“I was – always will be – his mother.”
November 28, 2015 4:41 PM Subscribe
My son, the mass murderer: ‘What did I miss?’ [The Guardian] In 2006, Charlie Roberts walked into an Amish school in Pennsylvania and killed five young girls. His mother talks about trying to comprehend his actions.
While not completely the same thing, I would urge people to read/watch 'We Need to Talk About Kevin' by Lionel Shriver. It does tackle some of the issues this mother raises in the article. The book is well written and the film adaptation starring Tilda Swinton is also excellent, though they are not the most easy media to consume for obvious reasons.
posted by Fizz at 4:58 PM on November 28, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Fizz at 4:58 PM on November 28, 2015 [2 favorites]
I think I remember Donald Kraybill explaining the idea of Amish grace as a sort of obligation: one must forgive, because one wants God's forgiveness. Failure to forgive here on earth has eternal consequences. So I think you have to remember that framework, and not see their (amazing, humbling, incredibly humane) act through a secular lens.
posted by MonkeyToes at 5:00 PM on November 28, 2015 [24 favorites]
posted by MonkeyToes at 5:00 PM on November 28, 2015 [24 favorites]
This is hard to read. You want so badly for there to be an explanation and there just isn't one.
posted by betsybetsy at 5:41 PM on November 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by betsybetsy at 5:41 PM on November 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
Hermione Granger: "They were protecting us from the media.""
Doubly moving because the Amish prefer not to be photographed and deliberately placed themselves in front of cameras.
The other really stunning part of the Amish response to me was -- the Amish don't accept help from outside the community (even to the point of, they don't participate in social security), because of the belief they should take care of their own. (They do help others' communities -- the Amish send vanloads of skilled carpenters to New Orleans after Katrina -- but they don't generally accept outside help.) So many thousands upon thousands of condolences and donations poured in to the community immediately after the shooting that the elders had to meet and decide what to do, and they declared themselves "helpless and humble in the face of such grace" and accepted the donations for the girls' long-term care. I was really moved by their acceptance of God's grace mediated through outsiders to their community in the face of such a tragedy, especially when they're a community that's so closed to, and frequently suspicious of, outsiders.
Fizz: ", I would urge people to read/watch 'We Need to Talk About Kevin' by Lionel Shriver."
Do not read if you have recently had a baby, the hormones make it too scary, ASK ME HOW I KNOW.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 6:02 PM on November 28, 2015 [56 favorites]
Doubly moving because the Amish prefer not to be photographed and deliberately placed themselves in front of cameras.
The other really stunning part of the Amish response to me was -- the Amish don't accept help from outside the community (even to the point of, they don't participate in social security), because of the belief they should take care of their own. (They do help others' communities -- the Amish send vanloads of skilled carpenters to New Orleans after Katrina -- but they don't generally accept outside help.) So many thousands upon thousands of condolences and donations poured in to the community immediately after the shooting that the elders had to meet and decide what to do, and they declared themselves "helpless and humble in the face of such grace" and accepted the donations for the girls' long-term care. I was really moved by their acceptance of God's grace mediated through outsiders to their community in the face of such a tragedy, especially when they're a community that's so closed to, and frequently suspicious of, outsiders.
Fizz: ", I would urge people to read/watch 'We Need to Talk About Kevin' by Lionel Shriver."
Do not read if you have recently had a baby, the hormones make it too scary, ASK ME HOW I KNOW.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 6:02 PM on November 28, 2015 [56 favorites]
Another book to compare this to--a book which suffers from the comparison--is A Father's Story, by Lionel Dahmer. Unlike this article, where you see that the mother has experienced the pain and horror of her son's actions, Dahmer's book seems emotionally empty, brushing aside any question of sharing in the horror, eerily passive even though quite assured he had no part in the making of his monstrous son. It's one thing to have unanswerable questions, as Terri Roberts does; it's another thing entirely to refuse those questions, to leave them unasked. The memory of that book made me appreciate this piece all the more.
posted by mittens at 6:10 PM on November 28, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by mittens at 6:10 PM on November 28, 2015 [7 favorites]
The Amish forgave. They didn't seek out vengeance against every white Christian man. They forgave. They forgave and the held up the shooter's family in love. I am trying to emulate that grace right now, in the wake of yet another mass shooting.
posted by Ruki at 6:34 PM on November 28, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by Ruki at 6:34 PM on November 28, 2015 [4 favorites]
Honestly, this is my worst nightmare: not losing someone to violence, but having someone I love perpetrate unthinkable violence. I can't even wrap my head around what it must be like to live with what she lives with. I'm not Amish, and I don't share their outlook or theology, but I hope I'd be able to find it within myself to have sympathy for her, too.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:03 PM on November 28, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:03 PM on November 28, 2015 [7 favorites]
"what did I miss?" Always the mom's fault, or the wife's.
posted by superior julie at 7:55 PM on November 28, 2015 [16 favorites]
posted by superior julie at 7:55 PM on November 28, 2015 [16 favorites]
God, that was touching. Wish they'd gone into a little more detail about why he did do it — did he leave any clues? Manifestos?
posted by klangklangston at 8:06 PM on November 28, 2015
posted by klangklangston at 8:06 PM on November 28, 2015
I was – always will be – his mother. Surely if anyone could spot signs of trouble it would be the woman who gave birth to him.
Parents are usually the least objective of judge of their children. Plus, he'd been married with a family of his own for years. I don't know why she feels the need to blame herself.
posted by discopolo at 8:09 PM on November 28, 2015 [3 favorites]
Parents are usually the least objective of judge of their children. Plus, he'd been married with a family of his own for years. I don't know why she feels the need to blame herself.
posted by discopolo at 8:09 PM on November 28, 2015 [3 favorites]
I don't know why she feels the need to blame herself.
We don't always get to choose how we feel.
posted by AdamCSnider at 8:15 PM on November 28, 2015 [20 favorites]
We don't always get to choose how we feel.
posted by AdamCSnider at 8:15 PM on November 28, 2015 [20 favorites]
I don't know why she feels the need to blame herself.
I think all mothers feel somewhat responsible for their children's choices and well being, even when they are very grown adults.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:16 PM on November 28, 2015 [7 favorites]
I think all mothers feel somewhat responsible for their children's choices and well being, even when they are very grown adults.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:16 PM on November 28, 2015 [7 favorites]
While not completely the same thing, I would urge people to read/watch 'We Need to Talk About Kevin' by Lionel Shriver. It does tackle some of the issues this mother raises in the article.
Unless Roberts's book is of a dramatically different tone than the article, I would imagine it's quite different from We Need To Talk About Kevin. At least in this article Roberts appears to be completely perplexed about the origins of her son's violence. But in WNTTAK the narrator has a very strong feeling that something is deeply wrong with her son from his infancy. Her main struggles involve countering his manipulations and wrestling with internal guilt about whether her difficulty fitting into a 1950s Leave-It-To-Beaver mold of motherhood caused her son's behavior.
