I've received some interesting email regarding my previous post on the "evil male stereotype" Dalia Hashad is Amnesty International’s Director of the USA Program focusing on Domestic Human Rights.
SH writes: Dalia Hashad: "All a person who wants to hurt a woman has to do is go onto the website order this product, it appears on his doorstep and the next day he could be at yours."
Until this quote I was not aware that Amnesty International was so blatently sexist. In the past I have assisted with raising funds for Amnesty International. Even worse I gave my voice actively as support to your organization. I am very deeply disturbed by this.
Do you know that most private Tasers are owned by Women and not Men as Amnesty appears to believe? Are you also aware that domestic violence occurs against Men as well as Women? Violence is not restricted to a country, a race or a GENDER.
Propogating this clearly sexist view to society will continue only to justify the future abuse against victims. And while you may in fact be shocked to hear this: Victim is NOT gender specific.
I regret having been an active supporter of Amnesty in the past, I certainly intend to correct this in the future. I will never support any group that is openly discriminatory against race, gender, nationality or age. And your organization is clearly within that category. When I speak out about Amnesty it will be as a warning to others who are duped into believeing that you are any better than any organization that openly promotes and support segregation.
-----------
SH sent this email to Amnesty International.
The original story on the news is available at the WJLA website.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Feedback Regarding Amnesty International's Dalia Hashad
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Heading to Counseling - Out of Her Control 1/31/2001
I started counseling on my own. Joint counseling had failed approximately 3-times before and I really wasn't interested in sitting through one or two or three sessions only to have her bail out again. This time, I was going to see what I could discover on my own without her interference. Well, it wasn't long before I discovered that the "without her interference" part was too lofty an expectation.
Another IMversation starts nicely enough, but turns into the regular ambush via computer while I'l at work.
LM: HI. How you?
PEW: good, you?
LM: Good. Son?
PEW: he's nappin. he's good though
LM: Good.
PEW: how was the appt
LM: Fetus?
PEW: good
LM: Appt. good.
PEW: good
LM: good.
PEW: so now that you've met with the guys twice what do you think of him
-----------
See how nicely it starts off? You are lulled into this sense of normalcy and begin having what appears to be a normal discussion. At this point you're probably thinking, "Does this guy ever learn?" No, not really. Not for many years left to come.
-----------
LM: So far so good. I've only been "cleared" for 4 visits.
PEW: cleared by who?
LM: Next two will be to work a little harder and get some direction for anything after I'm done with him. Insurance. 4 "freebies"
PEW: I don't understand what you mean about the next 2
LM: I've had 2. I have 2 more with him. Then I have to go elsewhere on referral. We can thank insurance for that, too.
PEW: so basically this time you've spent with him is a waste
LM: No... but I'll just need to carry on elsewhere after 4 visits.
PEW: so I'll never speak with the guy?
LM: I don't believe so. I'm the guy who needs help.
-----------
So, now I'm trying really, really hard to keep things calm. "I'm the guy who needs help." I'm going out of my way to avoid putting her on the defensive (after years of "training") and it's just not going to work. Again, it's just not going to work.
-----------
PEW: no, we need help....you're coping with the past situation very well I think. I'm sorry but this isn't what I was looking for.
LM: Well, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't take umbrage with my getting some help. I am looking for help for me.
-----------
Wow. I'm going to counseling and she has the audacity to say, "this isn't what I was looking for." I won't bore you be rehashing the unrelenting level of selfishness and sense of total entitlement that she has. Looking back at this, I realize that because I was outside of her control and discussing what was going on with a professional, she felt threatened, and out of control.
-----------
PEW: yeah and I want you to have it, but you wouldn't even be going if I hadn't said I was going to file to have you out of the house....at the time you told me "you'd walk away from now on" you didn't offer to go, I asked you to go
LM: Look, I'm sorry. But I don't want to get into an argument about this. I also don't appreciate the implication that I didn't recognize (on the heels of our last episode) that I have some issues that need addressing. I did. Now, I've had two sessions. And I am beginning to feel like you are sabotaging me.
LM: I gave you your space when you were flying solo. I'd appreciate the same respect.
PEW: and that WE were going to need something long term....
-----------
"WE?" The selective memory is another frustration I regularly experience. Nevermind that history has shown that when any professional sought to address issues that they felt PEW needed to recognize, counseling was summarily ended. Still, I press on trying explain the situation with logic, a mistake I would make over and over and over again...
