Joanna Schroeder wonders what it is that makes a person “good”: Is it a life absent of transgressions, or the near-constant quest to become better?
I believe in redemption.
Mostly little “r” redemption, but I’m not ready to totally dismiss big “r” Redemption, either… But this isn’t a blog about spirituality.
It a blog about the notion of “boys being boys” and what it means to be a human being who does bad things.
♦◊♦
Most of the time I hate the term “boys being boys”, as it seems just simply wrong in so many ways. Wrong because it implies that bad behavior is innate to masculinity. Wrong because it implies females are somehow above sin or temptation. Wrong because there simply isn’t an adequate equivalent term for girls.
I actually said “boys being boys” yesterday about my sons and their pal, Jaden, who were climbing under trees, over rocks, and getting their shoes and clothes rightly mucky in a riverbed under a waterfall. I turned to Jaden’s mom, Dajana, and said, “This is good for them: to just be ‘boys being boys’.”
Then I thought about what that means. Boys climbing, running, digging and getting muddy is the sweetest embodiment of what it means to be a boy in this world. The fact that Dajana and I let them, and were glad to see them get muddy reflects what society expects from a boy. We expect boys and men to be dirty, to be in touch with the earth. It seems natural. It seems right.
But we want them to be dirty in very precise ways. As they get older, we want them to drool over the cheerleader in the hallways of high school, we want them to be daring enough to risk rejection in asking us to dance in night clubs. We want them to want sex more than us, we want them to be tantalized by our bodies and by our sex. But we also want them to control their supposedly filthy minds. To not stare. Or to only stare a little.
And there is a binary there. We expect little girls to stay clean, to be pure, to be the keepers of virtue.
But the fact is, men and women are all equally dirty. Our hands are dirty, we’re guilty and we’re perverse. We have desires, and they aren’t always pretty. We dream of power and acceptance. We crave validation. And these things are messy. They’re actually filthy.
And we’re going to screw up, especially when we’re young— but not exclusively when we’re young.
All of this was brought to the forefront of my consciousness by two amazing pieces on The Good Men Project today. First, John Taylor’s Picking Up the Pieces, which is Taylor’s wide-open and excruciating look into the heart of a man who cheated on his wife. And it’s not from the perspective of someone who has healed and grown from the experience. This seems to have just happened, and man-oh-man is it raw. Taylor is suffering, his wife is torn apart, and his kids are acting out and devastated by what’s happening with their family.
The second is John Manchester’s stunning commentary on Mitt Romney’s prep school bullying of a gay teen, called Bullying and the Cult of the Tough Guy. Manchester was also bullied in prep school and recounts the event so intimately that both Editor-in-Chief Noah Brand and I came away from the piece with an almost animal need to find the bullies and punch them in the face.
But these bullies are grown up now. They’re grown men like Mitt Romney, probably wearing the same types of suits, probably cruising on yachts or something. Maybe they heard of Romney’s acts at Cranbook and felt like shit, knowing they did the same sort of thing to John Manchester back in the exact same year—1965. Or maybe they shrug and say, “boys will be boys.”
♦◊♦
So the question I ask is this: Who do we forgive?
Because forgiveness is crucial to our survival as both individuals and as a society. We cannot live stuck in the mud of the bad things that happen to us, or even of the bad things we’ve done. But the guilt of our transgressions serve a function. Someone once told a friend who was deep in a disaster of his own making, “Sometimes you have to sit in your shit so you know what it smells like.”
Gross, I know, sorry. But it works for me. If you’ve never made a shit-stack out of your life, maybe you don’t know what it feels like to have regrets that run so deep, so profound, that you lie awake in bed and dream of a life where you made different choices. But the rest of us have done something profoundly bad. We neglected our family, we put greed over friendship, we cheated on someone who loved us, we abused someone who trusted us.
But does the act of doing something bad make us bad? Is a man who cheats on his wife—at the moment his mind or heart or body transgressed—no longer a “good man”? Is he suddenly a “bad man”?
Is a man who bullied an already-ostracised boy when he was a teen a bad man?
What distinctions do we make between good and bad?
I’m comfortable saying that both John Taylor’s cheating and Mitt Romeny’s alleged bullying were bad acts. They hurt others. Each, no doubt, did some permanent damage.
But I’m not comfortable calling either of them bad men. First, because I don’t know either of them in real life. But we most likely will never know Mitt Romney, or even John Taylor, in real life. So we have to judge them based upon what we do know. And we’d like to be the people who say, “I don’t judge others!” and yet in many ways we have to… It’s innate to who we are as humans.
We hurt for Taylor’s wife or others who may be involved. And that makes us angry at John. We think of those who’ve transgressed against us, or maybe we think of our own transgressions. It becomes personal. But, in truth, it has nothing to do with us. Hopefully we hear the pain and promises of redemption in Taylor’s confession, and we identify with his humanity. Our forgiveness may be inconsequential to Taylor, who will never know whether we’ve forgiven him or not, but it is meaningful to us.
We hope Taylor will sit in his shit and get to know the stink. Not just in the pain of regret, but in the exploration of how he ended up in such a situation. A naked, bold-faced stare into what created that need for affirmation, for acceptance, for passion or for excitement; whatever was broken inside of him that made him do something he knew could hurt his family. Because the quest to do better, to be better, is what I believe allows a person who has made mistakes—a person who’s done bad things—to continue to be a “good man.”
That’s redemption.
♦◊♦
And we hope that if Mitt Romney did, indeed, commit the “prank” that people are saying he did, that he has done the same. We hope he’s sat in his shit and imagined himself in the place of that teenaged boy with the blonde hair, watching scissors come at his face, watching bystanders laugh and jeer instead of coming to his aid. Knowing that Romney’s a Christian, we hope that he’s prayed with a truly open heart and asked God to forgive him.
And that’s what strikes many of us about Romney’s comments regarding the abuse he and his cohorts allegedly inflicted upon their victim: he claims he doesn’t remember it. He doesn’t deny it, but he doesn’t remember it. How can there be redemption, how can there be forgiveness, for a sin that one hasn’t truly internalized? How can he come to his god and say, “Wash me clean, Oh Lord” about something he has somehow forgotten?
And that’s what is going to cost Romney the trust of the American people. Regardless of whether he did sit on that young man and forcefully cut his hair or if it’s some “conspiracy” to make him look bad, we don’t believe he can empathize with us, for any number of reasons.
We are Americans. We are an incredibly diverse population: the bullied, we are the immigrants, we are the sinners, we are the cheaters trying to get better, we are the parents working third shift in the factory and trying to sleep in the daytime through the laughs of our children whom we miss so dearly. We are the gay men, the lesbians, the abuse survivors, the combat veterans, the sisters of someone who is addicted to drugs. We are single parents on food stamps, trying to find a way to have a job and still get enough aid to feed our babies something other than chicken nuggets from the dollar menu.
We can look past him being born into wealth, we can forgive him for having been a punk-ass obnoxious entitled 18 year-old, because we too know that we were not—and are not— perfect. We could forgive him… If we believed he could empathize with us. We could forgive him if we believed he had grown over time and developed a compassionate empathy for those he hurt when he was a boy. Because we, too, are broken.
And I hope we do end up seeing some compassionate empathy from Mitt Romney. Because I want to believe he is a good man, and I firmly believe that a man is defined not by the bad things he has done, but rather by the good man he is trying to become.
What we want is not to be plied by the damaging excuse of “boys being boys”, but rather examples of two human beings willing to admit that they are still growing into being good men. Because, in the end, aren’t we all still growing into our goodness?
Photo of dictionary – redemption courtesy of Shutterstock.
About Joanna Schroeder
Out of curiosity: what is the obsession with the idea that Mitt Romney “has to remember”?
I’m 28, I don’t know what it’s like to be in your 60s, but part of me cannot help suspecting that 50 years could probably lead you to forget most anything.
Why can’t we believe that he honestly doesn’t remember?
Speaking as someone who was regularly taunted for being short, I would believe the statement of anyone who taunted me if they said they could not recall any particular instance. I have pretty clear memories of once being surrounded by a group of 4 guys that all taunted me together at a school dance, but given that I don’t recall the month (or year) of the dance, that the entire incident probably lasted less than 10 minutes, and that I cannot recall any other details (what music was playing? what was I wearing? could anyone else see us?), I wouldn’t fault them for not remember the incident at all.
So why the obsession with Romney’s memory after 5 decades?
I’m only speaking for myself here, but I believe that if we truly feel remorse for something, we accept that we either did it or that it likely happened – and then we take responsibility.
The act of organizing a group of people and sitting on a boy to cut his hair… there’s just no way he has forgotten it. It’s not the same as verbal taunts.
So to me, there are three possibilities here:
1. He remembers, and is lying per his “spin machine” and their advice.
2. He doesn’t remember, due to the fact that he did equally horrifying, or possibly worse, things to other people and this is just one of those times that wasn’t so bad. or
3. This is a complete fabrication by liberals who want to falsely attack him. I don’t know why, though, those involved would go on the record with their own names as having done something terrible that they didn’t even do.
No matter what, it’s perplexing and makes no sense. And I can guarantee you, Mike, that some of those boys who were mean to you do remember it and feel like shit about it. Whether it was when they saw the movie Bully, or if their own child has been taunted, or even this Romney thing… At least some look back and think that was a shitty thing to have done.
I’ve written about this before on here, but once I did something SO shitty to a guy… I went to the prom with him, but felt more “friendly” toward him than anything. At the prom, this one guy, who was sort of a “bad boy” asked me to dance… And then he kissed me and I went along with it. I saw that my date observed this, and I felt sick, but I was too young, too immature, and too selfish and insecure to deny the attentions of a “cool” boy. And I was too young then to take real responsibility for the hurt I’d caused.
I know that’s not bullying, but it hurt someone and it sits within me like a rock. Even to this day. I forgive myself, and I have an insight into why I did it, but of course I remember it. But there are things I’ve done and said to boys especially that I didn’t remember. In retrospect, they seem very true, and I have said I was so sorry for them, and explained (but didn’t excuse) that I was a big pile of insecurity walking around in the costume of a very confident girl.
So even though I don’t remember those little hurtful things, I believe they’re true and I take responsibility. But I remember the big things. It scares me that someone could forget sitting on a boy who was screaming and cutting his hair.
And, by the way, my mom is in her 60s and she was just telling me about things she and her friends said to other kids that weren’t nice and talking about her own regret. So I don’t think it’s his age… Unless he has Alzheimer’s – God forbid.