I think it is a difficult, disturbing, and very good book, but less about where these mass-murderers come from and more a critique of societal attitudes about mothers and motherhood.
posted by Anonymous at 8:33 PM on November 28, 2015
Unless Roberts's book is of a dramatically different tone than the article, I would imagine it's quite different from We Need To Talk About Kevin. At least in this article Roberts appears to be completely perplexed about the origins of her son's violence. But in WNTTAK the narrator has a very strong feeling that something is deeply wrong with her son from his infancy. Her main struggles involve countering his manipulations and wrestling with internal guilt about whether her difficulty fitting into a 1950s Leave-It-To-Beaver mold of motherhood caused her son's behavior.
I think it is a difficult, disturbing, and very good book, but less about where these mass-murderers come from and more a critique of societal attitudes about mothers and motherhood.
posted by Anonymous at 8:33 PM on November 28, 2015
Klangklangston: the article states that he left behind a note saying he was racked by guilt for sexually assaulting young female relatives 20+ years ago but they couldn't find proof that that happened.
posted by divabat at 8:48 PM on November 28, 2015
posted by divabat at 8:48 PM on November 28, 2015
I think all mothers feel somewhat responsible for their children's choices and well being, even when they are very grown adults.
I understand that, but the reality is that a lot of these people who do awful things are great at hiding things, especially from their wives and mothers. The past generations didn't demand openness and sharing from sons so there's no way to rationalize blaming a wife or mother in this situation.
And all I mean is that she shouldn't blame herself.
posted by discopolo at 8:51 PM on November 28, 2015
I understand that, but the reality is that a lot of these people who do awful things are great at hiding things, especially from their wives and mothers. The past generations didn't demand openness and sharing from sons so there's no way to rationalize blaming a wife or mother in this situation.
And all I mean is that she shouldn't blame herself.
posted by discopolo at 8:51 PM on November 28, 2015
I don't know if it makes sense to blame herself, but it's probably a more inescapable thing than a choice - I think sometimes you feel responsible for the people you love, because you love them, even if you have no influence on what they do. I remember an article by the daughter of a serial killer, who also struggled with feelings of guilt and shame,m about what her father had done, even though she was a child when he committed his crimes and couldn't possibly have made him who he was.
posted by Aravis76 at 2:41 AM on November 29, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Aravis76 at 2:41 AM on November 29, 2015 [2 favorites]
This particular crime was a hate crime against women, and I hate how that was erased from the Guardian article. The question isn't just how her sweet boy could do such a thing, but how her sweet boy came to hate women so much that he chose to murder Amish girls exclusively. I do not blame her personally, but there is clearly something very broken in our society that encourages men, again and again, to turn their rage on women and girls.
posted by hydropsyche at 4:01 AM on November 29, 2015 [36 favorites]
posted by hydropsyche at 4:01 AM on November 29, 2015 [36 favorites]
I remember an article by a UK reporter who grew up in that part of the USA, published soon after the murders. He/she wrote that Charlie Roberts, waiting daily for his milk truck to be filled at the Amish dairy farms, would chat with the schoolgirls and give them candy. Normally, contact with an outsider male was prohibited, but he was a familiar figure. No one looked twice at him. His parents weren't the only ones to not see him for what he was. (My comment on the Guardian website yesterday.)
posted by Carol Anne at 4:41 AM on November 29, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Carol Anne at 4:41 AM on November 29, 2015 [2 favorites]
Last year, the New Yorker ran a long article about the Sandy Hook shooter, much of which came from conversation with his father. We talked about it here. The most heartbreaking comment from Peter Lanza, which also applies here, I think: “But it’s real,” he said. “It doesn’t have to be understood to be real.”
posted by MonkeyToes at 5:12 AM on November 29, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by MonkeyToes at 5:12 AM on November 29, 2015 [3 favorites]
The Amish forgave. They didn't seek out vengeance against every white Christian man. They forgave.
I see what point you're trying to make with this -- but, in a society with dozens of mass shootings a year, forgiveness is almost as problematic as vengeance.
It's easy to say that there are no answers. It's harder to look for the answers that do exist. Our culture, increasingly, seems to have given white men permission to Run Amok. Roberts seems to have been unique in targeting the Amish population (AFAIK), but, as hydropsyche pointed out, he's far from unique in targeting women in a mass murder. Vengeance may not be useful, but anger that fuels a drive to change a system and a culture that provides men the motive, the opportunity, and the tools to take out their personal demons on women definitely is. And, in the absence of that anger, the fact that Roberts is a white Christian man means that he'll be rapidly forgotten.
posted by steady-state strawberry at 5:30 AM on November 29, 2015 [10 favorites]
I see what point you're trying to make with this -- but, in a society with dozens of mass shootings a year, forgiveness is almost as problematic as vengeance.
It's easy to say that there are no answers. It's harder to look for the answers that do exist. Our culture, increasingly, seems to have given white men permission to Run Amok. Roberts seems to have been unique in targeting the Amish population (AFAIK), but, as hydropsyche pointed out, he's far from unique in targeting women in a mass murder. Vengeance may not be useful, but anger that fuels a drive to change a system and a culture that provides men the motive, the opportunity, and the tools to take out their personal demons on women definitely is. And, in the absence of that anger, the fact that Roberts is a white Christian man means that he'll be rapidly forgotten.
posted by steady-state strawberry at 5:30 AM on November 29, 2015 [10 favorites]
I have great sympathy for Charlie Roberts' parents and brothers, his wife and their kids, as well as for the Amish families whose daughters were killed or injured. I (still) have no sympathy for the killer himself, even if (as he wrote in his note) he had molested female relatives twenty years earlier, even if he was 'angry at God' for the death of his own daughter nine years before.
Roberts went into that school heavily armed, with a detailed plan in mind to hurt children.... he went in there with the equipment and tools to block access to the school while he shackled those girls in a row to lumber he'd brought in pre-prepared with U-bolts; he chose his victims carefully, it was no accident that his victims were only the girls --- he chose to release all boys and adults.
The Amish are no more perfect than any other group of people, but this forgiveness of theirs is something I've long had trouble wrapping my head around; I understand not holding Roberts' parents or wife responsible for his evil, but I cannot fathom the strength? faith? compassion? humanity? it takes to forgive the kind of monster who does something like this. I wish I could, probably it'd make me a better person.
posted by easily confused at 5:44 AM on November 29, 2015 [4 favorites]
Roberts went into that school heavily armed, with a detailed plan in mind to hurt children.... he went in there with the equipment and tools to block access to the school while he shackled those girls in a row to lumber he'd brought in pre-prepared with U-bolts; he chose his victims carefully, it was no accident that his victims were only the girls --- he chose to release all boys and adults.
