Body of Alan Hawe to be exhumed

jobbridge4life

iamwhoiam wrote: »

It may not have been criminal but a sacking offence nonetheless . Not all sacking offences are necessarily a crime

Is there any evidence whatsoever that he was going to be sacked? He was returning to work on that day.

iamwhoiam

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Is there any evidence whatsoever that he was going to be sacked? He was returning to work on that day.

I have no idea but it was noted that he was blowing things out of proportion in his own head . So maybe he thought he was

Paul Pogba

jobbridge4life wrote: »

What music specifically? Gardai investigations have revealled no criminality. No evidence of financial issues, no evidence of the alledged relationship with a young woman. The Gardai have investigated and found nothing.

I haven’t read anywhere that he was facing an investigation or a meeting of any sort on return to school. From ‘The Star’ today
“Sources say gardai have established nothing in Alan Hawe’s background that would indicate he was involved in anything illegal prior to the murders. They also examined rumours that he had an affair with a young female but found no evidence to back that up”.

Intothesea

professore wrote: »

I did actually read it. And it has the same old bull**** that is trotted out every time that it's all men's fault - that men are responsible for all the ills of society and women are perfect. And the statistics do not support the assertion that it's exclusively men commit this type of crime. In fact this type of extreme domestic violence is predominantly men - but other types it is pretty much a 50/50 split - yet it is called gender based violence. It's blatant radfem propaganda and misandry.

It's clearly not working as a diagnostic tool as the problem is getting worse instead of better.

I know plenty of evil men and women ... blaming men is an easy option that is politically acceptable now. THAT'S the problem. Exactly the same as saying 50 years ago "They were possessed by the devil". No difference whatsoever.

I'd go along with this, and think it's a good sign that psychological theory and application is subject to political and social lenses -- something that's generally not apparent until some utterly illogical tosh is put forward. "Men are responsible as a group for family annihilations". This is ridiculous and socially divisive, leading women to write off men in legitimate, solvable trouble, and men to feel like there's something inherently wrong with them.

Radfem with a now socially-acceptable component of misandry is a good description, I think. Also laughable is that the overall approach to educating the public, which I think amounts to an anthropomorphization of the narcissistic identity, making it impossible for people to detect these characters unless they tick 4 or so convenient boxes.

dok_golf

iamwhoiam wrote: »

It may not have been criminal but a sacking offence nonetheless . Not all sacking offences are necessarily a crime

What sacking offence? Have i missed something major in the case or is this just disparaging innuendo?

iamwhoiam

dok_golf wrote: »

What sacking offence? Have i missed something major in the case or is this just disparaging innuendo?

Read what I wrote and don't jump down my neck and make accusations
I said that in his head Alan was blowing things completely out of proportion and could have thought something was much bigger than it actually was. Perhaps it was part of his alleged paranoia . Perhaps not , only he can know

dok_golf

Ooops, mea culpa, I missed that!

iodd7

I find it moving but strange that posters on this thread are so emphatic about what Hawe did being unjustifiable in any way - of course it wasn't. But veering into a diatribe about radical feminism seems a red herring, and a hijack by someone with their own bugbear. I think the article referred to says that it is masculinity (which seems to be defined here as societally-produced ideal male values) and patriarchal ideals that are an underlying issue. Mothers have killed their children too of course, but very very rarely their spouses AND children but have rarely been described as having controlling or narcissistic personalities afterwards. Is that because of gendered ways of reporting these stories, or is it because the pattern and profile differs between men and women?

PeterParker957

I have to say on reading more, whilst I haven't changed my mind 100% I do think that the opinions of medical professionals should be given weight - if to prevent another occurrence of this if nothing else.

Intothesea

iodd7 wrote: »

I find it moving but strange that posters on this thread are so emphatic about what Hawe did being unjustifiable in any way - of course it wasn't. But veering into a diatribe about radical feminism seems a red herring, and a hijack by someone with their own bugbear. I think the article referred to says that it is masculinity (which seems to be defined here as societally-produced ideal male values) and patriarchal ideals that are an underlying issue. Mothers have killed their children too of course, but very very rarely their spouses AND children but have rarely been described as having controlling or narcissistic personalities afterwards. Is that because of gendered ways of reporting these stories, or is it because the pattern and profile differs between men and women?

