There are two topics here. The second is labelled CATFIGHT.
To a large degree, I think I agree with Deirdre that everyone needs to
take responsibility for their own well-being, status etc. I too see
blame as largely irrelevant.
I'm going to come at this from two angles, so bear with me through the
argument equivilant of a bootlegger-reverse.
There seems to be two poles of attitude, summed up thus:
1) "I have a problem, but nobody else gives a shit, so I'm either going
to fix it myself or suffer."
2) "I have a problem, but somebody else caused it, so I'm going to
demand that they fix it."
Of the two, people with the former attitude seem to be happier and more
successful than those with the latter.
From this I infer that blame isn't really relevant. You can blame
yourself, or you can blame somebody else. When you blame somebody else
it tends to absolve you of responsibility for fixing it yourself, so you
don't tend to fix it.
Another common feature of "blamers" is that many (not all) want to have
their cake and eat it too. Some goals are just mutually exclusive. High
salaries and copious free time are (generally) a good example which (as
far as I can tell) is under-appreciated by those with low salaries and
time on their hands.
Want higher pay? become a doctor or some such. Don't want to do the
study and the hours? don't complain about the low pay. Not smart enough
to be a doctor? How hard have you tried?
<BOOTLEGGER-REVERSE>
On the other hand. People who don't think they can change themselves
(or the world around them) are right. I was, at one stage, in exactly
that position. It was a depressing, distressing hell. You just believe
that you're powerless and stuck where you are. I really have no idea
how to help these people.
I don't know what happened to change that attitude but I'm very glad it
changed. I suspect a motivational speaker that a previous employer sent
me to hear played a key role. Life's still full of the same types of
problems on the same scale. I just deal with it and feel good about the
fact that I deal with it.
I'm actually somewhat conflicted about all this. On the one hand I
think it's just plain wrong(tm) to stand by and watch somebody have the
crap beaten out of them (for example). On the other hand I think it's
an equally bad idea to wrap someone in cotton wool and protect them from
fear all the time as it creates fearful dependant unhappy people.
I recently (Christmas of all times) had to stand by and watch while a
guy had the crap kicked out of him. It was terrible. I was working for
the ambulance service at a "concert in the park" type event when a bunch
of people started brawling. There were a number of issues buzzing
around in my head:
1) I can't take on six guys successfully without doing some of them
permanent harm.
2) While they richly deserve it, I'm bound by the policies of the
organisation I'm serving.
3) If I get messed up, I drain the strength of the medical support on
site which the victims, police and agressors (after meeting the police)
will need.
4) Even if I don't get messed up, once I'm engaged with these people,
it'll be damn tough to disengage and return to the medical role I'm here
for.
Emotional values vs practicality. The practicalities won out. I waited
till the bastards lost interest, moved in and patched up the victim.
Where were the police? I hear you say. There were a lot of brawlers and
they can't be everywhere.
This guy was definitely a "victim". Nobody should have been attacking
him. Maybe he aggravated them, maybe not. I'll never know. The point
is that this guy has some choices and decisions to make as a result of
the experience and he'll have some emotional damage to deal with too.
Here are some of the (not mutually exclusive) possibilities. Not all of
them are legal.
1) He can avoid going to this type of event out of fear that there'll be
a repetition.
2) *If* he stirred them up, he can not do that next time.
3) He can go and learn a martial art to help his confidence.
4) He can carry a weapon
5) He can hunt down and hurt (legally or physically) the people responsible
7) He can attempt to raise merry hell about it with the media to try
getting more police assigned to the event or some such.
8) He can complain to anybody who'll listen about the injustice in the
world.
I've probably missed some :)
Of these options, 1->5 are going to provide him the best emotional
payoff. 4->5 may also incur some time in a cell.
Option 7 is more likely to get the event shut down or teenagers banned
from the event or police being more heavy handed with "suspicious"
people. All of these results are easier and cheaper to implement than
"more cops" and there'll never be enough.
Option 8 will just annoy others and entrench his self image as a
helpless victim.
<CATFIGHT>
I noted with interest the exchange between Deirdre and Christi about
some anonymous (to me) third party Christi is/was married to.
What's interesting is that this definitely falls under my mental label
of a "cat fight". A type of exchange attributed largely to females.
This has me thinking about the following questions:
1) What are the essential features of a "cat fight"
2) Why do I see them as a female thing
I suspect the answer to 1 is complex and the answer to 2 has to do with
subject matter and the fact that men stereotypically resort to physical
violence rather than "name calling" or something that seems like it.
That said, I don't think I've resorted to violence since I've been an
adult. I have had some shouting matches, however. So, what do y'all
think of those two questions?
I have a third comment (this is beginning to sound like the spanish
inquisition sketch) about my wife.
She tells me that what she's decided she really wants to do is "be a
housewife", but that she feels social pressure to go and "be something".
I find that interesting given the general complaints I hear are the
other way around.
Comments?
_______________________________________________
issues mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/issues