The Amish are no more perfect than any other group of people, but this forgiveness of theirs is something I've long had trouble wrapping my head around; I understand not holding Roberts' parents or wife responsible for his evil, but I cannot fathom the strength? faith? compassion? humanity? it takes to forgive the kind of monster who does something like this. I wish I could, probably it'd make me a better person.
posted by easily confused at 5:44 AM on November 29, 2015 [4 favorites]
Let's not forget that people aren't BORN evil and a mass murderer hasn't necessarily been a sociopath since childhood. Yeah, a lot of these guys were torturing animals as children and had warning signs. But some of them had traumatic events happen in adulthood, or suffered adult onset mental illnesses, or even traumatic brain injuries that left them changed or impelled them towards violence.
This is a super-extreme case, but my family had a family friend who was struck by lightning and survived, but with a complete change in personality. He became convinced his wife and children (all under 10) were trying to kill him and he had to kill them first. Luckily he didn't, but his violent and paranoid behavior escalated to the point where he ended up in state custody because he was too big a threat to himself and others to be allowed to wander around.
His doctor say the lightning fried and rewired every circuit in his brain and he was literally not the same guy ... a totally different personality, with access to his prior memories. (Interestingly, when she pursued a Catholic annulment, which is tough with four kids under the old rules, especially when the other spouse objects, which he did, the church court ruled that he was literally a different man than she married and she couldn't be held to the vows; that it was as if "he" had died without his body managing to die.)
Anyway it may not be that he was so good at hiding his sickness from his family and even the Amish; he may have just snapped in some fashion and rather suddenly become horrible, rather than having been slow-burning secret horrible for many years.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 6:05 AM on November 29, 2015 [18 favorites]
This is a super-extreme case, but my family had a family friend who was struck by lightning and survived, but with a complete change in personality. He became convinced his wife and children (all under 10) were trying to kill him and he had to kill them first. Luckily he didn't, but his violent and paranoid behavior escalated to the point where he ended up in state custody because he was too big a threat to himself and others to be allowed to wander around.
His doctor say the lightning fried and rewired every circuit in his brain and he was literally not the same guy ... a totally different personality, with access to his prior memories. (Interestingly, when she pursued a Catholic annulment, which is tough with four kids under the old rules, especially when the other spouse objects, which he did, the church court ruled that he was literally a different man than she married and she couldn't be held to the vows; that it was as if "he" had died without his body managing to die.)
Anyway it may not be that he was so good at hiding his sickness from his family and even the Amish; he may have just snapped in some fashion and rather suddenly become horrible, rather than having been slow-burning secret horrible for many years.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 6:05 AM on November 29, 2015 [18 favorites]
but this forgiveness of theirs is something I've long had trouble wrapping my head around
Two short pieces for you:
"In many ways, the Amish are better equipped to process grief than are many other Americans [.pdf]. First, their faith sees even tragic events under the canopy of divine providence, having a higher purpose or meaning hidden from human sight at first glance. ... Such religious resolve enables them to move forward without the endless paralysis of analysis that asks why, letting the analysis rest in the hands of God. Second, their historic habits of mutual aid - such as barn-raising - arise from their understanding that Christian teaching compels them to care for one another in time of disaster."
"Amish Grief and the Rest of Us" (.pdf).
Forgiveness is never not an option; it's built in to the Amish way of belief and living.
posted by MonkeyToes at 6:05 AM on November 29, 2015 [9 favorites]
Two short pieces for you:
"In many ways, the Amish are better equipped to process grief than are many other Americans [.pdf]. First, their faith sees even tragic events under the canopy of divine providence, having a higher purpose or meaning hidden from human sight at first glance. ... Such religious resolve enables them to move forward without the endless paralysis of analysis that asks why, letting the analysis rest in the hands of God. Second, their historic habits of mutual aid - such as barn-raising - arise from their understanding that Christian teaching compels them to care for one another in time of disaster."
"Amish Grief and the Rest of Us" (.pdf).
Forgiveness is never not an option; it's built in to the Amish way of belief and living.
posted by MonkeyToes at 6:05 AM on November 29, 2015 [9 favorites]
Thanks MonkeyToes for linking to a Father's take. In Canada we had the spotlight on the mothers of the mass murderer of Ecole Polytechnique (hate crime against women) and the recent Parliament Hill shooting (mental illness/addiction) but nothing was heard from the fathers (that I know of). It always seems to be the mothers that rend their garments and beat their breasts in genuine agony of the actions of their adult sons.
posted by saucysault at 7:39 AM on November 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by saucysault at 7:39 AM on November 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
This was very sad.
Honestly, from reading this, he might well have simply broken abruptly. "The silicon chip inside her head had switched to overload." For example, there's no evidence at all that he really did molest any relatives.
While thank goodness none of my friends have become murderers, I have had two people I knew just flip out and start having delusional beliefs, and one of them claimed he had done terrible things (which, thank goodness, he had not). A friend of mine's brother went in literally a week from being a successful university professor to being a crazy homeless person.
So I believe it's very possible that this wasn't any sort of planned anything but just a brain that suddenly ceased to process correctly - more like a tragic car accident than a planned crime.
On preview, I see that Eyebrows has already expressed this idea very well... but I'll post this anyway.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 9:24 AM on November 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
Honestly, from reading this, he might well have simply broken abruptly. "The silicon chip inside her head had switched to overload." For example, there's no evidence at all that he really did molest any relatives.
While thank goodness none of my friends have become murderers, I have had two people I knew just flip out and start having delusional beliefs, and one of them claimed he had done terrible things (which, thank goodness, he had not). A friend of mine's brother went in literally a week from being a successful university professor to being a crazy homeless person.
So I believe it's very possible that this wasn't any sort of planned anything but just a brain that suddenly ceased to process correctly - more like a tragic car accident than a planned crime.
On preview, I see that Eyebrows has already expressed this idea very well... but I'll post this anyway.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 9:24 AM on November 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
This crime doesn't seem terribly mysterious to me. I presume he was sexually obsessed with young girls, and destroyed the ones he most easily had access to because he could no longer live with what was in his brain or resist his impulses. Maybe if there was a safe place for people like Charlie Roberts to work through unwanted sexual thoughts without fear of prison or social ostracization, things could have been different. But nobody knew him until it was too late.
posted by Scram at 9:30 AM on November 29, 2015
posted by Scram at 9:30 AM on November 29, 2015
I'm not really a fan of the non-Amish drive to romanticize Amish forgiveness. Amish beliefs with respect to forgiveness have led to a culture where victims are compelled to forgive their abusers and are held as being sinful if they don't. That is emotional and mental abuse.
So, Mary did something that drew more shock from her community than the sins of her brothers. She called authorities outside the Amish community, and she let them use her to gather evidence against her own brothers. She visited her brother Johnny wearing a wire and he admitted freely that he had sexually abused her.
...
