, whiney, girly-women, who need a big strong man

to speak for them to strangers on the internet!

instead of confident, assured, accomplished adult women who speak for themselves.

don't let the door hit you on the ass as you leave this forum to start your little sock puppet group.

[iverglas]

40. I'm still trying to figure out

why it is appropriate for a man to post on the Women's Rights board and refer to a regular poster here in terms like "confused, malice ridden people like you", just for starters, particularly when that characterization is based on nothing but ... well, nothing. Nothing at all that I could say without entering into speculation. Not that it wouldn't be well-founded speculation.

[poverlay]

42. I wish you the best of luck with trying to resolve your

issues. Confusion ofttimes results from attempting faulty logic based on false assumptions.

If you need any help or anything ... feel free to let me know.
I'll let you know if I'm available.

[Hello_Kitty]

43. Children aren't awarded to their mothers more often simply because they're women

It's usually because they were the primary caregivers while the couple was married. That's the main factor in determining custody arrangements, despite what you've been led to believe by the "men's rights" movement.

[poverlay]

49. Wrong. 29 % of stay at home parents in 2000 were stay at home dads. Dad's awarded custody in

that time frame: around 9%. Now, while there is not an equitable division of the working classes filing for divorce, those numbers and more offer a clear denial to the idea that children always go with the primary caregiver.

The number of children living in a single father home is always very small. Much smaller than 29%.

The main factor is one called "Best interest of the child" not, "who's the primary caregiver while they were married", and it always comes down to the judge's decision.

Unless the U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Bureau of labor statistics are, for some reason, doing the bidding of the "men's rights" movement, you must be getting your logic lessons from iverglas.

[Hello_Kitty]

50. You need to take a remedial statistics course. eom

[iverglas]

51. you seem to think you have a point

29 % of stay at home parents in 2000 were stay at home dads. Dad's awarded custody in that time frame: around 9%.

Non sequitur much?

The main factor is one called "Best interest of the child" not, "who's their primary caregiver while they were married".

Indeed. Perhaps you're suggesting that it is usually in the best interests of a child to be removed from their current primary caregiver and placed in someone else's care?

Unless the U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Bureau of labor statistics are, for some reason, doing the bidding of the "men's rights" movement, you must be getting your logic lessons from ivergas.

I'm quite sure that the bodies in question would roll their eyes and hoot at the twisted hash you have cooked out of their data.

I must bow to your huge wit though. "Ivergas". My goodness, that's clever, and so humorous it will have me chuckling all night. How do you do it? I wish I were that smart and funny ...

[Scout]

56. in all the custody cases....

1) how many times do fathers ACTUALLY SEEK custody, right from the get go?

2) how many of THOSE father get custody?

you seem awfully obsessed with iverglas ... you got a crush on her big daddy?

[iverglas]

58. oh now Scout

Don't be so jealous.

:rofl:

[raccoon]

30. "Who do you think raises those "controlling, battering a**holes"? "

A lot of the time, they grew up in a household where their fathers beat their mothers.

edited for spelling

[iverglas]

35. yeah, eh?

I was considering fetching some statistics, but I think it's a fact that we can take judicial notice of.

Men who abuse their partners are likely to come from homes in which their father abused their mother - not in which they were abused by their mother. Duh.

[pnwmom]

6. Fewer mothers murder their children or their spouses. That's a fact. n/t

[poverlay]

9. Physically I'm sure you're right. My argument is well illustrated by "Cali's" post below.. I would

just like to focus on the solution instead of the horrible problem for awhile.

Do you think it's because they're weaker or because they're women? Genetic, chemical, or environmental?

[pnwmom]

10. Testosterone is connected with more physical aggression.

And there is often a cultural influence, as well, that gives some men support in their feeling that they should be able to control their families.

[poverlay]

14. There is also a cultural warning as well as extremely obvious effects which tends to dampen the

damage done to some small degree. There is no societal mechanism, no public outcry that is working to mitigate the damage done to children by mothers who are monsters in their own right. I have seen just as many if not more of these women who are left to work their will throughout the child's life, as violent men who are removed from the situation by multiple potential protective mechanisms.

[Hello_Kitty]

45. There are no mechanisms to remove children from abusive mothers?

Uh, ever hear of CPS? Or whatever they call it in your state. If there are reports of abuse by either parent, they have to investigate. Children are removed from violent and/or neglectful mothers. All the time.