Are you saying it wasn't unjustifiable? I'm taking it that you're not, but just in case.

Any poster can veer into any related aspect of what's being discussed, and give their thoughts on same, that's what were all at. In any event, this is not a thread for proto-reactions to a significant tragedy, it's a set of diverse after-thoughts, now that Hawe has been displaced from his original resting place. It's a good trigger for people to give voice to their well-cogitated ideas at this point.

As you say, female family annihilators don't exist in significant enough numbers for anyone to make generalized statements about women's role.

I'm specifically talking about whole-fanily annihilators, and not mothers who kill their children.

I think common sense generates the picture that ideas such as control and revenge don't feature that strongly, if at all, in this picture. It's when the spouse is wiped out that the apparent message is changed significantly to something conforming with narcissism, twisted logic, etc.

That is to say, it is the relative roles we're given, and likely some basic build issue that generates the differences. No argument there.

However, it would seem that it's not as simplistic as being a man and a father that would up the chance for this occurrence to be true, but the presence of significant personality disorder (specifically narcissism) that would significantly up the chance. Given the grand gesture of the annihilation, you could probably throw in a couple of other requirements into it as well.

I believe these type of impairments to be innate to the personality, that's why there's basically no value in addressing it as specifically a man's issue, or relating much or at all to ideas of masculinity in the end deduction.

Could we prevent certain types of narcissists from murdering their families when their fake cover is about to be blown by educating men that they're exactly the same as women, and no one cares about silly traditional roles anyway?

My guess is no. If the rules didn't exist these freaks would find another way to reach the same conclusion.

irishproduce

I'm lead to believe there was porn found on his computer at the school. Nothing illegal mind. But the viewing of porn would obviously run contrary to his position in the community.

Asus X540L

irishproduce wrote: »

I'm lead to believe there was porn found on his computer at the school. Nothing illegal mind. But the viewing of porn would obviously run contrary to his position in the community.

Normal redtube type porn?

If he butchered his kids with a hatchet over that then he's an even bigger psychopath than I thought.

dense

Asus X540L wrote: »

Normal redtube type porn?

If he butchered his kids with a hatchet over that then he's an even bigger psychopath than I thought.

In Ireland it is completely taboo to access pornography.

Particularly if you're a teacher and an otherwise all round pillar of the community.

Many would be awfully offended at the thought.

Think I'm wrong? If anyone could cast their mind back to when they were in school and imagine finding out that their teacher likes looking at nudie pictures. Keeps a collection of dirty books by the bed.

How do you think the teacher would cope with the inevitable public ridicule? The name calling?

The constant laughing and sniggering behind their back?

Theres a good chance theyd eventually top themselves.

iodd7

Intothesea wrote: »

Are you saying it wasn't unjustifiable? I'm taking it that you're not, but just in case.

No, not at all - I just mean the revisiting of how unjustifiable it was is a little strange, but maybe reflects the awfulness.

Intothesea wrote: »

In any event, this is not a thread for proto-reactions to a significant tragedy, it's a set of diverse after-thoughts, now that Hawe has been displaced from his original resting place. It's a good trigger for people to give voice to their well-cogitated ideas at this point.

I find the leap into attacking what someone called 'radfem' a bit much of a leap here, and too often boards discussions are very quick to call 'misandry' - this makes it not always an easy place for feminists to contribute to discussion. Feminism comes in a lot of shades.

Intothesea wrote: »

I believe these type of impairments to be innate to the personality, that's why there's basically no value in addressing it as specifically a man's issue, or relating much or at all to ideas of masculinity in the end deduction.

It depends on what you mean by 'innate', there are a whole host of environmental and social factors that shape personality and that can include assigned gender roles within particular set-ups. It isn't that long ago that marital rape was outlawed, or that women were deeply financially dependent on their husbands and therefore had very little agency (e.g. to move out of their homes).

Intothesea wrote: »

Could we prevent certain types of narcissists from murdering their families when their fake cover is about to be blown by educating men that they're exactly the same as women, and no one cares about silly traditional roles anyway?