The community viewed Mary, not Johnny, as the villain, because they had already punished Johnny within the church, according to Garrett. "He went through that process. He was sorry for what he had done, so to the Amish he was forgiven and it should be forgotten," she said.
posted by imnotasquirrel at 10:01 AM on November 29, 2015 [19 favorites]
So, Mary did something that drew more shock from her community than the sins of her brothers. She called authorities outside the Amish community, and she let them use her to gather evidence against her own brothers. She visited her brother Johnny wearing a wire and he admitted freely that he had sexually abused her.
...
The community viewed Mary, not Johnny, as the villain, because they had already punished Johnny within the church, according to Garrett. "He went through that process. He was sorry for what he had done, so to the Amish he was forgiven and it should be forgotten," she said.
posted by imnotasquirrel at 10:01 AM on November 29, 2015 [19 favorites]
I'm not really a fan of the non-Amish drive to romanticize Amish forgiveness. Amish beliefs with respect to forgiveness have led to a culture where victims are compelled to forgive their abusers and are held as being sinful if they don't. That is emotional and mental abuse.
So, Mary did something that drew more shock from her community than the sins of her brothers. She called authorities outside the Amish community, and she let them use her to gather evidence against her own brothers. She visited her brother Johnny wearing a wire and he admitted freely that he had sexually abused her.
...
The community viewed Mary, not Johnny, as the villain, because they had already punished Johnny within the church, according to Garrett. "He went through that process. He was sorry for what he had done, so to the Amish he was forgiven and it should be forgotten," she said.
posted by imnotasquirrel at 10:01 AM on November 29 [3 favorites +] [!]
This! I think we over - value forgiveness sometimes. I respect people who can forgive, but while certain crimes are victimless, other crimes have impacts so far beyond the direct victims that you could even say crimes like rape of children are socially too destructive to tolerate. I am not even advocating for the death penalty. Permanent placement in some inescapable prison colony would work. Anything which is a separation from society short of death would put people on notice that some behavior goes too far.
Punishing within isolated religious communities generally goes this way. Men bring in money. Women do not. So women are blamed and must forgive.
In fact nearly all religious preaching for forgiveness is aimed largely at women. Women are expected to bind the wounds and keep society going. Our pain doesn't matter.
posted by Katjusa Roquette at 1:02 PM on November 29, 2015 [10 favorites]
So, Mary did something that drew more shock from her community than the sins of her brothers. She called authorities outside the Amish community, and she let them use her to gather evidence against her own brothers. She visited her brother Johnny wearing a wire and he admitted freely that he had sexually abused her.
...
The community viewed Mary, not Johnny, as the villain, because they had already punished Johnny within the church, according to Garrett. "He went through that process. He was sorry for what he had done, so to the Amish he was forgiven and it should be forgotten," she said.
posted by imnotasquirrel at 10:01 AM on November 29 [3 favorites +] [!]
This! I think we over - value forgiveness sometimes. I respect people who can forgive, but while certain crimes are victimless, other crimes have impacts so far beyond the direct victims that you could even say crimes like rape of children are socially too destructive to tolerate. I am not even advocating for the death penalty. Permanent placement in some inescapable prison colony would work. Anything which is a separation from society short of death would put people on notice that some behavior goes too far.
Punishing within isolated religious communities generally goes this way. Men bring in money. Women do not. So women are blamed and must forgive.
In fact nearly all religious preaching for forgiveness is aimed largely at women. Women are expected to bind the wounds and keep society going. Our pain doesn't matter.
posted by Katjusa Roquette at 1:02 PM on November 29, 2015 [10 favorites]
The problem isn't forgiveness, it's the conflation between forgiveness and letting people escape the consequences of their crimes. It's perfectly consistent for a victim of crime to say that she forgives a criminal and, simultaneously, to do her best to see justice done, i.e. ensure he is convicted and serves his time for what he has done. Look at the response of the Emmanuel Methodist church members to Dylann Roof. They forgave him his crime - i.e. they let go of their desire for vengeance and expressed their will for his good - without in any way trying to impede the criminal justice process in his case. Willing the good for Dylann Roof means willing that he understand and learn to grieve what he's done and that may well mean that the best thing for him is a long time in prison (and, of course, there are perfectly good reasons to keep him there in order to protect members of the public). It's a horrible mistake to think forgiveness = letting people off the consequences of their actions, one much exploited by abusers and the manipulative in Christian communities. Actually I think forgiveness means that you wish the wrongdoer well, despite their actions. In some situations, this may mean letting them off some consequences, so far as they are your responsibility, but often it doesn't. They just aren't the same thing.
posted by Aravis76 at 1:17 PM on November 29, 2015 [18 favorites]
posted by Aravis76 at 1:17 PM on November 29, 2015 [18 favorites]
Aravis, you are right. Sadly, that is not usually how it works out in real life. Sadly people are often forced into the type of forgiveness which totally lets the perpetrator avoid consequences. What is needed is a combination of accountability toward the victim(s) and society, and mercy. We don't often see that.we normally only get one or the other.
posted by Katjusa Roquette at 2:28 PM on November 29, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by Katjusa Roquette at 2:28 PM on November 29, 2015 [5 favorites]
I think in Christian communities when I was growing up there actually was a Christian sentiment of a form of forgiveness that involved refraining from punishing or consequences. Many that I knew interpreted the teachings of turn the other cheek as having zero response to others harmful behavior and letting God handle it. Of course, no all Christians believe this!
However there very much a strain of forgive AND permit that asked Christians who were being executed to respond with love and pacifism and acceptance until the bad people simply decide they are going to stop.
There were many many tales at my school of people peacefully accepting murder or rape, forgiving and doing nothing at all at my Christian school, and of Church's (Christian and other religions as well) offering sanctuary from persecution of the law, a place where criminals could hide without facing justice.
I think pressure within the Church to forgive AND ignore abusive treatment is unfortunately common, in Christian and other religions that often prioritize both forgiveness and the need to offer the opportunity for redemption and restoration within the community to everyone, sometimes with very little or no consequence of any kind to the perpetrator and a hope that love and patience will heal them of their harmful behavior. In the meantime the people they harm were just supposed to wait it out and be loving. I certainly got this message very strongly in the Catholic Church of which I went to three different catholic schools in multiple cities and saw the same messages at all of them. I think it's hardly any wonder how they handled priest abuse because their response was directly in line with the teachings I heard often about simply loving people do wrong things without being judgmental and accepting them and helping them get better with love.
I would say this attitude played a large role in how susceptible I was to abuse as a teen and later relationships. We were all sinners, we were not to judge each other but to offer understanding and forgiveness and God would handle it all in the next realm.
This works out really well for people in power doing bad things who don't want to be challenged. I have a hard time hearing people us the word forgiveness and not feeling suspicious there is a lot of loaded toxic stuff in the word unless they specifically describe their perspective and it's detangled from the toxic stuff that is unfortunately commonly associated with the word in my experience. There's so many stories we would hear about holy people being raped and forgiving and handling the whole thing with love and never an angry thought, people dying at the hands of murderers and offering love the whole time-- and this was the ideal. I have problems with the suppression of healthy anger because often it's that anger that gives you the charge you need to say or do something that WILL hurt the perpetrator because you need to for self defense or defense of the vulnerable or to protect them after wards. And as much as I want us to use all peaceful means of achieving things, I am not unconvinced that people who are willing to carry out vengeance don't play a (complicated) role in some degree of protection of the vulnerable and discouraging opportunistic criminals.