As others have pointed out repeatedly in this thread, you are arguing a strawman. You are acting like no one is acknowledging that there are bad mothers and violent women. There are. Okay?

[poverlay]

52. LIving next door to a violent mother, having the WHOLE neighborhood calling CPS, and having

them do nothing, listening to the stories from CPS's employees(4 different employees. 2 of whom are supervisors.) who talk of a 2-4 year backlog, the failure of the current cases and the lack of legal support, and more kinda gives me the impression that no one out there is acknowledging bad mothers. Your "mechanism" is broken... fubar

As I just got done explaining, and you're welcome to research to your heart's content, simply because you don't believe, or acknowledge a problem and simply because no one here made a direct rejection does in no way make it a strawman. Believe whatever it makes you happy to believe. Who am I to deny you self-satisfied happiness?

[iverglas]

53. I could offer one of those logic courses

I won't, but I could. You sure do need one.

simply because you don't believe, or acknowledge a problem and simply because no one here made a direct rejection does in no way make it a strawman

Can you rewrite that in some way that makes sense?

Rhetorical question. Nobody could.

Maybe we can help you out, though. Although lord knows we've already tried.

The straw argument that you are busily rebutting is the one that goes "there are no abusive mothers".

NOBODY SAID THAT.

Does that help at all?


LIving next door to a violent mother, having the WHOLE neighborhood calling CPS, and having them do nothing, listening to the stories from CPS's employees(4 different employees. 2 of whom are supervisors.) who talk of a 2-4 year backlog, the failure of the current cases and the lack of legal support, and more kinda gives me the impression that no one out there is acknowledging bad mothers. Your "mechanism" is broken... fubar

Uh huh.

But of course, and we all know, whenever a report is made to a children's aid service about an abusive father, why, hey presto: no backlog, no failures, no lack of legal support; the authorities solve that problem overnight.

Or, I wonder ... could that be some other straw thing you've invented in your effort to portray your screeds as having a point?

[poverlay]

54. No, that's NOT what I'm rebutting, which you would realize if you read more carefully. Upon reading

your other threads, it is clear that you are completely uninterested in any viewpoint other than your own. The only thing you have taught me about is yourself, and the more I learn the less I want to. You can refer to my other post if you have any further questions.
Good luck.

[Scout]

57. what ARE you rebutting then? spell it out for those of us

challenged by your great wit and irrefutable logic oh great one.

One sentence, and please quote it from this thread.

Thanks, we silly girls would be so eternally grateful.

[Control-Z]

17. There are bad mothers,

but I would argue that they are as numerous as bad fathers.

'They are just as destructive in their own way as a bad father, and just as numerous.'

[cali]

7. My mother was worse than my father. She was a dream killer

of great skill. And of course, it was all made worse by how "perfect" we all were. Bright, attractive, cultured, well off, blah, blah, blah. Inside it was a nightmare.

[pnwmom]

11. My wild guess, based on your few sentences, is that your mother

was a narcissist. And yes, they are dream killers.

Have you ever read "The Children of the Self Absorbed"? It's a good book.

[cali]

12. she was absolutely a narcissist

very functional and very intelligent and charming. Thanks for book referral. I look forward to finding it at the library.

[pnwmom]

13. If you read it,

please let me know what you think. I'm the only one in my family who's a big reader.

:hi:

[bliss_eternal]

16. It's an excellent book.

Dh has a relative like this (and I do as well)...:scared:

My heart breaks a little when I see his relative's adult daughter. She can't seem to disengage, though the daughter is trying to escape (through a marriage.....again :scared:).

The daughter wasn't allowed to select her own career, life, hobbies, etc. :( Guess how happy she is? :eyes: She selected her guy, but the mother has made it clear she does NOT approve. The war has begun.

If any of this sounds even remotely familiar for you--I'm SO sorry that you grew up w/someone like this.
:hug:

[skatterkat]

20. Same here.

I dealt with a mother like that. Turned out, she was miserable and taking it out on all of us. It took us years, but I now have a decent, honest relationship with her. It helped that she went back to college after I moved out, got a degree in psychology, and finally saw what an utter nightmare she'd been all those years.

[iverglas]

21. "Turned out, she was miserable and taking it out on all of us."

I would suspect that this is true of many "narcissistic mothers" ... who have had their own dreams killed.