Joanna, you can remember ever detail of the prom instance. This makes perfect sense, because as you said, you felt remorse. I once (IN FIRST GRADE!!) gave someone a titty-twister to get closer to the class hamster cage, and made her cry. To this DAY I remember how ashamed I felt for doing that!!
Joanna,
Thank you for replying.
It still seems like you are trying to force this into a black and white situation in which it most probably is not.
Anyone who has ever read court records knows that the exact same event is often remembered VERY differently, by all of those involved. It’s also well established that victims often ascribe near-supernatural powers to their attackers in memory, including embellishments which simply did not occur at the time.
It’s important to emphasize, all of this is perfectly natural. Different memories does not mean anyone is lying. We all experience events differently, that’s just how it is.
There are not only two possibilities: one where the accuser is 100% true and one where it didn’t happen at all. In reality what actually happened is probably somewhere on a spectrum between “didn’t happen” and “exactly like the accuser recalls.”
Maybe Romney never sat on the guy’s chest, but everything else is true. Maybe Romney cut his hair from behind, by surprise, and an attack has been built up in the accuser’s mind over the past 50 years. It’s going to be very hard to say because it’s been…50 years.
It’s very easy to imagine a world where Romney did taunt this kid, and maybe it got out of control one time, but not in the way the accuser recalls it. In this possibility it is entirely true that the attack happened (and who knows what it actually looked like?) but when Romney was told the details he had no recollection because the details have become distorted over the past 50 years.
This is the problem with this entire issue: the focus is only one “did it happen or not?” when there are actually a wide range of possibilities many of which involve everyone telling the truth as they best recall it: the victim recalling a truth that resembles reality, but not quite there, and Romney not recalling an incident because it never quite actually happened.
Sounds like you ALL speak from the privilege of having a decent memory. I don’t remember many things I’ve done in school, 10 years later I’ve forgotten and I know I’ve done some bad stuff, I also don’t remember the majority of my bullying experiences, I barely remember what happened last week.
Please don’t assume those who forgot to be sociopaths, not everyone has the same memory, same brain, stores the same thoughts, thinks of the same things as important. It’s a bad reflection on yourselves to cast such a negative judgment, jump straight to the conclusions of him being worse for forgetting or lying about it. It’s entirely possible he’s long forgotten that incident, doesn’t mean he wouldn’t be remorseful if he was made aware of it. I’ve forgotten stuff only to be later reminded about it and then feel remorse over it.
Using anecdotes of your mother and her friends remembering some things from childhood does NOT prove every human can recall information about what YOU perceive to be important life events, hell it’s possible he thought nothing of the bullying at the time and forgot about it just as I think nothing of eating a steak on a saturday long ago that I’ve probably forgotten. Maybe a life is so full of events, maybe his mind has blocked it out, the mind, our memory is a hugely complex beast and there are all sorts of reasons that events like these can be blocked out.
So people, please don’t assume to know him better than himself, guess all you want but he’s in his 60′s? He’s probably had a long and fulfilling life full of things to remember and only a certain amount of storage and ability to recall such information. Not all of us are born with perfect memories, I myself have to write down major stuff because chances are I will forget. I know I bullied a bit in school (trying to fit in after being bullied myself, and there was a time I was a lil dipshit which I feel ashamed of) but I can’t recall exactly who I bullied, when it was, what happened, or even what year/age group it was. All I know is there was something I did which probably made someone feel like shit. Am I a sociopath?
You partly right, Archy. We speak from the privilege of never having committed a hate crime, or hate-related assault on a fellow student. This absolves us of having to “not remember” doing it. It’s sort of great, actually.
“You partly right, Archy. We speak from the privilege of never having committed a hate crime, or hate-related assault on a fellow student. This absolves us of having to “not remember” doing it. It’s sort of great, actually.”
Never bullied someone, taunted them, got into fights? Even in primary school? I can partly remember teasing someone because they were weird in primary school, remember teasing someone in highschool but don’t remember the jist of it or what happened fully. I copped bullying every day pretty much, lots of verbal, some sexual assault/groping of my manboobs, tripped by someone and broke my wrist but I truly wouldn’t be surprised if many of those bullies didn’t remember much of it. It’s a long time ago, I only remember fragments myself. Even the time I was hit by a teacher and thrown from my desk into a cupboard I can barely remember it, a glimpse here n there. It was 15 or so years ago but only a mere fragment remains of it in my memory, when I am 60 I would be surprised if I remember anything that happened at school.
For those that have great memory recollection, high five to you, but not all of us do. 2004-2008 is pretty much a COMPLETE BLANK, I cannot remember what I did, what happened really, it’s like my life was autopilot but my brain wasn’t storing memories. Don’t worry, I didn’t go killing anyone during that time but I am trying to illustrate that we can forget even quite traumatic experiences. I’ve been in a traumatic car accident, don’t remember a single thing from it even though I wasn’t knocked out or harmed personally, I have zero recollection from about age 7 and younger, barely anything from age 7-18 apart from a few of my bullying experiences (maybe 5 out of 100+).
As far as I see this guy helped hold down an effeminate classmate, cut off his hair? A single incident? A single incident can be forgotten, it’s quite possible he didn’t think much of it and his brain didn’t really cling on to the memory, yes the victim would have felt quite different but we all experience life differently and what’s important to one person may be nothing to another. I hope he’s reflected on his actions, or at least tried to remember what happened but judging him a sociopath for having a problem with memory is a silly judgment.
“I copped bullying every day pretty much, lots of verbal, some sexual assault/groping of my manboobs, tripped by someone and broke my wrist but I truly wouldn’t be surprised if many of those bullies didn’t remember much of it. It’s a long time ago, I only remember fragments myself. Even the time I was hit by a teacher and thrown from my desk into a cupboard I can barely remember it, a glimpse here n there. ”
And this is NOT ok. If you don’t remember and they don’t remember, then the culture of your childhood in school was such that this behavior was normal to all. And that really makes me angry. Because it means people grow up to keep doing it, to harden up, to have less and less sympathy for anyone else who gets bullied (not saying you do, but certainly others), and that “boys will be boys” plays on.
“it’s quite possible he didn’t think much of it and his brain didn’t really cling on to the memory, yes the victim would have felt quite different but we all experience life differently and what’s important to one person may be nothing to another.”
Yes, that’s the point. He didn’t think much of what he did, that was a traumatic act for someone else. He sounds like just a lovely person. And that’s why sociopathy is being brought up. Because a sociopath won’t think it’s anything to feel bad about or guilty about. They’ll have gotten some fun out of the bullying, got what they wanted, and then on with their day. No shame.
I’m wondering if the sociopathy lasted though, I had a period of time where I enjoyed bullying as it felt nice to inflict some pain back but realized later it was bad and I didn’t have the heart for it. Because it was one incident it makes me question whether he was a sociopath, to me it seems too quick to judge. If it was a string of incidents (was it? haven’t heard any more on it) then yeah something is wrong.
So was it a learned behaviour, or part of him? Is it still in him or was it just in his dipshit teen years? The way I was in school changed a few times and now as an adult I am vastly different, it was about 22 or so that everything seemed to settle down, I dropped a lot of my hate and my empathy started to grow. I went from hating EVERYONE, wishing the apocalypse would end us to loving the good people and wanting to help. I wouldn’t be surprised if a rich frat boy did that kind of change.
From what I hear of the incident I have a feeling that the collective group egging each other on could potentially make it worse, it could appear fun especially to immature minds, especially minds that were taught to be big strong boys and take what they want (if that’s the case). It’s possible that he himself went through a hazing in a similar fashion, if bullying and hazing happened commonly it could possibly desensitize the group as a whole into thinking it’s not a big deal.
Obviously for the victim it was a big deal, but I’ll tell you a secret: The bullying that hurt me the most probably doesn’t look like a big deal to others on the outside, especially not young minds who in my time didn’t even know the words “emotional abuse”. Now if they had beat me up they’d probably understand better how it could have effected me but the old sticks n stones line was commonly said, yet those words hit like boulders dropped from 1km up. The effect on me was a slow withdrawl, I even made fun of myself in front of others just for any kind of attention with the “popular” kids, but I really doubt they truly understood the level of damage they did to me. It was common to have people messing with each other at my school and for many it didn’t seem to bother them, of course they recieved it at a much lower RATE so they didn’t die the death of a thousand cuts.
This normalized behaviour of bullying can very well leave people completely unaware of the damage they do to others, which is wrong yes but unless someone points it out and teachs them then how are they really going to know when they are too busy with their own life to even notice the slow withdrawls, etc. This is in 1965? So it’s in a time where men were to be real macho, I’d guess they had to pretty much cockfight to prove themselves and so I question the ability of them to truly comprehend the effects of their bullying, for all I know they might have thought it truly MADE A MAN. I’m taking wild guesses here to try understand it, I’m not trying to minimize the bullying because it’s very serious and very damaging but I am just not sure even he knew just how damaging it was.
We know now the effects of bullying, but did people in 1965 truly know? Everything I hear from the older generations was basically everyone got a bit of bullying and it toughened them up, now with that mindset would this incident be seen as bad as it is today or did these idiots truly think it might actually make the victim a man? He was effeminate, in a very homophobic time so what exactly were these fools thinking? Your guess is as good as mine but I really wouldn’t put it past them to try toughen the poor kid up via stupid acts of bullying. I’ve heard of similar shit done to toughen people up so I don’t think it’s that far out there.
The only people that know are the bullies themselves, one has forgotten, maybe the others need to be tracked down if only to give answers. I’m sure curious to know the reasoning, was it because he was gay? was it because he wasn’t fitting the male gender role? was it because he had a hairstyle that was not the norm? Were men of the day encouraged to be sociopathic? And isn’t sociopathy a pattern? Can he be diagnosed by us for ONE incident? Again if it’s shown he did this on multiple occasions then yeah it sounds like sociopathic behaviour but so far I’ve seen 1 single incident?
“I had a period of time where I enjoyed bullying as it felt nice to inflict some pain back but realized later it was bad and I didn’t have the heart for it.”
You know when I read this line. It just reminds me how my friend kept hoping that if I got even with her everything would go back to normal. Getting even doesn’t make the pain go away and it doesn’t put things back into balance.
Well I felt bad because I did it to others who didn’t do anything to me, innocent bystanders caught up in the cycle of abuse. It felt great actually to lay the smackdown or retaliate against a bully, I’ve thrown a few against walls, punched them etc after reaching my limit with their bullshit. It actually boosted my self-esteem and made me feel like I took back some power, especially since those bullies didn’t bully me after that. Sadly sometimes it’s neccessary to take matters into your own hands and really scare the shit out of a bully, do something they don’t expect and stand up for yourself. I gladly recommend othr victims to do WHATEVER THEY HAVE TO if it makes them safe, prefferably try the legal routes such as getting the school to intervene, walking away if possible, but if they fail then you do whatever is necessary to end the threat to your life and wellbeing, it’s the fundamental law of nature to protect yourself.