I think there are better ways, but I have a lot more mixed feelings about the idealizing of absolute and pure non-violence and unconditional love toward everyone. In the Church it is said that love keeps no record of wrongs, but how can that be accepted and implemented while also keeping some people imprisoned for the safety of others when we can't keep track of who has done what and what that might mean for the safety of others? I think too there's a certain degree of shaming that is given to those who won't forgive, they are seen as inferior, failures, or hurting themselves and at fault for it; which is really not a very survivor friendly perspective in my opinion. I have problems with forgiveness culture and it's relationship with patriarchy and misogyny and other ongoing abuses that asking for this ongoing forgiveness more frequently burdens women to tolerate men's deeds and keep accepting their presence in their communities, families and peer groups when it should be perfectly acceptable to not want to have a love fest or ongoing relationship or to permit the person to be free ever again after such crimes. At this point in my life I prefer the term mercy rather than forgiveness because it doesn't carry the same baggage to me. I don't want to see anyone tortured, I want less suffering in the world, not more. But at the same time, I value survivors more than the welfare of criminals like this and if someone feels angry after enduring the kinds of losses these crimes create I would rather we over compassion and understanding for those who have such feelings rather than patronizing recommendations to let go of anger and then the pain will be gone and it'll be fine.
I think in general people want a forgiveness story because it's easier for them to grapple with, not because it actually helps survivors to be shamed or pressured to only have forgiving feelings. I wonder if sometimes survivors feel better when they forgive because it means they will fit the scripted narrative and receive social praise and support they won't otherwise. This narrative leaves those who still have anger thinking there is something wrong with them, that they need to be in therapy indefinitely or "working on themselves" if they have any anger at all around it, that the problem is THEM for having the anger. I also think it's possible that forgiving only when someone has paid their debt (prison time etc) and appears to be making genuine amends might actually be a force that generates some degree of change; and to pressure people to skip the entire process to forgive any and everyone regardless of whether they have any sorrow or remorse or awareness they did anything could possible do more harm than good.
I say all this because I really think we need to have these conversations and think critically about it, even though I value empathy and compassion for those who have committed horrible crimes- I have found the more connected I am with empathy and compassion for perpetrators the harder it is for me to focus on accountability and carrying out criminal justice. I think it's very hard to condemn a person to life in a very brutal prison system, where they may lose their relationship with their children and family, where they may be abused and assaulted, where they may lose hope of having a future life partner or children they could have brought into the world; without being able to set aside their welfare.
posted by xarnop at 3:20 PM on November 29, 2015 [13 favorites]
However there very much a strain of forgive AND permit that asked Christians who were being executed to respond with love and pacifism and acceptance until the bad people simply decide they are going to stop.
There were many many tales at my school of people peacefully accepting murder or rape, forgiving and doing nothing at all at my Christian school, and of Church's (Christian and other religions as well) offering sanctuary from persecution of the law, a place where criminals could hide without facing justice.
I think pressure within the Church to forgive AND ignore abusive treatment is unfortunately common, in Christian and other religions that often prioritize both forgiveness and the need to offer the opportunity for redemption and restoration within the community to everyone, sometimes with very little or no consequence of any kind to the perpetrator and a hope that love and patience will heal them of their harmful behavior. In the meantime the people they harm were just supposed to wait it out and be loving. I certainly got this message very strongly in the Catholic Church of which I went to three different catholic schools in multiple cities and saw the same messages at all of them. I think it's hardly any wonder how they handled priest abuse because their response was directly in line with the teachings I heard often about simply loving people do wrong things without being judgmental and accepting them and helping them get better with love.
I would say this attitude played a large role in how susceptible I was to abuse as a teen and later relationships. We were all sinners, we were not to judge each other but to offer understanding and forgiveness and God would handle it all in the next realm.
This works out really well for people in power doing bad things who don't want to be challenged. I have a hard time hearing people us the word forgiveness and not feeling suspicious there is a lot of loaded toxic stuff in the word unless they specifically describe their perspective and it's detangled from the toxic stuff that is unfortunately commonly associated with the word in my experience. There's so many stories we would hear about holy people being raped and forgiving and handling the whole thing with love and never an angry thought, people dying at the hands of murderers and offering love the whole time-- and this was the ideal. I have problems with the suppression of healthy anger because often it's that anger that gives you the charge you need to say or do something that WILL hurt the perpetrator because you need to for self defense or defense of the vulnerable or to protect them after wards. And as much as I want us to use all peaceful means of achieving things, I am not unconvinced that people who are willing to carry out vengeance don't play a (complicated) role in some degree of protection of the vulnerable and discouraging opportunistic criminals.
I think there are better ways, but I have a lot more mixed feelings about the idealizing of absolute and pure non-violence and unconditional love toward everyone. In the Church it is said that love keeps no record of wrongs, but how can that be accepted and implemented while also keeping some people imprisoned for the safety of others when we can't keep track of who has done what and what that might mean for the safety of others? I think too there's a certain degree of shaming that is given to those who won't forgive, they are seen as inferior, failures, or hurting themselves and at fault for it; which is really not a very survivor friendly perspective in my opinion. I have problems with forgiveness culture and it's relationship with patriarchy and misogyny and other ongoing abuses that asking for this ongoing forgiveness more frequently burdens women to tolerate men's deeds and keep accepting their presence in their communities, families and peer groups when it should be perfectly acceptable to not want to have a love fest or ongoing relationship or to permit the person to be free ever again after such crimes. At this point in my life I prefer the term mercy rather than forgiveness because it doesn't carry the same baggage to me. I don't want to see anyone tortured, I want less suffering in the world, not more. But at the same time, I value survivors more than the welfare of criminals like this and if someone feels angry after enduring the kinds of losses these crimes create I would rather we over compassion and understanding for those who have such feelings rather than patronizing recommendations to let go of anger and then the pain will be gone and it'll be fine.
I think in general people want a forgiveness story because it's easier for them to grapple with, not because it actually helps survivors to be shamed or pressured to only have forgiving feelings. I wonder if sometimes survivors feel better when they forgive because it means they will fit the scripted narrative and receive social praise and support they won't otherwise. This narrative leaves those who still have anger thinking there is something wrong with them, that they need to be in therapy indefinitely or "working on themselves" if they have any anger at all around it, that the problem is THEM for having the anger. I also think it's possible that forgiving only when someone has paid their debt (prison time etc) and appears to be making genuine amends might actually be a force that generates some degree of change; and to pressure people to skip the entire process to forgive any and everyone regardless of whether they have any sorrow or remorse or awareness they did anything could possible do more harm than good.
