iodd7 wrote: » Don't be so disingenuous - nobody said, let alone insisted that violence is only perpetrated by men. We're on a thread discussing someone who killed their spouse and children, and it is astonishing that the mere suggestion that gender might have been a factor has aroused such strident opposition. The wilful ignorance is pretty breathtaking.
Stuckforcash wrote: » It's a pity a very informative debate on mental illness in relation to serious crime has been ruined by the suggestion that this is a male issue.
Intothesea wrote: » There was no one crying about the suggestion, it was more a kick-back to the veiled charge that I don't care about the cause of women in the world because I don't automatically file the Alan Hawe occurrence under 'how men are wrong, bad, and responsible as a whole for such'. That's what it amounts to, when there's nothing to do with the feminist analysis but use the construction of blame to, er, point the finger at men.
dasdog wrote: » What and utterly cowardly insular murdering piece of shít. Plunging a knife in to the throat of a sleeping child because he was too weak to have a conversation about being caught masturbating. Rural Ireland can be frightening in it's kick it over the bar for points pretend and look the other way facade.
Intothesea wrote: » I believe mass awareness of signs of narcissism in the everyday world is likely one of the keys to prevention of FA across the society. People living in emotionally abusive situations know what their abuser is capable of, it's the key reason they stick around and smile for the cameras -- but society at large can't see these people, or entreat them to emerge.
dok_golf wrote: » Again, where is the evidence that he was caught doing anything?
In a further sign of distress suffered by Hawe, he disclosed in counselling that at a low point in his relationship with his wife that he had begun to view pornography and that he had become obsessed that people would find out about it.
Alan Hawe butchered his family after he was caught accessing pornography and allegedly engaging in a sex act at the school where he worked.
iodd7 wrote: » Stop misrepresenting the discussion. There was no such charge. Nobody suggested 'men are wrong and bad', they suggested the social values that construct masculinity should be taken into account. That is not even a feminist analysis, it is a rational one. There was nobody 'pointing the finger at men'. Your unwillingness to engage in meaningful discussion and continual misrepresentation of the discussion is bizarre, stop trolling.
jackboy wrote: » How would such awareness help? The vast majority of narcissistic individuals do not wipe out their families.
Stuckforcash wrote: » It's a pity a very informative debate on mental illness in relation to serious crime
has been ruined by the suggestion that this is a male issue.
Intothesea wrote: » Of course there was no such charge, just the suggestion that I was totally missing the point because I didn't remember the import of men being wrong, bad, and abusive in the past, Feminism 101 style.
Junkyard Tom wrote: » You've decided he was mentally ill? Okay. As far as I know women are at the greatest risk of being murdered by their male partners when they have decided to leave them. How would you diagnose that, Doc?
Intothesea wrote: » ETA, I will return at some point to actually answer your query. I'll try to keep it concise
jackboy wrote: » Intothesea wrote: » ETA, I will return at some point to actually answer your query. I'll try to keep it concise Looking forward to hearing it. The whole thing reminds me of a local family, long abused by the father (everyone knew about it but nothing could be done as the battered wife denied everything). Eventually the 17 year old son beat the crap out of the father and kicked him out of the house. In the Hawe case, the oldest son was getting big and strong. Did Hawe see this and realize that his days as the big dog were numbered.
jackboy wrote: » Looking forward to hearing it. The whole thing reminds me of a local family, long abused by the father (everyone knew about it but nothing could be done as the battered wife denied everything). Eventually the 17 year old son beat the crap out of the father and kicked him out of the house. In the Hawe case, the oldest son was getting big and strong. Did Hawe see this and realize that his days as the big dog were numbered.
PeterParker957 wrote: » It would be interesting if there were stats available on these kinds of crimes showing the ages of the kids at the time. Might be something in that last paragraph.
volchitsa wrote: » One thing that is known is that the risk of being murdered is highest when women leave abusive partners, and that has been suggested here. It's also very possible IMO that a woman in an abusive relationship who might have been staying "for the sake of the children" could be pushed into deciding to leave once the children reached an age where they were standing up to their father and getting into conflict with him.
professore wrote: » All I'm saying is that if Alan Hawe was black no one would be suggesting it was black culture that caused him to do it. Or no one suggests that killing babies and toddlers, which is overwhelmingly committed by women is "toxic femininity". Yet it's commonly accepted that this is explained by toxic masculinity. That's my point. It's a kneejerk ideological response rather than anything useful.
iodd7 wrote: » What is your source for saying killing babies and toddlers is overwhelmingly committed by women?