I don't think anyone has proposed this, and in terms of what you call 'silly traditional roles', I think it is important that there's wider consciousness of how different genders have been treated and represented and this might aid self-awareness and help make a more just world. That isn't misandry (I know you didn't say it is) it would seem to be a fairly rational approach, whereby perhaps ideals of men being strong and in control and sometimes unable to ask for help could be tackled as well as the historic injustices against women.

dense

Stuckforcash wrote: »

I remember a mother jumped off Wexford bridge with her two kids years ago also. Was seen a huge tragedy with tributes left right for the mother.

Correct, sympathy all round.
Can't say I see the difference between either case myself.

Asus X540L

dense wrote: »

In Ireland it is completely taboo to access pornography.

Particularly if you're a teacher and an otherwise all round pillar of the community.

Many would be awfully offended at the thought.

Think I'm wrong? If anyone could cast their mind back to when they were in school and imagine finding out that their teacher likes looking at nudie pictures. Keeps a collection of dirty books by the bed.

How do you think the teacher would cope with the inevitable public ridicule? The name calling?

The constant laughing and sniggering behind their back?

Theres a good chance theyd eventually top themselves.

Just looked it up.
Apparently he was caught whacking off as well in the school.

neonsofa

dense wrote: »

In Ireland it is completely taboo to access pornography.

Particularly if you're a teacher and an otherwise all round pillar of the community.

Many would be awfully offended at the thought.

Think I'm wrong? If anyone could cast their mind back to when they were in school and imagine finding out that their teacher likes looking at nudie pictures. Keeps a collection of dirty books by the bed.

How do you think the teacher would cope with the inevitable public ridicule? The name calling?

The constant laughing and sniggering behind their back?

Theres a good chance theyd eventually top themselves.

Well the taboo would be the fact he was accessing it at work.... a children's school. Not quite the same as just him doing it in his spare time in the privacy of his own home and the children finding out. It wouldn't be the children's reactions and giggles that I'd have been worried about in that case. Its highly inappropriate in that setting, not taboo.

Intothesea

iodd7 wrote: »

I find the leap into attacking what someone called 'radfem' a bit much of a leap here, and too often boards discussions are very quick to call 'misandry' - this makes it not always an easy place for feminists to contribute to discussion. Feminism comes in a lot of shades.

I don't think there's anything illegal, off-color, or inappropriate about the 'leap', but as you say, it may invalidate your viewpoint. Luckily there is a reply mechanism to address this, if you're so inclined



It depends on what you mean by 'innate', there are a whole host of environmental and social factors that shape personality and that can include assigned gender roles within particular set-ups. It isn't that long ago that marital rape was outlawed, or that women were deeply financially dependent on their husbands and therefore had very little agency (e.g. to move out of their homes).

I'm referring to innateness of fundamental character as it emerges from the narcissistic phase between 3 and 4 years old. In general though, the presence of the 'insensible to the feelings and rights of others' part of narcissist personality form results from the complex interplay of nature and nurture. I think it's safe to say that the reason occurrences like this are fairly rare is on the basis that abnormal mental substrate (or 'wiring') is the key feature in the mix. Without it, run-of-the-mill abnormal (emotionally neglectful etc.) nurture produces a variety of different, and generally not-fatal-for-the-whole-family results. It's endlessly debatable, I understand that also.




I don't think anyone has proposed this, and in terms of what you call 'silly traditional roles', I think it is important that there's wider consciousness of how different genders have been treated and represented and this might aid self-awareness and help make a more just world. That isn't misandry (I know you didn't say it is) it would seem to be a fairly rational approach, whereby perhaps ideals of men being strong and in control and sometimes unable to ask for help could be tackled as well as the historic injustices against women.

My use of 'silly' there is in reference to the overall mistake I believe it would be to address this issue socially (with the intention of ameliorating the presentation across the society) via gender principles. This is a result of my overall viewpoint. Doubtless many valuable insights will be uncovered and in ways I can't predict, and currently don't anticipate.