I say all this because I really think we need to have these conversations and think critically about it, even though I value empathy and compassion for those who have committed horrible crimes- I have found the more connected I am with empathy and compassion for perpetrators the harder it is for me to focus on accountability and carrying out criminal justice. I think it's very hard to condemn a person to life in a very brutal prison system, where they may lose their relationship with their children and family, where they may be abused and assaulted, where they may lose hope of having a future life partner or children they could have brought into the world; without being able to set aside their welfare.
posted by xarnop at 3:20 PM on November 29, 2015 [13 favorites]
xarnop, I too was raised on "turn the other cheek", but it always seemed to be part of an injunction that the victim shouldn't seek *vengeance*, that revenge would make that victim no better than the person who harmed them. *Justice* was not at all the same thing as vengeance; and whether or not the victim forgives the wrongdoer, justice demands that wrongdoer pay in some way for his crime.
Forgiveness without justice is just too much like the old Renaisance practice of buying 'indulgences' from the church: no real repentance or reparation for your evil deeds or crimes, just a purchased paper "forgiveness".
posted by easily confused at 4:26 PM on November 29, 2015 [3 favorites]
Forgiveness without justice is just too much like the old Renaisance practice of buying 'indulgences' from the church: no real repentance or reparation for your evil deeds or crimes, just a purchased paper "forgiveness".
posted by easily confused at 4:26 PM on November 29, 2015 [3 favorites]
I agree that it's difficult to combine empathy with criminals with condemning them to a brutal and awful prison where they will be abused, but I think the answer to that is prison reform. The point of the system is 1) to keep the criminal from inflicting more harm and 2) to help the criminal understand the nature and seriousness of his wrongdoing and become a better person. Both are consistent with love and forgiveness and have nothing to do with vengeance. The second can't be fully achieved in a prison system that brutalises prisoners, so we ought to work towards creating a prison system that preserves as much dignity as possible for the prisoner and gives him the opportunities he needs to understand what he has done. I don't know if we need hatred of the person to get us there; horror at the crime and its consequences and a sense of justice should be enough, and both are consistent with hoping for the ultimate welfare of the criminal.
On the broader point, yes, it's too common in Christian circles for forgiveness and justice to be simply opposed to each other and for people to be told that forgiveness, regardless of repentance or the demands of justice, is just compulsory in some vague sense that means waiving the injury and pretending it didn't happen. I think this is bad theology, and outside the mainstream of Christian thought, however. That forgiveness is contingent on repentance is what the cathecism of the RCC says, and Augustine insists that punishment and mercy are compatible - that sometimes punishment is mercy, because it works towards the genuine good of the wrongdoer by moving him towards repentance, when alone he is fit to receive forgiveness. Even God's forgiveness, in Catholic teaching, doesn't necessarily remit the temporal consequences of our sins; that's what Purgatory is all about.
posted by Aravis76 at 4:26 PM on November 29, 2015 [3 favorites]
On the broader point, yes, it's too common in Christian circles for forgiveness and justice to be simply opposed to each other and for people to be told that forgiveness, regardless of repentance or the demands of justice, is just compulsory in some vague sense that means waiving the injury and pretending it didn't happen. I think this is bad theology, and outside the mainstream of Christian thought, however. That forgiveness is contingent on repentance is what the cathecism of the RCC says, and Augustine insists that punishment and mercy are compatible - that sometimes punishment is mercy, because it works towards the genuine good of the wrongdoer by moving him towards repentance, when alone he is fit to receive forgiveness. Even God's forgiveness, in Catholic teaching, doesn't necessarily remit the temporal consequences of our sins; that's what Purgatory is all about.
posted by Aravis76 at 4:26 PM on November 29, 2015 [3 favorites]
I'm trying to see the difference, but I'm not sure I really do see a difference in vengeance vs justice especially when you mention that punishment can be part of mercy.
vengeance= "punishment inflicted or retribution exacted for an injury or wrong."
justice= "the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments."
I think essentially vengeance is when someone seeks a form of justice that others disapprove of; like when the courts fail and a person or people harmed take justice into their own hands.
I think we wrongly have an idea that when the state does it it's just, when an individual does it, it's wreckless. I think the state has proved it's very wreckless with life because it's hard for all of us, whether individuals or the state. We have this idea that it's noble for "the state" to seek retribution for damage to "the state" but it's petty and shameful for an individual to seek retribution for a damage to themselves.
I'm not saying I don't like having barriers between acting on emotions before thinking them through, and that is a great benefit of the justice system, but I feel like there's a disconnect in the amount of inferiority we heap on people for feeling anger. I think deep down, anger IS simply the desire for justice. Justice that might not even be able to be generated because what wrong has happened can't be made right. And that hurts. I think vengeance when examined is the desire to make another understand the suffering they created and stop committing the behavior. I think we want to turn emotions in "good" vs "bad" but to me it's really about examination and digging deeper, because emotions often speak truths that often need to be heard. The problem is hearing accurately when emotions are strong and hard to understand and seeking to act out what you truly feel with an accurate understanding of the facts. This is hard for both individuals and the state alike. All too often behavior is altered by adversity, abuse, illness, desperation. Seeking a deeper understanding means seeing the back story, understanding the reasons, and knowing that we can't really know with our knowledge how much of a persons will may have been in tact when they made a given decision. We can take information we have and make an educated guess but since we ultimately can't judge the depth of a persons character we should absolutely side with mercy. However, given we don't know for sure, it's also entirely possible that some people are .... choosing freely. I really don't find it useful to create doctrine shaming anyone angry about that. To me, it's not about what you feel but what you choose to do from there.
When I feel angry I ask for compassion to be within me. Not to erase the anger, but to have compassion for it. I understand it. When I look into the eyes of my anger I see a deep burning love for living beings, a powerful sorrow for those who have been harmed, and a force that desires to awaken the close hearted and disconnected that they can see and feel what they do to others. Not to harm them, though that process might hurt, but to awaken the ability to see the truth, to FEEL the truth of what their actions means for others, to be connected such that the welfare of others becomes our own welfare, and the tools to right whatever wrongs can be mended. To redeem whatever can be redeemed. I ask that my focus be on protecting those who may be harmed rather than on causing harm if I can achieve this goal through peaceful means. But I prioritize those at risk of being harmed over those who have harmed, have a history of harming, or who are spreading damaging ideology to human life or making threats. When I feel the most anger I am more at risk of doing more harm or misjudge the amount of force needed, when I am loving I run the risk of doing nothing at all because I don't want to harm even those who have done wrong, and I certainly don't want to feel their retaliation when I stand up to them. Those injuries are hard to bear.
We want the police or the military to fight these battles for us but then we judge them for feeling anger or aggressive tendencies- well are asking them to do work that might require those emotions so that we can "let go" and live in this nice forgiveness where we don't have to think about seeking justice.
posted by xarnop at 7:36 PM on November 29, 2015
vengeance= "punishment inflicted or retribution exacted for an injury or wrong."
justice= "the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments."