The sad thing is just how many people feel the institutions fail to protect them and are pretty much forced into action. Countless times the school would try something and it’d fail, or the good old tactic of bullying happening when those with authority can’t witness it and thus can’t prove it so it happens without punishment. It’s in these cases especially that the laws of nature dominate vs the laws of man, protect yourself and others if you can.
If you actually read the comments, Archy, you’ll see where I’ve said I don’t believe he’s a sociopath. I believe he’s a liar.
Ahh in that case, my bad. I’m on the fence for this one, the younger he was though the more likely I’d think he’d remember it, but then again I’m mid 20′s and my memory is terrible. Hopefully he’ll do good on behalf of bully victims and perpetrators though, he obviously knows his pranks can cause harm so I’d hope he’d step up to the plate and help folks out.
The act of organizing a group of people and sitting on a boy to cut his hair… there’s just no way he has forgotten it. It’s not the same as verbal taunts.
So to me, there are three possibilities here:
1. He remembers, and is lying per his “spin machine” and their advice.
2. He doesn’t remember, due to the fact that he did equally horrifying, or possibly worse, things to other people and this is just one of those times that wasn’t so bad. or
3. This is a complete fabrication by liberals who want to falsely attack him. I don’t know why, though, those involved would go on the record with their own names as having done something terrible that they didn’t even do.
So genuinely forgetting doesn’t even register?
I don’t think I’d be so quick to just strike out the possibility that he truly does not remember it for some other reason that he’s got such a horrible past this event was lost in a sea of other more horrific tragedies.
Okay, so if this event had happened at a group home for boys, I might buy this reasoning, Danny. But this happened at Cranbrook. And Romney was the Governor’s son. And everyone agrees he was the big man on campus there.
Are you insinuating that he’s somehow traumatized from his time there and has blocked out what he did to other kids as a survival mechanism? Or am I misunderstanding.
Certainly there’s the possibility that he was abused by someone there, but there is absolutely no indication of that.
And if you mean that maybe this event was lost in his memory because he was committing so many like it — I’m not sure that really does anything better for his character. But sure, that makes it more probably that he’d forget.
Let’s hope that’s not the answer. I’d prefer to think he’s been told by a handler to lie about this, and that secretly he’s feeling really shitty about it.
None of us will know.
Joanna,
What does “And Romney was the Governor’s son. And everyone agrees he was the big man on campus there” have to do with whether an event is memorable or not?
I would like to politely suggest that it seems like there some desire for Romney to be “guilty” here for reasons that have nothing to do with the bullying, and everything to do with being born into privilege.
Maybe. Except I was born into privilege, too. I’m a white woman whose grandmothers went to college. Every single person in my family for three generations (with the exception of one uncle) have graduate degrees. It’s a stupid amount of privilege, but it’s real.
What I’m saying is that by all accounts, he did not suffer at Cranbrook. Again, I leave room for many things that could have been happening behind the scenes. But as far as we know, Romney had a charmed life.
As did I. I don’t resent him the charmed life. I resent that he doesn’t seem to be taking responsibility for this serious incident.
I bet we’ll hear more about this in the future.
I appreciate what you are saying, and I tried to keep my comment general because I really wasn’t referring to you specifically: virtually all coverage, on all media outlets, has referred to Romney’s privilege in some manner when discussing this issue.
I would like to respond in two ways.
First, it’s important to point out that it’s entirely possible to resent privilege even if you are born into it. That’s the basic idea behind “white guilt” and why it is so problematic.
Second, really my question is: why bring up the privilege at all? It seems like a total non sequitur, unless there is some implication that he is somehow “more responsible” because he is privileged. If there’s no relationship between privilege and responsibility for one’s actions, why does privilege keep coming up in this conversation?
There’s the possibility he copped horrific abuse at home and/or major pressure to succeed as his father had? This is the problem with jumping to conclusions on a person’s character, unless you know their life story it becomes quite a gamble.
Are you insinuating that he’s somehow traumatized from his time there and has blocked out what he did to other kids as a survival mechanism? Or am I misunderstanding.
Possible.
Certainly there’s the possibility that he was abused by someone there, but there is absolutely no indication of that.
It wouldn’t be the first time a male didn’t speak up about his abuse until several decades later.
And if you mean that maybe this event was lost in his memory because he was committing so many like it — I’m not sure that really does anything better for his character. But sure, that makes it more probably that he’d forget.
Also possible.
Let’s hope that’s not the answer. I’d prefer to think he’s been told by a handler to lie about this, and that secretly he’s feeling really shitty about it.
None of us will know.
Yeah we’ll never know the truth on whether or not he recalls it. But that won’t stop people from trying to deduce it for the next several months.
You have to realize Joanna that how you remember your experience of life, and how others remember their own can be wildly different. There is no guarantee that someone will remember an event especially 50 years later, and what you see as a horrible act may at the time have been seen as the experience of growing up (stupid I know) which would really could make it less likely he’d remember much about it.
I don’t know him, don’t care about him, I’d vote for Obama anyway if I were an American. I am here to suggest memory isn’t black n white as some are thinking, it really is possible to forget even quite serious events and that in itself doesn’t make someone bad. Who here can control their memory and what they remember? I see a few people treating humans as THE SAME, all having the same memory recording and recollection setup but this is just wrong. Want proof? Go listen to people who can remember finite details of someones dress at a prom for instance and then talk to someone like me who can barely remember what I wore, let alone what others wore at the prom. Look at people who can read a textbook once and recall every piece of info and literally read it in their mind vs others who need to read it 20 times just to remember 1 line. I myself barely remember what happened yesterday, I have a few fragments here n there, I had surgery in the last week but I can’t remember the faces of the nurses I had, nor the peoples names in the beds around me, the conversations etc yet I’m sure there are people who could tell it like they’re a human PVR.
Any sane adult man would remember holding down a weaker man who was screaming for help and forcibly cutting his hair in front of a jeering audience. If Mitt Romney genuinely “can’t remember” doing that, then the argument could be made that he is, in fact, a sociopath for who the notion of right and wrong are entirely irrelevant, and therefore not worth remembering. I’m not making that case, however, so the fact that he’s merely lying makes more sense to me.
I completely agree, Michael.
That’s why his “I can’t remember” troubles almost everybody.
And it’s not age. My Uncle was the exact same age in ’65 and says “Of COURSE he remembers!”
This man committed an assault. He remembers. I can say that here in the comments where it doesn’t “count”… Also, as he is a Christian – than he knows that regardless of what he says here on Earth, if his heavenly maker exists as he believes he does, then he will have someone to answer to for these actions.
What is his medical history like? Is his memory generally good at recalling events? We’d all love to think any “sane” man would remember such events but maybe think about memory itself without assuming every incident can be recalled, no matter how traumatic. Unless you can give me a run down of every single major event in your life, every fight, every argument, then can you honestly say a sane person MUST remember?
Yes. Unless they’ve committed so many assaults that they all run together. It’s not that complicated.
I’m sorry but I think you have an overly optimistic view of the human mind and memory. I suggest talking to people and finding out what they remember, of the last few I’ve talked to they’ve all shown problems with memory even for events like that. On the comments here you have myself giving my own experience with memory loss, pretty sure others have commented too similarly.
So do you recall EVERY fight, argument, etc? If so then can I have your memory ability, I’m sick of needing notepads:P
No, I can’t recall every fight or argument, but can certainly recall never having committed a hate crime or physical assault involving scissors and a screaming boy. I’d remember something like that.
And if I didn’t remember it–if it had been wiped from my mind and memory–I would deny it hotly. I would only say “I don’t remember” if I did remember and wanted to deny it, but hedge my bets in case anyone who witnessed it came forward. Likewise, if I did remember it but wanted to deny it, I’d do exactly what Romney did, and contact past classmates and ask them to vouch for my pristine character and deny that I ever committed said assault.
Now that makes more sense, thank-you. If you’ve said it before I must have misread it. I’m trying to think what I would do in that situation if I didn’t remember, I’d probably say something like I don’t remember but if I did do it then I am truly sorry. I’ve seen something similar in his apology speech I posted earlier. Haven’t seen the stuff on him contacting past members to vouch, do you have a link for that? I live in Australia so it’s not big news here, we’ve got other dramas going on like a heated up international child custody dispute and young lovers running away with a bit of political drama via Julia Gillard and her staff. First I heard of this story was on the GMP.
“Yes. Unless they’ve committed so many assaults that they all run together. It’s not that complicated.”
I had that same thought. Perhaps there were so many pranks that it’s hard to distinguish one from the other. Romney did say that he “did a lot of stupid things” at that age, so maybe they kind of blur together. It’s entirely possible he doesn’t remember, but that’s not necessarily a good sign.
I’m not defending the pranks, but I don’t think this makes Romney a sociopath, really. 18 year olds ensnared in a school clique are not generally known for their empathy towards others. I’d be completely surprised if he were the first presidential candidate who ever tormented someone as a teenager. (If he went to The Citadel or any other military academy, the public would just yawn at the allegations.)
I also don’t think Romney was himself traumatized by the event. I suspect that, in reality, he was so focused on something else, his own internal stuff, that it just didn’t register at the time that he was hurting someone’s feelings. That doesn’t necessarily make one a sociopath, at least not more than any other teenager.
Mike, maybe if you had been physically assaulted by them for appearing gay at a time in U.S. history where it was still illegal in many places to be gay, instead of just being “taunted” for “being short,” your memory might be sharper.
Yeah, I’m not really interested in playing the “oppression olympics” Michael, and I’m not going to buy into an argument that depends on it.
That’s good, Mike, because if it came down to being teased for your height or physically assaulted for you sexual orientation, you’d get your ass kicked into next year in the “oppression Olympics.”
What about physically assaulted for your height or size?
@Mike … I’m 58 and can honestly tell you that I don’t remember a lot of things from my childhood. I do remember a lot of good times but very few bad. I’m sure if I sit quietly in my den and think, a lot of things may come to surface. I do remember my rather aggressive retaliations against the guys my now wife dated. Perhaps they stay in my mind because those events centered around the women I was and am madly in love with.