-----------
LM: PEW - you are not my guidance counselor. I need to address MY issues going forward. It will be helpful to do it that way.
PEW: well since I'm the one that was harmed, I have a God Given right to be a part of the counseling
LM: At this time, the discussion is not productive.
PEW: and I need counseling to figure out if I'm doing the right thing by trying to work this out, because it certainly hasn't felt like I'm doing the right thing
LM: Your harassing me about counseling does NOTHING to help anyone and I wish you would stop, or you are going in my block list again.
PEW: well I'll have to consult my family then about what to do because I thought we were going to be working on this problem in counseling
LM: We will. That does not preclude my getting to the root of my issues. Didn't you find it helpful to go solo prior to going together?
PEW: well, i only went to 2 visits alone. I find this very strange. especially given the nature of why you are there
LM: I am there because I obviously lost control. And went to a point that I shouldn't have gone by grabbing you. If you believe for one second that I didn't immediately recognize that as a problem, you aren't giving me enough credit.
PEW: well at the time, you told me...I hit you first.....I called you a name....you justified it with every excuse you could think of.....
-----------
There it is. Despite the reality that she struck first, here I am seeking some guidance and she did nothing. I resist the urge to point that out with the knowledge that it will only serve to degrade this discussion further.
-----------
LM: Stop it. Stop it now or I'm blocking you.
PEW: stop what?
LM: You are starting an argument over my counseling. One session was introducing myself and telling why I was there. Today was filling out paperwork, talking a little more, answering questions, and discussing a course of action.
PEW: do what you want, if you are excluding me from the counseling, there's nothing for us to discuss, I just have to decide how I will proceed from here
LM: You aren't missing anything. I'M NOT excluding you!
PEW: I don't need to speak to you anymore
LM: I have issues that need to be addressed. Why is it so difficult for you to let me gain some insight into myself and my reactions? I can't believe I am defending myself about going to counseling. This is ridiculous.
PEW: once I'm secure in the fact that you've told the counselor what happened, I'll leave you to your insight
LM: That isn't your job.
PEW: otherwise...I am operating under the assumption that you lied to him
LM: If I haven't been honest with him, no measure of counseling is going to do me any bit of good. You better get control of yourself.
PEW: exactly. i'm done with you
LM: I'm saving this and sending it to your mother, so she can see what it is you do.
PEW: fucking send it...she hates you
----------
Yeah, I said it again, "you better get control of yourself." A lot of good that ever did.
The bottom line is this - my seeking counseling on my own threatened her control over me. Since she had no control over what it was I would be sharing with the counselor, she felt threatened. Since she wasn't there with a new audience to whom she could spout her lies and tell her tale of woe, she felt threatened. This would not be the last time she harassed me about counseling. I can only imagine that each session I attended left her home with her paranoia about what was happening in her absence.
She would attend sessions in the future. She would, again, quit attending when confronted with issues she had and desperately needed to address to get this relationship on the right track.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Dinner With Friends
My dinner with friends entry was spawned by... dinner with friends. This friend in particular, LD (female) has been a friend of mine for darn near close to 30-years. I was recently at her home and had dinner with her and her husband, both of whom are aware of my experiences.
We began discussing a specific situation that occurred involving LD and my other long-time friend, MCB (male). I don't recall the specific year, but in discussing it with LD, it was the late 1990s as it coincided with the demise of her first marriage. She was with a control-freak extraordinairre, a narcissist, and we hadn't spoken in several years except very, very rarely. This was a chance to reconnect with two of her closest friends in life, myself and MCB and an opportunity for her to meet the PEW.
Together, PEW and I prepare a really nice sit-down dinner with a couple of nice bottles of wine. MCB and LD arrived within minutes of each other and we all exchanged pleasantries and introductions, made some small talk and headed for the dinner table.
STEP-BACK: Prior to the children, PEW was a binge drinker. When she decided to tie one on, I knew of no one able to outdrink her. I previously spoke of how her demeanor changed if she had a drop more than 3 drinks. Nasty. Back to the story...
It wasn't long before I saw "the face." The face is the one that broadcasts to you that something is wrong and/or - she's had more than 3 drinks. It was during dinner. Keep in mind, I hadn't seen LD in about 5-years and immediately, my "spidey-senses" began to tingle and not in a good way.