I think essentially vengeance is when someone seeks a form of justice that others disapprove of; like when the courts fail and a person or people harmed take justice into their own hands.
I think we wrongly have an idea that when the state does it it's just, when an individual does it, it's wreckless. I think the state has proved it's very wreckless with life because it's hard for all of us, whether individuals or the state. We have this idea that it's noble for "the state" to seek retribution for damage to "the state" but it's petty and shameful for an individual to seek retribution for a damage to themselves.
I'm not saying I don't like having barriers between acting on emotions before thinking them through, and that is a great benefit of the justice system, but I feel like there's a disconnect in the amount of inferiority we heap on people for feeling anger. I think deep down, anger IS simply the desire for justice. Justice that might not even be able to be generated because what wrong has happened can't be made right. And that hurts. I think vengeance when examined is the desire to make another understand the suffering they created and stop committing the behavior. I think we want to turn emotions in "good" vs "bad" but to me it's really about examination and digging deeper, because emotions often speak truths that often need to be heard. The problem is hearing accurately when emotions are strong and hard to understand and seeking to act out what you truly feel with an accurate understanding of the facts. This is hard for both individuals and the state alike. All too often behavior is altered by adversity, abuse, illness, desperation. Seeking a deeper understanding means seeing the back story, understanding the reasons, and knowing that we can't really know with our knowledge how much of a persons will may have been in tact when they made a given decision. We can take information we have and make an educated guess but since we ultimately can't judge the depth of a persons character we should absolutely side with mercy. However, given we don't know for sure, it's also entirely possible that some people are .... choosing freely. I really don't find it useful to create doctrine shaming anyone angry about that. To me, it's not about what you feel but what you choose to do from there.
When I feel angry I ask for compassion to be within me. Not to erase the anger, but to have compassion for it. I understand it. When I look into the eyes of my anger I see a deep burning love for living beings, a powerful sorrow for those who have been harmed, and a force that desires to awaken the close hearted and disconnected that they can see and feel what they do to others. Not to harm them, though that process might hurt, but to awaken the ability to see the truth, to FEEL the truth of what their actions means for others, to be connected such that the welfare of others becomes our own welfare, and the tools to right whatever wrongs can be mended. To redeem whatever can be redeemed. I ask that my focus be on protecting those who may be harmed rather than on causing harm if I can achieve this goal through peaceful means. But I prioritize those at risk of being harmed over those who have harmed, have a history of harming, or who are spreading damaging ideology to human life or making threats. When I feel the most anger I am more at risk of doing more harm or misjudge the amount of force needed, when I am loving I run the risk of doing nothing at all because I don't want to harm even those who have done wrong, and I certainly don't want to feel their retaliation when I stand up to them. Those injuries are hard to bear.
We want the police or the military to fight these battles for us but then we judge them for feeling anger or aggressive tendencies- well are asking them to do work that might require those emotions so that we can "let go" and live in this nice forgiveness where we don't have to think about seeking justice.
posted by xarnop at 7:36 PM on November 29, 2015
I'm trying to see the difference, but I'm not sure I really do see a difference in vengeance vs justice especially when you mention that punishment can be part of mercy.
The difference is in aim, which is relevant to the kind and degree of punishment that is possible in a given case. The goal of vengeance is that the wrongdoer suffer as much as possible. The goal of justice is that the wrongdoer suffer to the extent necessary in a just society - this means to the extent necessary, first, to protect others from the same harm and, second, to give the wrongdoer his due. Theorists of criminal justice disagree about what this second half means, but the important point is that the idea of giving him his due places limits on what can be done to him. Torture and bodily violence, for example, should be ruled out in a society where the idea of human dignity and human rights has been accepted - the defendant's right to basic bodily integrity can't be suspended or lost and has to be taken into account in deciding what he deserves. Sentencing also takes into account factors like the maturity of the wrongdoer, his family background, his understanding or lack of understanding of what he has done: the goal is to work out what exactly he deserves, or needs, and just punishment can be reduced or modified to take account of these factors. Since vengeance is purely oriented towards the suffering of the wrongdoer, without any concept of what he deserves, it doesn't have logical limits the way that justice does - it can, in principle, encompass a desire to have the person tortured or wounded and it doesn't take account of mitigating factors in deciding what should be done.
I don't think this is a state v person difference. I would say some states operate a conception of justice that is essentially vengeful in its functioning, and many individuals respond to wrongs against them with a desire for justice (self-protection + making sure the wrongdoer understands that what he did was wrong) not vengeance (making sure the wrongdoer suffers as much as can be managed). I would say the Iranian approach is a good example. The language of justice allows us to say the punishment of blinding a criminal is bad because blinding or mutilation can never be his due (because of his human right to bodily integrity). The vengeance idea has no room for this argument because it doesn't see the issue as being about entitlements (giving everyone their due) - if the goal of punishment is purely inflicting suffering to make the victim feel better, without any reference to the impact on the criminal and what he deserves, Iran's approach to punishment can't be criticised. It's so perfectly vengeful that it gives control over punishment to the victim. Other legal systems don't hand over control over punishment to victims because they want to avoid the risk of punishment becoming inappropriate to the crime (either because it's excessive or because the forgiving victim reduces it too far).
If we come back to the idea of forgiveness, it's compatible with the desire to see justice done but not with the desire for vengeance. If forgiveness means willing the good of the wrongdoer, that's compatible with saying he should suffer to the extent necessary for the protection of others and his own chances at rehabilitation. It's not compatible with saying he should suffer as much as possible, just as an end in itself, for no other reason except that you want him to. The latter involves willing that something finally bad happen to him - that he suffer in a way that never gets better or leads to something that is for his good (remorse, rehabilitation, leading to a happy and peaceful life). In a Christian framework, it's praying for him to go to hell.
posted by Aravis76 at 11:58 PM on November 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
The difference is in aim, which is relevant to the kind and degree of punishment that is possible in a given case. The goal of vengeance is that the wrongdoer suffer as much as possible. The goal of justice is that the wrongdoer suffer to the extent necessary in a just society - this means to the extent necessary, first, to protect others from the same harm and, second, to give the wrongdoer his due. Theorists of criminal justice disagree about what this second half means, but the important point is that the idea of giving him his due places limits on what can be done to him. Torture and bodily violence, for example, should be ruled out in a society where the idea of human dignity and human rights has been accepted - the defendant's right to basic bodily integrity can't be suspended or lost and has to be taken into account in deciding what he deserves. Sentencing also takes into account factors like the maturity of the wrongdoer, his family background, his understanding or lack of understanding of what he has done: the goal is to work out what exactly he deserves, or needs, and just punishment can be reduced or modified to take account of these factors. Since vengeance is purely oriented towards the suffering of the wrongdoer, without any concept of what he deserves, it doesn't have logical limits the way that justice does - it can, in principle, encompass a desire to have the person tortured or wounded and it doesn't take account of mitigating factors in deciding what should be done.