It bothers me that this Mitt thing keeps surfacing …. All this leads me to believe that a lot of people hold a lot of resentments in life and what’s sad is that these resentments drag them down. Maybe it’s good that I don’t remember a lot because it’s the past. I am who I am today and that’s what counts now. I’m sure there is no one that reads GMP or writes for GMP have a squeaky clean life. Everyone has something, somewhere that if they could, would change.
“Forgiveness” is not for the other person, it’s for the person who has been hurt. Forgiveness doesn’t erase the wrong or make the wrong right … it simply brings closure so that the person can move on.
“The act of organizing a group of people and sitting on a boy to cut his hair… there’s just no way he has forgotten it. It’s not the same as verbal taunts. ”
This, exactly. And if it were a Liberal attack, I doubt he would counter with the ole “If I did it I’m sorry spiel.” The problem for me now, is that if he does come back with a second, more heartfelt apology, it will be tainted by this half-assed first attempt to put a lid on it.
He is not a good man. Look at his stint at Bain Capital. If his bullying was one incident – so be it. His life is a connect the dots of questionable morals. He is not a Christian. He is a Mormon. Mormonism uses the name Jesus Christ in their name to blend into society more – look at their doctrine. They follow the Book of Mormon – and believe VERY DIFFERENT things then Christians. Just a fact. Also a random man cheating is one thing but we must hold a man running for political office – especially the office of President of the United States of America Under a VERY BIG MICROSCOPE. Mitt Romney is not a good man, in my opinion.
This piece is well written – I liked it – but there are some things that are off about it – the Mormonism issue. And how he made his millions.
Jane,
It is safe to say that if you would condemn an entire religious group, especially one as large as the Mormon faith, then you have literally no ability to decide who is, or is not, a “good man.”
Jane, your stance on Moromons make you a bigot, unfortunately, and disqualify you from any relevant commentary on the goodness, or not, of Mitt Romney. His character has nothing whatsoever to do with his religion, nor would being “a Christian” be any redeeming part of this character.
Agree in full. The thing lacking is integrity, not the “right” doctrine.
A bigot? Mormons single-handedly financed Prop 8. And you completely ignored anything about his stint at Bain Capital.
and for the record I don’t identify with Religion —–
*any Religion – correction – but have a family member that teaches Religious study at a liberal University and they know quite a bit about Religion and they have taught me A LOT about Mormonism and I was merely correcting Joanna Schroeder for she stated that Mormonism was a sect of Christianity and it is NOT. Because she stated he was a CHristian – he isn’t. It is a fact. Do some research on it. He is not what someone would consider a mainstream Christian – that was my point – so I am not a bigot – thank you very much…. Also – please look at at the documentary (financed by Republicans – When Mitt Romney came to town) describing his stint at Bain Capital and how he mad his hundreds of millions as a corporate raider which make this one bully incident (which I think is horrible and of course he remembers it but hey Mitt is the cool popular guy) look like NOTHING… The word sociopath comes to mind.
Well whether Mormonism is a denomination of Christianity is actually up for debate. A lot of people claim it isn’t, but at the same time a lot of people (including Mormons) claim it is. The Mormon faith doesn’t reject the New Testament, it just adds onto it. If you define Christianity simply as the belief that Jesus was the son of God, than Mormons fit it.
That’s a very loose definition because then some Sunni Muslims would be considered Christians too. They actually have a lot in common with Mormons.
In some key ways there are more similarties/commonalities between Mormons and Sunni Muslims than between Mormons and Catholics (for example).
Both Mormons and Sunni Muslims believe in Jesus. Sunni Muslims believe him to be the son (metaphorically, of course) of God as do the Mormons.
Both are monotheistic; neither accepts the trinity, unlike most churches.
Both believe that another prophet came after Jesus and introduced new teachings from God; those teachings were communicated to that prophet by an angel.
Both believe that the teachings of Jesus and his apostles are insufficient in knowing the full will of God.
Both believe that another, later book inspired by God provides those added teachings essential for salvation.
I won’t say what this means regarding the LDS faith or the Muslim faith as regards whether one, both, or neither are Christians. However, the similarities are noteworthy.
“Both Mormons and Sunni Muslims believe in Jesus. Sunni Muslims believe him to be the son (metaphorically, of course) of God as do the Mormons.”
Um, no. Islam teaches that Jesus was a prophet. The Church of Latter-Day Saints teach that Jesus was the Son of God. Islam does not teach that the death of Jesus was an act of great atonement, or that salvation exists through accepting Jesus as a saviour. The Mormon church, however, does preach that Jesus died and was resurrected and that accepting this is what sets you on the path to salvation.
Actually, Islam doesn’t teach that Jesus died and was resurrected at all. Meanwhile the Mormon church does believe in the resurrection and, as I said, that accepting it is necessary to be saved.
I never said that Muslims are or are not Christians. Or that Mormons are or are not Christians.
“There are similarities between all Christian denominations and all Muslim sects regarding Jesus.”
There are more similarities between Mormonism and Islam than Islam and any other religion. I pointed those similarities out.
Only Mormonism and Islam have a subsequent/successor book that is considered necessary for salvation. Belief in Christ and the Bible is not enough. That message was delivered by a later born prophet, and his message was delivered to him by an angel. None of that is true of any other religions.
The most basic definition of Christianity has nothing to do with doctrine. The meaning of the word Christian, literally, is Christ-like.
Wikipediat says this regarding Islamic beliefs re: Jesus.
“Jesus ascended bodily to Heaven, there to remain until his Second coming in the End days.”
The point is that there are many similarities between Mormonism and Islam. Everything I said is accurate.
Well of course there are similarities. There are similarities between all Christian denominations and all Muslim sects regarding Jesus. This is why, as I pointed out in my first comment, whether Mormonism is counted as a Christian denomination is up for debate. It is highly dependant on your definition of Christianity. The most basic definition of Christianity is that you believe the Jesus was the Son of God and that his death and resurrection were real events and that accepting those events is necessary to save your eternal soul. Mormonism fits that; Islam does not.
I never said that Muslims are or are not Christians. Or that Mormons are or are not Christians.
“There are similarities between all Christian denominations and all Muslim sects regarding Jesus.”
There are more similarities between Mormonism and Islam than Islam and any other religion. I pointed those similarities out.
Only Mormonism and Islam have a subsequent/successor book that is considered necessary for salvation. Belief in Christ and the Bible is not enough. That message was delivered by a later born prophet, and his message was delivered to him by an angel. None of that is true of any other religions.
The most basic definition of Christianity has nothing to do with doctrine. The meaning of the word Christian, literally, is Christ-like – the ian suffix means “like.”
There are similarities between Catholics and some pagan religions (for lack of a better term at least at the moment I’m thinking of this). Catholics are taught that the communion bread is transformed into the body of Christ, not a representation of the body of Christ. That sounds a lot like ritualistic cannibalism.
“How can there be redemption, how can there be forgiveness, for a sin that one hasn’t truly internalized? How can he come to his god and say, “Wash me clean, Oh Lord” about something he has somehow forgotten?”
It doesn’t matter what one says. All that matters is one does. You can say you’re sorry 1,000 times, but correcting your behavior over a period of months and then years is the ONLY real test of repentance.
Regarding Romney, you can’t repent for something you don’t know you did. However, you can choose to not do the alleged bad act(s). The fact that the last alleged act of bullying was over 50 years ago can be taken as a reasonable body of evidence that he hasn’t made bullying a practice in decades. That makes a far more powerful statement than any tearful confession ever could.
By contrast, despite being a very peacable person, I was told here a few days ago that I am obsessed with violence, with no apology or retraction. Being willing to apologize is a sing of repentance.
“Regarding Romney, you can’t repent for something you didn’t know you did.”
Really? Something he “didn’t know he did?
It’s not complicated: either he he held down a, gay-appearing classmate and cut his hair with scissors while he screamed so the guys would look less faggy, or he didn’t. Unless he’s a socipath, or has a brain tumour, or was temporarily possessed by the Devil and has no memory of the event—all of which might be relevant to him occupying the White House.
How much of an assault IS worthy of being remembered? A rape? A murder? Breaking someone’s arms and legs? What if it was a girl he held down while she screamed? Would THAT be something he might be expected to remember? Or would the fact that it “allegedly” happened “50 years ago” make it OK that it slipped his mind?
I mean, he remembered strapping a terrified dog to the roof of his car for a car ride, though, to be fair, he remembers the dog as “loving it” even though the dog was shitting itself with terror while his sons yelled “gross!” at the dog.
Physical assault is rarely something the attacker “can’t remember,” but I suspect that if he actually didn’t remember it, he’d be so horrifed at beng accused of it that he’d rightly deny it.
Sociopaths can remember things….
I’m not excusing any bullying. However, he said he doesn’t remember. You don’t believe him. Fine. I have no idea. However, that WAS 50 years ago. Pretty sure that counts for something.
“How much of an assault IS worthy of being remembered?”
Cutting someone’s hair is rude but it’s not rape or murder, or even a physical assault and battery.
By the way, bullying someone who appears to be a homosexual is no worse than bullying for any other reason.
Actually, it’s a crime. It’s assault. You try wrestling someone to the ground and forcibly cutting their hair without their permission, then try explaining to the cops and the judge that you weren’t committing assault but merely being “rude.”
In answer to your question. It wasn’t rape. It wasn’t murder. It wasn’t breaking someone’s arm The person didn’t claim to have been physically hurt in any way. It was cutting someone’s hair.
Eric, really? NOBODY is saying it was rape or murder but it was VERY clearly assault.
So you’re cool with bullying? You’d be fine if a group of kids SAT ON YOUR KID and cut his or her hair?
Sometimes, Eric, I think you’re the smartest man in a conversation. You see things that so many other people miss.
Other times I think you really damage your credibility by digging in your heels and refusing to see logic in the quest to defend your obscure point, based in hypothetical possibilities.
Even Romney doesn’t deny it happened! Why are you!?
Fine, you want to call it assault but it was cutting someone’s hair.
“So you’re cool with bullying? You’d be fine if a group of kids SAT ON YOUR KID and cut his or her hair? ”
Where did I say that? Let me quote Eric M. for you.
“I’m not excusing any bullying.”
No, I wouldn’t like that, but I would be far more troubled if they were raped, shot, stabbed, or murdered. A little easier to recover from a haircut than any of those.
“Even Romney doesn’t deny it happened! Why are you!?”
Please quote where I “deny it happened.” If you can’t find that quote, please admit that I did no such thing.
“Other times I think you really damage your credibility by digging in your heels and refusing to see logic in the quest to defend your obscure point, based in hypothetical possibilities.”
Let’s not go down the lack of credibilty path, Joanna. I’m trying to hold my tongue. . .
You mean Hugo, Eric?