Neither I nor LD could recall what specifically was said, but PEW was beginning to get abrasive and sarcastic with LD when the 3 of us were reminiscing. PEW's face actually started to turn red. It reached such a level of uncomfortability that MCB found a moment to excuse themselves. That's right - he recognized something was up and was going to pull LD out of the fire. I remember that they had barely wiped their mouths and they were leaving. I believe that myself, LD, and MCB had 2-glasses of wine each with dinner. I figure that by this time, PEW had about 5. I really lost count. She was escalating into a full blown rage and my dinner guests had evacuated.
A screaming match ensued. I remember telling her how incredibly embarrassed I was at her behavior. I remember yelling at her, "This is a dear friend of mine that I haven't seen in years and now I'll be lucky to see either of them for another 5-years after what you did tonight!!!"
Turns out PEW felt threatened by LD. PEW assumed she had ulterior motives after less than an hour of meeting time. It couldn't possibly have been simply that LD was isolated from the people she was most close to (friends and family) by her 1st-husband. Truth is, this was just a figment of her vivid imagination and immeasurable paranoia. I remember PEW telling me that she, "...didn't like the way she looked at you." The reality is that LD was reconnecting with all of her friends in the aftermath of her miserable marriage.
The blow-out got much, much worse.
PEW took a seat at the bar we had in the house at the time. From it, she withdrew a bottle of vodka and started swilling from it. I told her to knock it off. She didn't. With that, she tipped the bottle up and literally started chugging from the bottle of 80-proof Absolut Vodka. Angrily, I walked towards her and snatched the bottle right off of her lips and out of her hand. She took a swing at me but I was able to dodge it as I turned on my heels, walked into the kitchen and spiked the bottle into the sink. It exploded into a million little shards of glass and vodka was all over the kitchen floor. (It's a wonder I didn't lose an eye because it blasted right back into my face.)
PEW was practically incoherent and was slurring so much now that I couldn't understand her. However, she still clumsily barreled into the kitchen where I was, hit the vodka spray all over the floor and promptly fell on her ass into the vodka and glass shards. She fell hard.
I reached down to help her off of the floor because she was scrambling about and I was, believe it or not, afraid that she was going to seriously injure herself in that condition. She swiped at me again, missing, but I did manage to grab ahold of her arm, get her to her feet and into the living room. She was shrieking at the top of her lungs and with that... I walked out and went for a long drive.
Somewhere during this entire ordeal, she allegedly injured her pinkie-finger. This is one of her stories of where I abused her. As she would tell the story several times, though she was so intoxicated that she couldn't possibly really remember what transpired, I "broke her finger." No doctor visit. No police report. No arrest record. No nothing... more of the same fiction from her which feeds her delusions that she was systematically physically and mentally abused throughout the marriage.
I didn't see LD for quite a few more years after that dinner disaster. It was one of a great many things I sacrificed under the mistake belief that it would keep the peace. Fortunately, my long-time friends remained so. LD and MCB are two of my best and are still in my life, thankfully.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
More on the Propagation of the "Evil Male" Stereotype
Dalia Hashad is Amnesty International’s Director of the USA Program focusing on Domestic Human Rights. Given the excerpt I'm about to share with you, perhaps those "domestic human rights" apply to people who aren't male? She's supposed represent domestic human rights, not women's rights.
Today, in a story on WJLA ABC News in Washington DC, Dalia was commenting about the use of tasers and their growing sales to civilians as a self-defense tool. There are some valid concerns about their use and misuse by law-enforcement and civilians.
I was immediately alarmed by her commentary as I watched the news broadcast.
Dalia said, "All a person who wants to HURT A WOMAN has to do is go onto the website, order this product, it appears on HIS doorstep, and the next day HE could be at yours." Yes. That's a quote. There is Dalia, fanning the flames of anti-male hysteria on the news in a major metropolitan area. (I added the obvious emphasis.)
She did so without hesitation. There was no pause. It was as natural as someone saying, "Hello, lovely weather we're having. Have a great day."
If you want to let Dalia and Amnesty International USA know how their bias is showing through in mainstream media reports, here is their email address: aimember@aiusa.org - write them and let them know that their Director is publicizing her biases as a representative of their organization - an organization supposedly championing the domestic rights of all.