I don't think this is a state v person difference. I would say some states operate a conception of justice that is essentially vengeful in its functioning, and many individuals respond to wrongs against them with a desire for justice (self-protection + making sure the wrongdoer understands that what he did was wrong) not vengeance (making sure the wrongdoer suffers as much as can be managed). I would say the Iranian approach is a good example. The language of justice allows us to say the punishment of blinding a criminal is bad because blinding or mutilation can never be his due (because of his human right to bodily integrity). The vengeance idea has no room for this argument because it doesn't see the issue as being about entitlements (giving everyone their due) - if the goal of punishment is purely inflicting suffering to make the victim feel better, without any reference to the impact on the criminal and what he deserves, Iran's approach to punishment can't be criticised. It's so perfectly vengeful that it gives control over punishment to the victim. Other legal systems don't hand over control over punishment to victims because they want to avoid the risk of punishment becoming inappropriate to the crime (either because it's excessive or because the forgiving victim reduces it too far).
If we come back to the idea of forgiveness, it's compatible with the desire to see justice done but not with the desire for vengeance. If forgiveness means willing the good of the wrongdoer, that's compatible with saying he should suffer to the extent necessary for the protection of others and his own chances at rehabilitation. It's not compatible with saying he should suffer as much as possible, just as an end in itself, for no other reason except that you want him to. The latter involves willing that something finally bad happen to him - that he suffer in a way that never gets better or leads to something that is for his good (remorse, rehabilitation, leading to a happy and peaceful life). In a Christian framework, it's praying for him to go to hell.
posted by Aravis76 at 11:58 PM on November 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
This particular crime was a hate crime against women, and I hate how that was erased from the Guardian article. The question isn't just how her sweet boy could do such a thing, but how her sweet boy came to hate women so much that he chose to murder Amish girls exclusively.
That's extremely unfair, the article did not "erase" anything, it's a short piece focusing on the mother's point of view, on her reactions to her son's crimes. It's not a comprehensive report about the crime itself and its social implications. It's a her personal story. There were plenty of other articles that examined that wider question too. (And really the Guardian is the last place on the internet you could ever accuse of erasing any discussion on hate crimes against women).
If you actually meant you hate how the mother herself "erased" that question, how in the article she does not talk about asking herself that wider question, and her thoughts on that... Well. How fair would that be? You say you don't blame her personally, but that's exactly what you'd be implying there.
Imagine the interviewer prodding the mother herself on that question of "why did your sweet boy come to hate women so much"... I don't think even the worst tabloid in the world would do that.
posted by bitteschoen at 1:18 PM on November 30, 2015
That's extremely unfair, the article did not "erase" anything, it's a short piece focusing on the mother's point of view, on her reactions to her son's crimes. It's not a comprehensive report about the crime itself and its social implications. It's a her personal story. There were plenty of other articles that examined that wider question too. (And really the Guardian is the last place on the internet you could ever accuse of erasing any discussion on hate crimes against women).
If you actually meant you hate how the mother herself "erased" that question, how in the article she does not talk about asking herself that wider question, and her thoughts on that... Well. How fair would that be? You say you don't blame her personally, but that's exactly what you'd be implying there.
Imagine the interviewer prodding the mother herself on that question of "why did your sweet boy come to hate women so much"... I don't think even the worst tabloid in the world would do that.
posted by bitteschoen at 1:18 PM on November 30, 2015
bitteschoen, I think you're right. While there are many social, environmental, and familial factors associated with what they call in some research "callous unemotional traits" as they call them, aggressive behavior, antisocial personality disorder, defective empathy- the story regarding research is deeper. Some of the same traits that can call a person to go punch the "bad guy" can be the same traits that bring one to punch a not to bad person and the idea that there is one type of pathological person who can do this and then there is everyone else who is totally different might not be as real of a concept as we prefer emotionally to believe. (Again with the idea that at entire society can be festering with ideas like this but only a few actually act them out, then everyone else gets to shun the nithing and pretend they had nothing to do with it).
These are extremely important questions, where does this behavior originate, what do we already know about this, how can we use that to better society and prevent this kind of behavior? But to expect a grieving and guilt stricken mother to do that work for the rest of society is probably not the best use of energy regarding the matter. I think it's fine to talk about that amongst ourselves, but I agree I am glad that she was able to share her voice on this. I'm sorry for what everyone involved went through. This is not something people should be going through.
Aravis76- I like the ideas the theorists you describe are having, do feel that what a theorist decides a word means and how it is used by others can be different things. I am coming from a place of being accused of vengeance seeking for protecting my child from an abusive father so I feel like the way words are used socially and by people who want to leverage an attack on people seeking justice or simply protection from people who have behaved dangerously can be different things. My whole family thinks that my cousins ex put him in prison for domestic assault because of a desire for vengeance and she doesn't have enough forgiveness in her heart.
So I'm just not seeing it's actual use match what theorists might want it to mean.
posted by xarnop at 4:42 AM on December 1, 2015
These are extremely important questions, where does this behavior originate, what do we already know about this, how can we use that to better society and prevent this kind of behavior? But to expect a grieving and guilt stricken mother to do that work for the rest of society is probably not the best use of energy regarding the matter. I think it's fine to talk about that amongst ourselves, but I agree I am glad that she was able to share her voice on this. I'm sorry for what everyone involved went through. This is not something people should be going through.
Aravis76- I like the ideas the theorists you describe are having, do feel that what a theorist decides a word means and how it is used by others can be different things. I am coming from a place of being accused of vengeance seeking for protecting my child from an abusive father so I feel like the way words are used socially and by people who want to leverage an attack on people seeking justice or simply protection from people who have behaved dangerously can be different things. My whole family thinks that my cousins ex put him in prison for domestic assault because of a desire for vengeance and she doesn't have enough forgiveness in her heart.
So I'm just not seeing it's actual use match what theorists might want it to mean.
posted by xarnop at 4:42 AM on December 1, 2015
Yes, I think the problem is not so much the concepts (forgiveness, justice, vengeance) but how they are wrongly used to put pressure on people and emotionally manipulate them. That's clearly wrong and I wouldn't want to excuse or justify that kind of manipulative use of the language of forgiveness.
posted by Aravis76 at 9:23 AM on December 1, 2015
posted by Aravis76 at 9:23 AM on December 1, 2015
« Older This Is Not Real | 4:51 and 4 bottles of beer Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
As they walked through the churchyard, Terri remembers, she could see the telescopic lenses trained on them. “We felt vulnerable – we knew everyone was looking at us. Then, from behind a shed, a group of Amish people appeared, men in tall hats and women in white bonnets. They fanned out into a line between the graveside and the road. They were protecting us from the media.”
posted by Hermione Granger at 4:48 PM on November 28, 2015 [51 favorites]