Go for it. I couldn’t care less if you bring something only tangentially related into this argument, I’m not Hugo’s PR person, I’m simply his friend. If you want to stay on the subject of bullying and what we should consider “good” as far as a presidential candidate, that might be a better idea.
Finally, I’m glad you’re not excusing bullying, but it sure sounds like you’re minimizing what would now be considered a hate crime. Of course it’s not as bad as rape or murder. Why even say that? What’s the point? To minimize the pain of those gay teens who are tormented?
You and I have had many conversations about how young black men are marginalized in this country, the damage that is being done to our society by the complete dismissal and dehumanization of young black men.
So what if someone said, “LIsten, at least young black men aren’t being thrown into the gas chambers like in the holocaust!”
It’s like, “DUH that’s worse!” — what’s the point of that? What’s the point of minimizing the very real suffering of one group just because it isn’t as “bad” as others.
That’s what I hear MRAs saying about the feminists all the time, too. That Feminists always say, “We have it worse! You don’t count because what we go through is worse.”
Well, in this case, yes, this young man could have had it worse. He could’ve been murdered or raped. But wait, if you read Manchester’s piece, young men just like him have been raped, raped by a group of young men with a hockey stick. This actually happens. And to minimize what Romney allegedly did to this boy is to minimize bullying.
You may not be excusing bullying, but you’re minimizing it. And frankly, it surprises me from you.
Brutality is brutality. Holding someone down and coming at him with scissors is brutality. Sure, it’s not as bad as forcefully anally penetrating them with a huge object. And it’s not as bad as murder…
But what’s your point? That the perpetrator would be less likely to remember it?
Only if he were a sociopath or had a memory disease.
That’s not science, but it is common sense.
“You mean Hugo, Eric?”
No, the conversation you and I recently had.
“Go for it. I couldn’t care less, I’m not Hugo’s PR person, I’m simply his friend.”
I don’t know the man but he has expressed many grossly misandristic opinions.
“Finally, I’m glad you’re not excusing bullying, but it sure sounds like you’re minimizing what would now be considered a hate crime.”
Why, because he had dyed his hair? Really?
“Of course it’s not as bad as rape or murder. Why even say that? What’s the point? To minimize the pain of those gay teens who are tormented?”
Because we are talking about a forcible haircut 50 years ago while 218 black boys and men were murdered today. No mention of any of those.
“So what if someone said, “LIsten, at least young black men aren’t being thrown into the gas chambers like in the holocaust!”
They basically are. Ignoring their murders while making a forcible haircut from 50 years ago a huge issue does that. I’m not criticizing you personally; just pointing out the sadness of what this society does day in and day out.
Sorry, a hair cut doesn’t come close to a murder.
“You may not be excusing bullying, but you’re minimizing it. And frankly, it surprises me from you.”
I’m putting it into context. How many non-gay boys have been bullied in the last 50 years. Why is it considered worse when gays are bullied? So much so that we are going back 50 years? When’s the last time you heard a major story about a non-gay boy being bullied? Never. It’s politically incorrect to acknowledge/care about them.
“But what’s your point? That the perpetrator would be less likely to remember it?”
My point is that we are here ignoring millions of far worse thing, such as murder. Ignoring them, while making a federal case out of a forcible haircut from 50 years ago. Something is wrong with that.
The reason we’re bringing this to light is because he is a presidential candidate running on a platform of “morality” in arenas such as religion, homosexuality, and abortion.
So people are talking about his brand of “morality” and as I said, if he were to admit responsibility, I’d be completely willing to say “it’s in the past” for something that happened 50 years ago. But he isn’t willing to.
And straight kids that are bullied are given attention all the time – see the movie Bully for instance. That movie is probably the biggest step of the mainstream media toward combatting bullying and the lead boy in that story didn’t identify as gay. Nor did many of the other bullied kids.
In this case, perhaps it doesn’t matter that the kid was identified by the other kids as gay. Regardless, we’re talking about his willingness to either forget hurting someone or his comfort with lying about his past. Because he is a presidential candidate.
And of course the deaths of young Black men matter. Just because we’re talking about this doesn’t make their deaths – and even the injustices in their lives while they’re still living – matter less. They’re just separate. There are many issues to be attended to. This is one, that’s another.
Bullying, racism, marginalization of boys in education, lack of resources for male abuse survivors, anti-gay hate… They’re all problems in our society.
Just because I say let’s talk about the problem of prostate cancer doesn’t mean I’m minimizing the problem of cervical cancer. Just because we’re talking about bullying, doesn’t mean we don’t care about what’s happening with young Black men in America.
“The reason we’re bringing this to light is because he is a presidential candidate running on a platform of “morality” in arenas such as religion, homosexuality, and abortion.”
I have no problem with it being commented on. However, it’s simply not possible to know for a 100% certainty that someone remembers cutting someone else’s hair 50 years ago. And, the extreme anger of some is disproportionate to the event, in light of them expressing little to no concern about far worse things that happened today. (I’m not referring expressly to you or anyone in particular)
“And straight kids that are bullied are given attention all the time:
When is the last time there was a major/national news story about a bullied boy who was not either homosexual or suspected of being homosexual?
“Regardless, we’re talking about his willingness to either forget hurting someone or his comfort with lying about his past:
I forget things all the time against my will. I want to remember but just don’t.
“And of course the deaths of young Black men matter”
No they don’t. Not really. If the murder and assault rate of persons like yourself (white women) spiked by 5-600% there would be national outcry and mobilization; it would be the #1 issue we would be hearing and talking about constantly. The government and private institutions would spare no expense in highlighting and addressing the problem, no matter the cause. Nothing like that is or has ever happened with black boys and men. And nothing like that is going to happen.
“Bullying, racism, marginalization of boys in education, lack of resources for male abuse survivors, anti-gay hate… They’re all problems in our society.”
The proportional responses show what and who people care about.. For example, there’s been far, far more discussion here about “slut-shaming” than there has been on the gender education gap. Again, if the genders were reversed, there would be far more discussion about it and action on it here and elsewhere.
This wasn’t “hair cutting,” it was physically assaulting a student suspected of being gay–holding him forcibly down on the ground an cutting his hair because Romney thought he looked effeminate. It became an assault the minute Romney laid his hands on him and pushed him to the ground.
You say “I’m not excusing any bullying,” but your entire series of comments is an excuse for this bullying. You excuse it by minimizing not only the motivation, but the assault itself. You strike me as the sort of person who would say about a fat kid who was chased home every day by bullies, “Well, at least he got some exercise. It was chasing a fat kid home, not wasn’t rape. It wasn’t murder. It wasn’t breaking someone’s arm. It was just chasing a fat kid home and making him run for his life.”
I’m not surprised you’re defending Romney’s lie here, Eric.
Judging from your posts, both you and Romney would likely agree that gay bashing, especially in the mid-60s, was such a rite of passage that Romney shouldn’t be expected to remember it. And even if he did remember it, and lies about it now, who cares? Nobody got killed.
But he’s not running for president in 1965, he’s running for president in 2012, and there’s an epidemic of LGBT kids committing suicide because of exactly the sort of “pranks” and “hijinks” (his words) that Romney engaged in then. It actually matters, if not to ignorant people, then certainly to people who have children in their lives.
What’s missing from this conversation thus far is the complete and utter lack of character Romney has displayed in this situation.
An honourable man would have said, “Yes, I did it. I’m so sorry. It was so wrong, and entirely inexcusable, especially with so many kids killing themselves now because of the sort of thing I did. I can tell you that, if elected president, I will help enact legislation to protect kids from exactly what I did.”
By saying that, he could show that he actually has some spine, and some decency. He likely wouldn’t even attract the opprobrium of the bigots who form his “base” if he said that, because they’d then have to come out and openly criticize him for being a good man. In short, it would be an inexpensive bone to throw to the American electorate. But instead, he chooses to lie about it. Any man who had committed an assault like that and really “didn’t remember” doing it would hotly and passionately deny it, and demand to face his accuser, not slime around in the grey area and claim he “didn’t remember” doing it.
On the other hand, it’s exactly that sort of reprehensible lack of character and honour which makes him the perfect Republican candidate for 2012. And judging by the comments here from people like “Eric M” and “Archy,” and “Mark L,” one can see exactly how clumsily he will be defended by his supporters, few of which will have the guts and character to come out and publicly admit that they don’t think assaulting a gay kid and cutting his hair to make him look less like a faggot is bad thing, and certainly nothing to hold against a potential President of the United States.
Hi everyone,
Just a friendly reminder that we keep discussions away from personal insults and on the topic at hand. We understand this is a deeply personal issue for many people, and we ask that everyone respect each other in light of that. Thanks.
Wow, back the truck up Michael, I am discussing how a person can forget events and you want to lump me in as a supporter of this guy? I really do not care about him, Don’t care if he wins or loses, quite frankly Obama seems fine so I’d rather him win based on what little I know of American politics.
I am trying to get you to calm down for 2 seconds use your brain, try to understand MEMORY CAN BE FICKLE. You equated people that forget such activities to being sociopaths, I’ve forgotten stuff I’ve done in my childhood, am I sociopath for it? I know I’ve bullied someone before, I just can’t remember WHO, when or what happened. I see this hate brigade ready to lynch him because he can’t remember this event over 5 decades ago? Yes he should have said something along the lines of “I can’t recall it but if I did do it I apologize” but seriously, calm the F down on the sociopath insults. This is some disgusting behaviour I see a few of the people here doing, I truly expect far better than that especially when you lump me in as supporting the guy when all I am doing is explaining memory is fickle!
And yes, I am an adult male who has forgotten assaults both to me and ones I’ve done, I got into fights as a kid throughout my entire schooling and some I can remember, some I can’t. I bullied a little bit and I was bullied a lot. I’ve known people who bullied others but are totally different today, they made a change for the better and I think even a presidential candidate can come from a darker past IF they have overcome it and can provide something better for the world. I have no idea if he is the one to do it, I hope he get’s his act together and it’d be a great time to show support for bully victims AND perpetrators (Yes bullies need help too).
Hands up who here still believes what they did when they were 18? Or should the sins of the past truly taint them in the future forever?
”This wasn’t “hair cutting,” it was physically assaulting a student suspected of being gay–holding him forcibly down on the ground an cutting his hair because Romney thought he looked effeminate.”
So, as, I said, he allegedly cut the kids hair. That’s the bottom line here. His hair grew back 50 years ago. He had no broken bones or even bruises. Was it wrong? Sure. But, you’re view is out of proportion to what allegedly happened.
“You say “I’m not excusing any bullying,” but your entire series of comments is an excuse for this bullying.”