As well, I believe the trick to grappling with this feature of modern 'expression' is largely a question of shaming the narcissists who are technically capable of such atrocities. Compassion for the poor upstanding citizen who somehow just happened to flip and carry out an unconscionable act gives these 'wolves in sheep's clothing' a serviceable out when the egotistical going gets tough. A good safeguard would be to universally ridicule the type of abnormal idiot who would do such a thing and try to manipulate onlookers even when killing his own family to suit his selfish ends. The pattern of engagement is obvious anyway: one freak carries it out, and other hidden freaks get the bright idea that they can achieve their bent aims without incurring shame for themselves when the hammer comes down.

Alright, that's more than enough from me

dense

neonsofa wrote: »

Well the taboo would be the fact he was accessing it at work.... a children's school. Not quite the same as just him doing it in his spare time in the privacy of his own home and the children finding out. It wouldn't be the children's reactions and giggles that I'd have been worried about in that case. Its highly inappropriate in that setting, not taboo.

Yes I'd agree with all of that, but it begs the question what would you be worried about then?

His poor judgement or do people believe there were others potentially being put at risk due to his viewing porn in a school setting or if any of the experts have said that his actions meant he was a risk to the children in the school?

I'm not up to speed on the exact circumstances of how he was found or what he was found doing, but if it was being done "in private" albeit in a school building, without knowing all the details I'm wondering did it warrant a garda investigation being instigated, as opposed to an employment disciplinary matter.

Was it being viewed on machines that children have access to or on his own device?

Did children come across him accessing port or witness him accessing it?
If so I can understand the need for a formal garda investigation.

Again, I don't know the exact details of where he was whacking off or in whose company, if any.

neonsofa

dense wrote: »

Yes I'd agree with all of that, but it begs the question what would you be worried about then?

His poor judgement or do people believe there were others potentially being put at risk due to his viewing porn in a school setting or if any of the experts have said that his actions meant he was a risk to the children in the school?

I'm not up to speed on the exact circumstances of how he was found or what he was found doing, but if it was being done "in private" albeit in a school building, without knowing all the details I'm wondering did it warrant a garda investigation being instigated, as opposed to an employment disciplinary matter.

Was it being viewed on machines that children have access to or on his own device?

Did children come across him accessing port or witness him accessing it?
If so I can understand the need for a formal garda investigation.

Again, I don't know the exact details of where he was whacking off or in whose company, if any.

I don't access porn in my workplace,whether on my own device or a work pc because it is not something that should be done. I also can't see the appeal in doing so but that's beside the point really. It's inappropriate. Even more so when it is an environment where children are. The rest is irrelevant. Work is not a place for watching porn.


I'd be more worried about the shame of my boss/colleagues knowing, the embarrassment of having been found to be doing something so unbelievably inappropriate and unprofessional. The inevitable worry people may have that I was engaging in sexual behaviour while in close proximity to children/a child's environment- it's not a sexy environment and the fact he is engaging in sexual behaviour there rather than at home in private is questionable regardless of whether or not he is actually a "risk" to children. It raises questions about what other inappropriate behaviour he may have engaged in-sexual or otherwise- if he feels that it is acceptable to watch porn in work- in a school.

demfad

Intothesea wrote: »

My use of 'silly' there is in reference to the overall mistake I believe it would be to address this issue socially (with the intention of ameliorating the presentation across the society) via gender principles. This is a result of my overall viewpoint. Doubtless many valuable insights will be uncovered and in ways I can't predict, and currently don't anticipate.

Invaluable UK research on family annihilation has been linked several times on this thread where the common factor was almost always a warped sense of 'masculinity' and a view of family ownership. If you believe this conclusion to be 'silly' (or any of the larger US studies: they all agree) then you would need substantiate it. Saying so is not enough.

As well, I believe the trick to grappling with this feature of modern 'expression' is largely a question of shaming the narcissists who are technically capable of such atrocities. Compassion for the poor upstanding citizen who somehow just happened to flip and carry out an unconscionable act gives these 'wolves in sheep's clothing' a serviceable out when the egotistical going gets tough. A good safeguard would be to universally ridicule the type of abnormal idiot who would do such a thing and try to manipulate onlookers even when killing his own family to suit his selfish ends. The pattern of engagement is obvious anyway: one freak carries it out, and other hidden freaks get the bright idea that they can achieve their bent aims without incurring shame for themselves when the hammer comes down.