This is not amusing considering 60% of people that order tasers are female. It's not amusing since women are responsible for 33% of documented domestic violence according to the US Justice Department and the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention.
Men are just as affected by the issue of tasers, yet she chose to portray males as the ONLY abusive party, and of course, only against women. Fortunately, WJLA followed up Dalia's quote with a report on 3 women that were arrested for using tasers against 3 other women, it's sad that this report will not be remembered. Instead, feminist groups will latch onto this quote by Dalia as another tool with which to portray women as victims, when in fact women are just as likely to be abusive. Women are the ones having parties in their homes in order to buy tasers.
You can comment on this at WJLA using the link to the story above, too. I can only hope that these additional snippets of information might counter Dalia's ridiculous hysterical commentary early in the segment.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Book Review - Splitting: Protecting Yourself While Divorcing a Borderline or a Narcissist
SPLITTING: Protecting Yourself While Divorcing a Borderline or a Narcissist
by author: William A. Eddy, foreward by Mike Roe
----------
I will open by simply saying that if you're in a high conflict divorce situation with a spouse who has been diagnosed with a personality disorder, you suspect of having a personality disorder, or even if they are for any reason highly agitated and preparing to commence legal hell with you - this book is money well spent.
I was not fortunate enough to understand with whom I was dealing and why. I didn't get to read this book until I was more than a year into my disastrous situation. However, it still helped me immensely from the moment I did get and read it. It helped me understand the motivations and expectations that would continue to take place. It was as enlightening on the legal end of things as Stop Walking On Eggshells
If your attorney isn't truly familiar with dealing with an adversary who has a personality disorder (and you can afford it), share yours with your attorney or even buy counsel a copy to review.
I suggest this because the parallels in the book with my experience were uncanny. For me, it served as a historical look back at how and why things initially unfolded for me the way they did. Fortunately, it was also "early" enough in my ongoing litigation that it would still prove to be a roadmap and guide in preparing for what would invariably come. The actual examples of the aftermath of handling situations the correct way and the incorrect way are eye-opening.
Splitting provides a unique insight into what to expect during litigation, how to prepare for it, and even how to counteract it. It encourages you to stand your ground. It sets you up to be assertive without hurting your own case. It will also temper the occasional disbeliever when you may also be able to predict what is to come from the disordered spouse. Constantly referring to it also helps me to refocus under times of great stress to better identify what issue deserves higher levels of attention than others. I assure you that without it, it will seem like every issue is "the most important one" - and they aren't.
I highly recommend it.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
HIDE THE WOMEN & CHILDREN! IT'S SUPERBOWL SUNDAY!
Even today, one of the most ludicrous and methodically debunked hunk of bulldung trotted out into the mainstream media, the myth that Superbowl Sunday is day that "more women suffer spousal abuse than any other day of the year" is discussed as if it is fact. It's not.
Lord knows, given my experiences, there were about 10 Superbowls during which I could have "snapped" and supported this assertion. But alas, I always managed to show restraint and spare us all becoming another statistic - false or otherwise.
Before the 1993 Superbowl, a number of representatives from various women's groups held a news conference announcing this bit of unfounded hysteria. A big publicizer of anti-man myths is Lenore Walker, who further fanned the flames of burning piles of fiction by claiming she had undertaken a 10-year study supporting these claims.
Not unlike so many other falsehoods, embellishments, and hysteria - the media took the proverbial football and ran for the endzone with this one, never taking a look back. Of course, they ran the wrong way with the ball. It received so much attention that NBC created and broadcast a public service announcement before the game to remind "men" that domestic abuse is a crime. As if men and fathers in this country didn't already know by this time that not only is domestic abuse a crime, false allegations against you for the same is also a crime against women (at least that's how they're treated).
The reality is, Superbowl Sunday is statistically no different than any other day in terms of domestic abuse. Further, I eagerly await the study that demonstrates how pissed-off female partners assault their male counterparts for spending so much time watching football.
The ensuing weeks and months saw a fair amount of backpedaling by those who had propagated the Superbowl violence myth, but - as usual - the retractions and corrections received far less attention than the sensational, but false, stories that everyone wanted to believe.
Today, I still encounter the occasional believer of this completely false statistic and they will swear up and down that it's the truth. My how the radical crusaders of women's rights (and hysteria) have managed to entrench this and so many other untruths about domestic violence to further their agenda (so successfully).