I can guarantee you that millions of things like that have happened to boys over the years. I really don’t care that it’s not politically correct but I have no (zero, none) more or less concern for a homosexual who gets bullied than a heterosexual. I suspect had he allegedly done the same thing and given a heterosexual a wedgie there wouldn’t be nearly this level of complaint. Why?
“Judging from your posts, both you and Romney would likely agree that gay bashing,”
I don’t bash or personally insult anyone. Can you say the same?
Also, I am not a Romney supporter. Just to be clear on that.
Lastly, you don’t know for sure what did or did not happen or whether he is telling the truth in that he doesn’t remember an event from 50 years ago or not. No one can know for sure.
Eric,
If you look at the rest of Michael Rowe’s comments in this thread, it’s clear that he’s only willing to see black-and-white on this issue.
The possibility that the victim is mis-remembering what actually transpired, out of honest mistake and 50 years space, along with the natural tendency of all of us to distort our own memories, does not occur to Mr. Rowe.
As a result, Mr. Rowe is bestowing upon the victim a God-like quality that you won’t be able to talk him out of. It’s probably not worth pursuing further.
Mike, no one needs Godlike qualities in order to remember being physically assaulted in what would now correctly be labelled a hate crime. The fact that a would-be president of the United States “can’t remember” committing one, and that some people think that’s normal, is disturbing beyond belief.
Does a hate-crime make an assault more memorable? Yes it’s possible and quite probable that most people would remember being assaulted, but there are those who don’t remember. It’s disturbing IF he committed one, but quite frankly I can’t fault a person for forgetting an event in their life. If memory were how you thought it to be, I could understand why you’d fault them, but seriously Michael you need to stop assuming everyone has the same ability to store and recall information. Yes it’s normal for some people to not remember every single significant event in their life, hell there are probably companies trying to find out how to cure it (and they’d make billions to help human memory).
Why is it so hard for people to understand that some people have memory issues? Especially after 47 years? It’s kinda disturbing to see people view humans as so black and white with the same abilities and mental capacity. He’s 65 years old, his mental capacity is probably reducing and memory becoming even worse.
ht tp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/08/010814063231.htm
“By the time people are in their mid-60s, Park says, the continuous decreases in cognitive abilities may become noticeable. Just when most people are becoming more frequent consumers of medical services, they begin to notice that they are having more trouble remembering and learning new information. ”
Stop treating the dude like he’s a fresh 20 year old with perfect memory. Yes it can be an excuse to use old age and memory to try deny the incident, but as far as I see he hasn’t denied it, he’s just said he can’t remember it but apologized for doing “pranks”. 47 years have passed, he’s well into the age of memory loss/problems, his cognitive functions are decreasing year by year and yet people still assume him 100% capable of remembering it?
If his mental capacity is reducing, he shouldn’t be running for President.
Good point, I’m a lil shocked a 65 year old is allowed to run for president if mental capacity is diminishing, wouldn’t it be better for a mentally and physically fit person of high education and know how in the politics world be a better fit, 35-55ish? But I guess that depends on the individual too, are there health checks?:P
Look at Reagan. he was developing Dementia.
I heard he gave another kid an atomic wedgie and took a Polaroid of it. He claims he doesn’t remember that either.
Eric, just because there’s a possibility he doesn’t remember doesn’t make it even remotely probable.
You’re stubbornly sitting in the position of the “possibility” when in reality, if you put some thought into it, you’d realize how silly the idea of a grown man not remembering an assault truly is.
Let’s be logical here. Sure, point out that there’s a theoretical possibility he doesn’t remember, but don’t camp on that teeny possibility. It just makes you look like you care more about being contrary than actually having a real discussion.
Probable? I don’t know. But, anything is possible. But, again, it was cutting someone’s hair 50 years ago. I can tell you that there are many things that I don’t remember from 5 or 10 years ago.
It was hair cutting. Not rape, not murder, not stabbing, not shooting, not breaking someone’s bones, not DWI/DUI; it was cutting someone’s hair. Hair. 50 years ago.
“You’re stubbornly sitting in the position of the “possibility” when in reality, if you put some thought into it, you’d realize how silly the idea of a grown man not remembering an assault truly is.”
Actually this is the silliest thing I’ve heard all day. Do people have perfect memories where you are from? I must have an amazingly bad memory but it really is not that rare for someone to forget such events. FIFTY years have passed people, 5 decades, a lot can happen in 50 years. I now fully expect everyone here to recall every incident of bullying they’ve done (if they did), every argument, fight, etc, I now expect them to remember it in some detail 50 years later.
Seems to be a few experts on what “sane” people can remember, care to explain my own massively fragmented memory and that of my friends who can’t remember fights they were in?
@ Eric M
“It doesn’t matter what one says. All that matters is one does.”
Sure it does. If he remembers and he says that he doesn’t, then he is lying. He didn’t refuse to answer.
Jane, I don’t think it’s fair to say he is not a Christian. You have no way of knowing of his relationship with a higher power. That is to personal to pass judgement on. I used to hear people say that Catholics would “go to hell” because they don’t believe in “salvation.” Suffice it to say, if there is a hell, I highly doubt Mother Teresa will be there.
Thanks for that article Joanna. I objected to a recent article here enjoining men to post their idea of ‘what makes a good man?’ and even in fact to the name of this site/project. It also implies that men are NOT good by nature and need to perform certain ways and get the approval of women to be considered good. Boys will be boy is no different to me then ‘you are one of the good ones’. Men don’t have to earn the qualifier. I asked in that article if we would stand for condescending artiles like ‘hey ladies tell us what it means to be a good woman?’ or a ‘Good Woman Project’ (helping to show women how to be ‘one of the good ones’) or God forbid a ‘Good Blacks Project’ to help black people be ‘one of the good ones’.
It also plays into a notion that many people, women especially in my experience, seem to have just internalized as fact; that women are responsible for or share in everything that is good in this world; from abstractions such as ‘love” and ‘sacrifice’ to all the great things mankind has created; inventions, medicine, governments, civiliziations, bridges, electrical power, transportation, the internet, you name it, women take full and complete credit for it (as they should). However all the bad and or side-products of these, from war to colonialism to genocide to racism and even to rape, that somehow is all men. Saturday Night summed it up best in a skit years ago on one of their fake talk shows entitled ‘Men Suck, Women Great’.
I”m sorry you’ve had experiences that have created all of this inside of you, Michael.
As my article says, we are all equally responsible to be good.
In naming this project, as far as I know, Tom wasn’t saying that men aren’t inherently good, but that this project would be a tool and a resource and an outlet for those who are on the quest to be better.
It is the good MEN project because Tom meant for it to be intended mostly toward men. Not because he thinks only men need it.
And there is a Good Women Project, just as there are many, many sites devoted to women making better lives for themselves, and growing themselves as women.
You’ve bought into a lie, Michael. The lie being that all of this is zero-sum. That is, if one “is” the other “isn’t” – Men are good? Then in zero sum, you’re saying women are bad. Right? No. Stop buying the lie.
We can say men have done bad things. That doesn’t mean men are bad, and it doesn’t mean women have only done good.
Someone has sold you a bill of goods about this all being a zero-sum game.
We can say men have done bad things. That doesn’t mean men are bad, and it doesn’t mean women have only done good.
Someone has sold you a bill of goods about this all being a zero-sum game.
Not surprising considering that about the only time men are allowed identified as men is when some of use screwing something up.
A group of soldiers manage to take down one of the most major terrorists in recent history. Not much to say gender wise.
A group of Secret Service agents get caught hiring prostitutes. OMG “Are Men Stupid?” and “This Wouldn’t Have Happened if There Were More Women in the Secret Service”.
Danny, really? No one completely lost their shit with excitement over the special forces unit that took down Osama bin Ladin??
Please.
I think Danny is saying that no one praised Seal Team Six or for being men. They were praised as Americans, as military, etc…but not specifically as men. Or at least, that’s what I think Danny’s trying to say. I wasn’t in the U.S. at the time so my perspective is a bit different.
Actually, I think we did hear a lot about “the brave men” of Seal Team Six.
But yeah, they didn’t say, “hooray for masculinity for killing Osama Bin Laden”!
But there was a lot about the men themselves. I mean, the team. We don’t know the actual men.
<i.But yeah, they didn’t say, “hooray for masculinity for killing Osama Bin Laden”!
And that’s my point.
Its apparently okay to generalize men when its something negative but when its something positive well then generalizations are unfair.
They were American.
They were soldiers.
They were anti-terrorists in the truest sense.
But they weren’t men.
You even see this in the talk over women birth control issues. A man says something against women and first thing that will be mentioned is his gender. A man comes out and supports it and the fact that he’s a man probably won’t even be brought up.
Excellent point, Danny. Those who talk a lot about gender very seldom have complimentary things to say about males when they do good or even great things. The contrast you drew is an excellent example of the difference.
It’s obvious they were men. Because if there had been a woman in the mix the media would have gone apeshit about how unusual that was and how emasculating it would have been to have a woman kill bin Laden.
We expect these heroes to be men.
We shame men when they fuck up, and we shame women when they fuck up, and we expect that when they are doing what’s “normal” (being heroes, being soldiers, being good fathers/being supportive, being good mothers) that we all know that’s the gender they are.
They were men in the services. Which indicated they were men.
I know you think women get celebrated every day for being women, but I certainly don’t experience that. It’s usually pointed out in articles (when women do something heroic or over the top) BECAUSE it’s not normal for women to be heroes.
Eh, this won’t go anywhere but people telling me I’m wrong.
I don’t expected to be celebrated for my gender, but my actions.
That being said, it would be a wonderful place to live where both men and women were celebrated for their actions for being the gender they were performing their actions instead of generalizing the negatives. I agree there. We don’t live in that world for anyone.
If a woman or a man or a person of color or a gay person “fucks up” then that’s always the qualifier…”see….that woman tut tut. See…that black man…tut tut.”
But there are millions of good men, women, people of color, gay folk etc who don’t get celebrated for that qualifier (gender, race). They are people doing good things.
I’d say that the qualifiers get used the more surprised we are that something good/heroic could come from that gender/race/orientation.
It could be framed that men are taken for granted, true. But it also could be framed that they are always considered hero-types, whereas other people are just not. Weak, less capable.
When have commentators ever said, “if there were men involved, not just women, this terrible event wouldn’t have occurred?”
When have commentators or others said that we need more men involved to improve the culture of an organization or group?
I’m kinda curious, do women get a level of negativity as a gender, eg when you see stories on violence it’s majority about males and you can get the old male-bashing stuff in it “men are violent” tropes, what would the female equiv be?