Alright, that's more than enough from me

I don't believe this guy to be a freak or a monster. I believe family annihilation by the male family head comes with a patriarcal society. He hits a crises in his masculinity, takes the family with him.

iamwhoiam

dense wrote: »

Yes I'd agree with all of that, but it begs the question what would you be worried about then?

His poor judgement or do people believe there were others potentially being put at risk due to his viewing porn in a school setting or if any of the experts have said that his actions meant he was a risk to the children in the school?

I'm not up to speed on the exact circumstances of how he was found or what he was found doing, but if it was being done "in private" albeit in a school building, without knowing all the details I'm wondering did it warrant a garda investigation being instigated, as opposed to an employment disciplinary matter.



y.

The garda investigation as far as I have read came post his death and his murdering his family .Presumably then the Gardai investigated many aspects of his life and his working life

seamus

iamwhoiam wrote: »

The garda investigation as far as I have read came post his death and his murdering his family .Presumably then the Gardai investigated many aspects of his life and his working life

Correct. When the Gardai became aware that Hawe's suicidal state may have been brought on by incidents concerning porn (and the discovery thereof), it was assumed - as you would - that the nature of the porn must have been illegal or extreme, to warrant such a severe reaction from Hawe.
After all, if you or I were "outed" watching some porn, you might be a little embarrassed, but that's about it. To bring on a murderous/suicidal state one would assume that he must have been watching child porn or snuff videos or something.

The Gardai found that it was just regular old porn that Hawe was looking at, just perhaps a little more often and a little more public than one would consider healthy.

dense

neonsofa wrote: »

It raises questions about what other inappropriate behaviour he may have engaged in-sexual or otherwise- if he feels that it is acceptable to watch porn in work- in a school.

Do you think he was a paedophile?

iodd7

Intothesea wrote: »

I don't think there's anything illegal, off-color, or inappropriate about the 'leap', but as you say, it may invalidate your viewpoint.

I'm not sure if you mean my viewpoint or the viewpoint of those calling 'misandry' - if the former, then no my viewpoint isn't invalidated by the frequent attacks on feminism on these discussion boards.

Intothesea wrote: »

My use of 'silly' there is in reference to the overall mistake I believe it would be to address this issue socially (with the intention of ameliorating the presentation across the society) via gender principles. This is a result of my overall viewpoint. Doubtless many valuable insights will be uncovered and in ways I can't predict, and currently don't anticipate.

I believe that it is both social and pathological and that the two should not be treated as discrete. The conjectural diagnosis of Hawe's narcissism elides the other social factors, which were all too apparent at the time of the murders in relation to how he and the killings were represented. It seemed the social norms and discourse demanded sympathy for him, and that was a continuation of the values (and capital) he believed he was set to lose.

dense

seamus wrote: »

Correct. When the Gardai became aware that Hawe's suicidal state may have been brought on by incidents concerning porn (and the discovery thereof), it was assumed - as you would - that the nature of the porn must have been illegal or extreme, to warrant such a severe reaction from Hawe.
After all, if you or I were "outed" watching some porn, you might be a little embarrassed, but that's about it. To bring on a murderous/suicidal state one would assume that he must have been watching child porn or snuff videos or something.

The Gardai found that it was just regular old porn that Hawe was looking at, just perhaps a little more often and a little more public than one would consider healthy.

Where does the talk of him accessing it at the school and whacking off to it come from then?

Was he not caught in the act?
That was the impression I got from some of the posts earlier.

demfad

neonsofa wrote: »

Well the taboo would be the fact he was accessing it at work.... a children's school. Not quite the same as just him doing it in his spare time in the privacy of his own home and the children finding out. It wouldn't be the children's reactions and giggles that I'd have been worried about in that case. Its highly inappropriate in that setting, not taboo.

Remember Hawe was head of a 'religious' family, chief Lay person in the parish, family members did readings, attended choir etc. Best friends with the parish priest.
He was extremely prominent in the GAA club as treasurer.
He was vice principle of the school.
He was a respected 'family man'.