Intothesea wrote: » Hi Jackboy, If a parent is strongly narcissistic, the spouse is held captive and in the 10-down position, and children occupy states governed by the abusive parent. At least 2 factions are formed and played off each other (golden child vs middling political use vs bugbear: the kid designated as deserving all blame and contempt (usually the kid most in opposition to the disorder by virtue of innate decency, for example)). That is, the general effect of a narcissistic upbringing is political and arbitrary, and relies a lot on head-games, underhanded threats, and bizarre machinations of unimaginable sorts to confuse, demean, and control, with the overall intention to extract narcissistic supply. I think that a significant uprising by the eldest kid given scenarios like this is fairly unlikely. To me, an eldest son who can manifest enough positive self-awareness to fight a physical campaign against a full blown narcissist type is more likely to deeply understand that escaping as soon as possible is preferable to fighting someone who is capable of registering their discontent by, in short, hurting everything you care about, including you. For example: - Increasing the abuse going to the mother and siblings, - Subtly arranging a triangulation with the outside world to stymie your attempts to leave or preemptively invalidate your complaints to outsiders, - Use their legions of unwitting accomplices in the community to interfere with every positive move made. Just to address the tip of the iceberg. Anyway, due to this I would hazard a guess that if the desire to control and dominate on the part of the narcissistic parent is evident in general (open, 'truthful') terrorism, culminating in a series of face-offs with the eldest, that the relative freedom that son has had (i.e. freedom from long-term soul-damaging emotional abuse, or better, from emotional abuse that has the very specific end result of the loss of a positive sense of self and sense of agency), then, I think that there's indication that the disordered party is a few levels below full-blown narcissist nightmare. Although, for the people in that family, that difference might not be noticeable. Living with someone who is anywhere on the narcissist scale is a punishment that nobody could ever deserve. As well, if everyone in the community knew about the axis of terrorism in the family you refer to, it could be appreciable as sign of a narcissist type who hasn't the insidious mind-control capabilities of a full-blown version. Public knowledge of wrongdoing is anathema to the narc. I wonder what the cops gauged about issues like this in Hawe's case? To eulogize so spectacularly I'm guessing no word of such reached the outside world, and I'd guess a narc wouldn't preemptively kill his family to avoid this confrontation, which he'd be sure to win, naturally. Then again, the clergy is a good beacon for narcissist types, so you can never be sure. Another variable that could be telling is how narcissistic the originating family of the apparently narcissistic killer is. My guess is that another reason FA is exceedingly rare is that it takes a narcissist type that has been raised by and born to another narcissist. There's a higher chance in that scenario that the issue is genetic, and so indicates clinical-level narcissism. Casey Anthony's, Pilot Wing boy's, and Alan Hawe's parents all seem to share a similar response type: All are mysteriously lacking the desire to present any feelings at all about their failure as parents. If a good parent does their best to raise a morally kid, and the end result down the line is mass murder... I'm guessing that your conscience will make you feel responsible in some serious way. Good parents with consciences know that good intentions can be incorrectly executed, and irrationally feel to blame. At the least, you'd expect a statement of: we're sorry we managed to raise a son so obviously far away from human decency, we didn't mean to, but please accept our apologies. Not one of the parental sets of the 3 have ever made statements beyond "we suffered big losses too, you know", or a total denial of reality. All suspiciously like the outrageous denial of responsibility of the adult child doing the killing, I think. Anyway, sorry to be so circuitous.
Intothesea wrote: » Hi Volchitsa, I think it's well known that your risk of being killed is appreciable when exiting any abusive relationship type. What isn't related is an increased risk that the entire family will be wiped out, which suggests a different psychological issue is precipitating the result.
volchitsa wrote: » Some interesting points there, but a huge amount of speculation and not a single source, especially for the more "way-out" claims such as the alleged creation of the mentality of family annihilation by the economic boom. Where is the evidence that family annihilation actually did not exist in the past, as opposed to being downplayed or narrated differently (tragic deaths, a terrible mystery, you know the sort of lies Ireland has always been good at telling itself)?
volchitsa wrote: » I was making a suggestion, not proving anything. A scenario where the eldest boy unwittingly precipitates the crisis seems very plausible to me, but I'm not a specialist. So what evidence is there either way, and why do you assert that this is not related?
‘Prior Domestic Abuse is by far the number-one risk factor in these cases,’ writes Dr Jacquelyn Campbell of John Hopkins University, a national leader in the field of domestic violence and IPV (intimate partner violence) in the States. In a twelve city study of 408 domestic familial murder-suicides in the US, 91% were committed by men, and ‘intimate partner violence’ had occurred in 70% of them – though only one in four of these abusers had an arrest record for abuse at the time of the murder-suicide. Most of the time, when a man commits familial ‘murder-suicide’, it is the terminal act in a pre-existing pattern of domestic abuse.