Bitches, golddiggers, sluts, bad mothers, sexless (but cheating up), withholding, demanding, too ocd about cleanliness etc etc etc.
abusive and neglectful of children.
I’ll have to try remember and read some news papers etc to spot any. Would be cool to have a site where they list them for the men and the women, common tropes in the news! Wonder if any exist….
Crazy, over-emotional, stupid (academically) but cunning (in a manipulative way), selfish, hysterical (still a word that gets used more for women than men), too beautiful (and thus fake), not beautiful enough (and thus worthless)
I think we need to celebrate bullies who change as well, show people that they can seek some redemption and at least change for the better. I have quite a lot of respect for people who change their abusive ways.
I remember when I was a boy, how bent out of shape parents and teachers were about dirt and rain – you’d swear we were playing in plague pits they way they went on. Playing in the creek and football in the mud is a healthy part of “boys being boys”. I disagree that bullying is the same; it is deliberate cruelty and not a healthy part of being a boy, because the bullies are protected by the adults and the targets of their bullying are not. Some adults probably don’t mean it to work out this way but it does all the same. Calling bullying “boys will be boys” is adult facilitation of violence amongst children.
I know I was changed by being bullied; there are days when I wish I had made different choices, I feel I betrayed the boy I was. I was capable of seriously harming my tormentors but I foolishly bought into the dogma of what a “good boy” did and didn’t do. The bullies were protected by my youthful delusions of what was right and by the actions of inept teachers. As a man, after decades since school, I still feel the rage settle on me when I recognise bullying, of me or of another.
As an adult I make different choices now, because I decide what is good for me. I offer bullies no redemption, only vengeance.
Perhaps you’re talking about how society equates “boys will be boys” with bullying — but just to be clear, that’s specifically NOT what I’m saying. In fact, I’m saying the same as you – that boys aren’t inherently troublesome and girls aren’t inherently good and pure and the keepers of virtue.
Also, I think “boys will be boys” is actually bad, too, because it leaves no room for little girls to play in the mud and get dirty. It implies that’s a “boy thing” and that is damaging to any girls who want the freedom to do all the things you listed above, or whatever else will get her dirty.
It also excludes boys who don’t like to get dirty from qualifying as “real boys”.
[i]It also excludes boys who don’t like to get dirty from qualifying as “real boys”.[/i]
For example, there’s the notion that boys who have no interest in competitive team sports aren’t “real boys.” This mindset was behind the traditional approach to mandatory boys’ P.E., which imposed nothing but sports (often without any instruction in the sports themselves) but did not offer any sort of exercise program for those boys who were the most in need.
Calvin and Hobbes: PE is state sponsored terrorism. I did what ever I had to to avoid being caught alone by the big kids during PE.
There is a huge difference between exercise and sports and a huge difference between exercise and team sports. For a long time, I thought I was no good at sports. Then I took up taekwondo and weight lifting. I found out that I wasn’t good at team sports. Funny thing is after I took up taekwondo and weight lifting, I was no longer the kid left out or the last one picked. It wasn’t like I got any better at team sports, but a lot of guys felt more confident having an “enforcer” on their team.
One day, there will be a discussion about boys and men that doesn’t include a gratuitous reference to girls and women. One day.
PS WIll you lead the way, Transhuman? You seem to always be pointing out how women are screwing things up for men and how everything is in reference to women. Doesn’t that make you just as guilty?
Great and probing essay, Joanna! Excellent question: “Who do we forgive?”
Last Yom Kippur (I’m not Jewish but my husband is…okay, whatever…), I wanted to forgive the people who hurt me and made me hold onto a terrible shame…a shame that was more terrible by the fact that I blamed myself for the crimes they committed against me….
(1) I forgave my HS science teacher in my head for trying to ask me out (after all grades were in) after 30 years of holding the scandal inside….I told another retired teacher about the incident and she acknowledged that his behavior towards female students back then was inappropriate….I knew he was crazy (bipolar, to be exact) plus he was long dead so I knew he couldn’t hurt me if I finally told someone….
(2) I am starting to forgive my ex-abuser (also in my head because he is still alive and very dangerous) because the anger and frustration was eating me alive…he was bipolar and sociopathic and alcoholic, while I was just an innocent girl who got in his way…it was a crime of opportunity….
I’m starting the process of forgiving them by acknowledging the truth of what happened (even if they can’t or won’t)….I’m not negating or trying to forget their crimes….but by forgiving them, I really mean that I can try to let go of the anger and the rage they have caused me and to stay safely away from such predators in the future….
You’re right,… you have to acknowledge the truth of what happened in order to move forward….my ex-abuser used to lie constantly…he always said that he couldn’t remember certain things (which I never believed)….it got to the point where I doubted the validity of everything he said….Is that the kind of person we want for president?
Judging someone ultimately as good or bad is something I am glad no man truly has a right to doing (even if they do anyway). There are just so many things about people we can’t see or know about them to be a proper judge. We can’t see the pain they have gone through and we can’t see the person they can be. I remember reading about Vanessa Williams when she was abused by an 18 year old woman, then reading other cases where even one perpetrator was as young as 9. I asked myself what could compel people so young to do something so evil? Then a magazine suggested that at some point in their lives these people were likely victims too. It changed my perception, instead of hating them (don’t get it twisted I still hate what they did and wouldn’t trust my kids to be around such a person), I felt bad for them. Like wow, they haven’t been able to heal from their wounds.
My cousin was a nurse and her husband was a manager in a factory so he worked days and she worked nights because it paid more. They didn’t have kids, but one summer she babysat for me and a girl living next door. The girl’s dad was no longer living at her house and her mom needed to go to work. My cousin had a three level house with a finished basement. The three bedrooms were on the top floor. My cousin loved kids. She thought they’d grow into the house.
My cousin took care of us, but would later sleep because she would have to go to work. We had the run of the house, but spent most of the time in the basement. We were best friends that summer. We were about the same size. She might have been slightly bigger and she was more aggressive than I. Toward the end of the summer she caught me by surprise. Pinned me to the ground, I didn’t think anything of it since we wrestled before, but then she did something I’m still unsure is forgivable.
I never told an adult, but was never friendly with her again. Looking back over 30+ years I think she knew something was wrong. She thought things would be better if I got even with her. We were best friends and I wanted to fix it too. So at her insistence I “got even with her” a few times. She kept insisting that one more time would fix it, but it never helped and we just stopped trying.
About 15 years later, I ran into a former classmate. I’d say that we spoke for less than 5 minutes. Oddly, one of the things he brought up was this girl. He told me she grew up hot and told me where she hangs out. Why would someone I hadn’t seen in 12 years or so spend any time imparting that piece of information? It didn’t immediately occur to me that he couldn’t have known my cousin was babysitting us because her mom sold their house and moved before the next school year started. She must have brought me up enough times during 15 years to make someone feel it was important enough to mention or she sent him back to the old neighborhood. I never went to see her.
35 or so years later and a bit more knowledgeable, I’m wondering if she was sexually abused by her father and that’s why he left. Maybe that’s why she did what she did. I guess her mother went back to work, but couldn’t afford to keep the house. I’m wondering if I was too hard on her and maybe she did care. Maybe she was truly sorry and to some extent I think she was desperate to fix the relationship. If something really bad happens to you, you’ll remember. If you did something really bad to someone, you’ll remember unless it was a routine occurrence or you just didn’t care about the person you did it to.
Truly shocking stuff, sorry to hear it.
“If something really bad happens to you, you’ll remember. If you did something really bad to someone, you’ll remember unless it was a routine occurrence or you just didn’t care about the person you did it to.”
Why don’t I remember then? Why is there something telling me something bad happened, but I can’t remember specifics? I see glimpses of my bullying experiences, but I just can’t remember most of it now. I see people saying over n over that “you’d remember it” and assertions that someone should remember it, am I broken?
I mean sorry you went through it, not sorry to hear it***
Well, it’s possible that the situations were so traumatic you shoved them down into the memory hole so you could cope. not totally forgotten, but put away so you could maintain.
Could be, the period of 2004-2008 was probably some extremely dark days in my life, it was when I pretty much hid from the world.
“Why don’t I remember then? Why is there something telling me something bad happened, but I can’t remember specifics? I see glimpses of my bullying experiences, but I just can’t remember most of it now. I see people saying over n over that “you’d remember it” and assertions that someone should remember it, am I broken?”
Sometimes you block stuff out. I don’t try to dwell on the details because it just makes me sad.
Yes. I’m shocked at the people here claiming it’s possible to just forget doing something so egregious. If you know it’s wrong, you’ll remember it. I suspect people who bully like that? Don’t have normal empathy responses.
Why is it shocking though? I’m guessing people are thinking that such an incident would really stand out for them in their life and that THEY would remember but is it even fair to use our own memory setup to set a standard for other peoples memory?
How long did this incident occur for? Was it a minute? Did he see it as mundane or nothing much to worry about? Did he think it’s just hair, who cares it’ll grow back? I’ve asked others about this and they agree it’s possible to forget it.
“”They talk about the fact that I played a lot of pranks in high school and they describe some that, well, you just say to yourself back in high school well I did some dumb things and if anybody was hurt by that or offended, obviously I apologise but overall high school years were a long time ago.”" Apparently this is what he said about it, which leads me to believe the hair cutting was probably seen as a prank, akin to siblings cutting each others hair and doing all kinds of mischief, I’ve seen people at my school get held down and drawn on with pen, etc.
Would I have remembered if I did something like that? Maybe, maybe not, if I did I’d feel terrible about it especially now knowing more about bullying, the effects, etc, but in highschool? I probably wouldn’t have thought it all that bad to be honest, I’m not sure many of my highschool would have seen it as particular bad, hell they probably would laugh. It might stay in some peoples memories or it might get forgotten the next day as a new prank was played, I guess it depends on the importance of it to the person remembering it.
I don’t think a person forgetting it after 50 years makes them bad, in fact I think it’s pathetic to assume people remember such stuff after 50 years. Remember this was probably seen as a pretty mundane assault, I find it hard to believe back then they’d really take much notice of it. If it were a vicious beating then yeah I think people might remember that more but someone getting their haircut? I dunno…that’s how many will hear it, not as an assault but as a prank. I doubt I’d remember pranks with my shitty memory, I’ve forgotten all kinds of horrible stuff involving me or others I’ve seen, stuff that I SHOULD remember according to other people but I don’t.