The revelation of his inproprietries would shatter this illusion. The community would see the man that Clodagh saw. His whole sense of self worth (his ego) would be smashed. And besides the pretend man that the community saw and the controlling hypocrite at home there was nothing else to Hawe.

He chose the best way out for himself, as selfish hypocrites always do.

And it has to be said that men like Hawe find an easy home in religeous organisations like the Catholic church.
They were instrumental in eulogising him. Their show of force for his Kilkenny mass with 13 clerics attending was utterly disgraceful.
If these Irish mass murders are ever investigated properly I hope the easy home, protection and 'community pillar' status that these slefish, hypocrite, hollow men find in the Catholic church is exposed.

Intothesea

Invaluable UK research on family annihilation has been linked several times on this thread where the common factor was almost always a warped sense of 'masculinity' and a view of family ownership. If you believe this conclusion to be 'silly' (or any of the larger US studies: they all agree) then you would need substantiate it. Saying so is not enough.

Well, I can see that talking about the genesis of narcissism isn't making the case as I'd thought it would. But in any case, here's a small write-up of how the narcissistic brain operates:


A normal man puts positive value on being head of the family/the breadwinner/being a good role model/father because he has internalized these values from childhood and over the course of all of the positive interactions extolling these virtues throughout his life. These are values that reside deep inside his identity, and can virtually never be lost.


By contrast, the narcissist has a tableau of apparent value, ones learnt by imitating people who get the respect or awe that they crave. Therefore, a narcissist may show signs of being a good or dependable man, but not because it is the nature of his identity, but because it works for him.


On this basis, to influence narcissists away from the precipice of judging their social value according to things like money, belonging to the GAA, having a nice shiny wife and kids as glory-reflecting accessories and the like, you would have to socially engineer a change in value for all these things.

In the neo-liberal money money money focused Western world today, I suspect this would be an impossibility.

And in any event, it wouldn't matter. The only long-range socially-important value set that can keep narcissists in their places, so to speak, is that of the money-eschewing spiritual wonderland that Ireland used to do a good impression of before the Celtic Tiger hit, IMHO, of course.

I don't believe this guy to be a freak or a monster. I believe family annihilation by the male family head comes with a patriarcal society. He hits a crises in his masculinity, takes the family with him.

Ah, I hate to get into this part of the debate, but I think approaching reform through ideas like these is bound to do more harm than good to our menfolk. Given the stupidly high male suicide rate in Ireland,
I'd navigate around the gender-based way of looking at and addressing this, it's irrelevant according to the nature of the problem anyway, I think.

neonsofa

dense wrote: »

Do you think he was a paedophile?

What? I don't think I could have been any clearer in my post that you quoted.

I referred to questions regarding the possibility of inappropriate behaviour- "whether sexual or otherwise". If I thought he was a paedophile I'd have said.

Inappropriate sexual behaviour does not equate to paedophilia but its still completely inappropriate. He may have been acting inappropriately in other ways that don't necessarily involve children but are equally unprofessional and worrying. If he was careless enough to be caught watching porn in that environment what else could he have been careless about around the children. What may he have exposed them to accidentally if he was unable to keep that act private.

If he didn't deem viewing porn while in the school as "misguided", to put it lightly, he obviously has poor judgement so what else could he have been doing that others would deem unacceptable but he had no issue with.

One doesn't have to be a paedophile to be behaving completely inappropriately around children/in a child's environment.

shampoosuicide

seamus wrote: »

Correct. When the Gardai became aware that Hawe's suicidal state may have been brought on by incidents concerning porn (and the discovery thereof), it was assumed - as you would - that the nature of the porn must have been illegal or extreme, to warrant such a severe reaction from Hawe.
After all, if you or I were "outed" watching some porn, you might be a little embarrassed, but that's about it. To bring on a murderous/suicidal state one would assume that he must have been watching child porn or snuff videos or something.

The Gardai found that it was just regular old porn that Hawe was looking at, just perhaps a little more often and a little more public than one would consider healthy.

where is this info coming from? it is nowhere online other than in this thread.