What makes the person bad though is firstly committing the act, if they don’t grow out of this behavior, if they never have remorse for it and do remember, or act like it’s no big deal after hearing the victim say it is. What I don’t like is his pretty shitty apology, I can sorta see what he means but I think he should do more to show remorse. I’d guess he still doesn’t see it as a major incident, or is keeping hush about it to avoid scandal, it’s hard to gauge since he’s a public face and needs to try keep his rep intact, which part of that would probably be avoid the negative press all together.
Now question for all those here showing outrage, were you born knowing this behaviour was wrong or was it taught to you? Do you only now realize how bad it is after reading about the negative behaviour of bullying and the stuff gay people have to deal with? Is it possible that others do not realize how bad it is through ignorance, not understanding how cutting off someones hair is as bad as this case is? Hell if I didn’t know he was screaming out I’d probably wonder how bad it was, I’d probably think it wasn’t as bad. But as a victim of bullying I can understand how events that look quite mundane on the outside can be hellishly detrimental to someone, but that’s only due to experience so I’m wondering how many others actually learn/gain that level of understanding?
Disclaimer, so far I’ve read it was a group of guys who pinned down this guy, cut his hair whilst he was crying. Am I missing any key elements?
“I’d guess he still doesn’t see it as a major incident, or is keeping hush about it to avoid scandal,”
That’s probably true to some extent. I think that people are concerned that he doesn’t think it was a big deal. The victim thought it was such a big deal that he remembered it for 50 years. I’ve been remembering stuff, since I started this journey into the MRM, and just recently started putting together how it relates. That incident in grade school probably led to the hyper sexual behavior during my high school retreat at a woman’s college. That probably led to the excessive drinking and getting drugged at the bar. All of that probably contributes to my fear of sexually aggressive women. I can’t say that the hair cutting victim had lasting damage, but I wouldn’t doubt it.
“Well, it’s possible that the situations were so traumatic you shoved them down into the memory hole so you could cope. not totally forgotten, but put away so you could maintain.”
“Yes. I’m shocked at the people here claiming it’s possible to just forget doing something so egregious. If you know it’s wrong, you’ll remember it. I suspect people who bully like that? Don’t have normal empathy responses.”
I am sorry Julie; which is it?
1) “not totally forgotten” he mentioned knowing bad things happened.
2) I’m not claiming he hasn’t forgotten it, I”m claiming if he did because he didn’t know it was wrong? Then he has faulty empathy responses.
3) If what he did when he pinned the kid down and cut his hair was so traumatic to him AS A BULLY (guilt, shame) that he doesn’t want to remember, fine. Then he should offer up a much more believable apology about how bullying is wrong and shameful, not “pranks.”
I believe he knows what he did and thought it wasn’t a big deal. Probably still doesn’t. And he knows other people know he did it too, because he changed his story about it from “I didn’t” to “I don’t really remember” and “Hey, it was a long time ago.”
I agree, dredging up this kind of stuff as a predictor of current behaviour is problematic as hell. I think there’s plenty of material in his adult life to criticise without going for the stuff he did when he was a child.
You can draw a straight line between his anti-gay bullying “as a child” and his politics today.
Non-sense
Rebut it then, Michael. I want to see actual debate, not naysaying.
Just as I thought ….. At first glance it appeared to be a good starting point to discuss “forgiveness” and understanding behaviors, it’s turned into a Mitt bashing political platform.
Waiting for the article about Obama and drug use …. As an addictions counselor, it’s an issue that’s close to my heart but then again, a persons past (long past) indiscretions don’t represent who they are today. As I try to get the kids that I work with to understand, their addiction is not who they are as a whole. When they look at all the other assets they have, drug use isn’t representative of who they are as a whole person. I’m a diabetic, people see me as Tom B, not a diabetic. Obama used drugs, what, we’re supposed to ignore all the rest or focus on what he once did?
What does any alleged drug use by Obama have to do with Mitt Romney claiming he “can’t remember” committing a hate-motivated physical assault? If Romney really didn’t remember, he’d deny it outright. That’s what people do when they don’t remember something.
Personally, I view being abusive as part and parcel of living a life of privilege. Mitt’s a frat boy. Frat boys are mean. Because they have never been reigned in.
Are you abusive? Because no doubt your life is far more privileged than that of someone in a third world country (I’m guessing you live in the first world areas
). Not ALL rich folk are mean though, around here the “privileged folk” tend to just work hard n save their money?
“Frat Boys are Mean!” Seriously? The class envy/warfare around here is getting really thick.
Yeah, I wonder if the use of the phrase “frat boy” is also meant to include the members of African-American college fraternities, fraternities for undergrad engineering majors, fraternities geared towards public service, etc. (Personally, I think fraternities/sororities have too large a presence on many campuses. I’m not saying this to defend the Greek system. But, there are many different kinds of fraternities.) Lord knows you don’t have to be a member of a fraternity to be a poorly behaved college student….
“Personally, I view being abusive as part and parcel of living a life of privilege.”
I don’t think my grade school friend was privileged. Granted it took 30+ years to reach this theory, but I’m seriously wondering if she had been in fact abused herself.
“Not just in the pain of regret, but in the exploration of how he ended up in such a situation. A naked, bold-faced stare into what created that need for affirmation, for acceptance, for passion or for excitement; whatever was broken inside of him that made him do something he knew could hurt his family. Because the quest to do better, to be better, is what I believe allows a person who has made mistakes—a person who’s done bad things—to continue to be a “good man.”
That’s redemption.”
Joanna – thank you. I committed some downright scurrilous acts six years ago. I deeply hurt those I professed to love most. Since then, I have spent hours of time in regret, suffering and therapy…wanting to believe that somewhere, residing in my spirit, dwelled a “good man.” I have wanted “second chances,” both from those who knew me when I was acting terribly, as well as those who knew nothing of me. I have desired for them to believe that I was, still, “a good man.” I have had the most difficult time selling the man in the mirror. “Second chances” are running at a premium these days – not too many takers. Your words may very well be the best, most encouraging synthesis I have come across to express my hopes in a self-broken life. Prayers for the sinners of this world, who seek redemption. May they and I find it, and may we grant it. Thank you, again.
Hey Don Draper,
I’m so glad that resonated with you. People who haven’t been involved in infidelity often don’t understand how complicated the issue is… Usually there’s a fundamental problem in the relationship, and then a fundamental problem in the cheater. Both need to be fixed concurrently in order for the relationship to survive and there is certainly no guarantee even there.
The way I see it, if you do the work and you get better, you heal the part of you that was broken and made you want to break your promise (not just to your spouse but also to yourself to be honest and faithful), then even if the marriage doesn’t work, you know you did the work and you will be stronger and healthier in the long run. Which is better for everyone in the end.
“I’m so glad that resonated with you. People who haven’t been involved in infidelity often don’t understand how complicated the issue is… Usually there’s a fundamental problem in the relationship, and then a fundamental problem in the cheater. Both need to be fixed concurrently in order for the relationship to survive and there is certainly no guarantee even there.”
I have been involved with infidelity (recieving end). And while i would agree it CAN point to a fundamental problem in the relatonship, I hardly agree it points to a fundamental problem with the ‘cheater’. More likley it points to a fundamental problem with the concept of long term monogamy. Cheating doesn’t make you a ‘bad man’ or ‘bad woman’; it makes you a human being.
Well, if you promise not to cheat and then you do, there is a problem somewhere. So don’t promise not to be monogamous at the beginning. But if you do promise (not you, but anyone) and you break that promise, there is a fundamental problem with the cheater, because you willingly agreed to something you knew you couldn’t agree to, in order to get the person you wanted. And in any event, it means that you agreed to a system you find faulty instead of being honest.
Thus polyamory is becoming even more popular.
And yet I know poly people who have been cheated on. They have full permission to do non monogamy, yet they cheat (lie, hide, break agreements). I’d say there’s a problem with that.
I agree that you have broken your word. One reason I have never cheated. Every. If I found myself in a situation where I was considering it I realized a) there was something missing in my relationship or b) there was something more I wanted from the other person. In any event it was clear that even if I didn’t cheat something was going to give at some point. So I *have* broken up with women when I realize that monogamy is not going to last. That doesn’t go over so well either but…
So I am not saying that not living up to your word is not important, naturally I believe in that deeply. But. If I were married with a house and kids and had promised 25 years ago to ‘foresake all others’ I can see that becoming an issue. So my point is that there might be a problem with asking people to be monogamous for 20-50 years.
If I am honest with myself and any woman in the future I might ‘end up with’ I’d have to say I’d be open to polyamory at some point. I’d never have thought I’d get to that point as I am a hopeless romantic but there is reality to content with too. One might say if you really loved your husband/wife you wouldn’t want to deprive them of every enjoying passion with another person again, especialluy since marriages evolve from romance/sex into friendship/companionship.
Sorry, I’m hopping in at the middle of a conversation…I might be covering ground already discussed…but yeah, if you know that you might end up wanting to be in a polyamorous relationship, then only have relationships with women who would be okay with a polyamorous relationship. Some people aren’t built for monogamy, so then don’t be monogamous. Some people aren’t built for polamory, so then don’t be polyamorous. Just don’t tell you’re partner(s) that you’re okay with it (whichever) when you aren’t. And if it changes, then at least be honest about it.
It’s far more complex than that. What you don’t seem to understand is that in our society, you’re not allowed to be poly. They are more misunderstood and discriminated against than homosexuals. As evidence, who exactly is fighting for their rights? Fighting for them to no longer be blighted, insulted, and looked down upon? Fighting for them to be allowed to marry?
Most people don’t even recognize it as legitimate, calling them habitual cheaters, dogs, etc. Hence, many of them don’t or can’t/won’t recognize it in themselves, even after having done it repeatedly. But, since society does not recognize it, they try and try again to be monogamous because they are told that everyone is, withstanding the insults and demeaning talk. It’s far more complex than you acknowledge here.
Julie:
It’s obvious they were men. Because if there had been a woman in the mix the media would have gone apeshit about how unusual that was and how emasculating it would have been to have a woman kill bin Laden.
It’s obvious that those Secret Service agents were men. But still that is what people focused on as they went apeshit over the “if there were more women….” angle. So with that seal team its fine that “just know” that they were men and no need for a “are men brave” angle but with those Secret Service agents it needed to be pointed out that they were men and there was a pressing need to talk about the intelligence of men?
We shame men when they fuck up, and we shame women when they fuck up, and we expect that when they are doing what’s “normal” (being heroes, being soldiers, being good fathers/being supportive, being good mothers) that we all know that’s the gender they are.
But when women are shamed because they are women is it right? I don’t think it is but yet and still we’re supposed to be okay with men being shamed because they are men.
I know you think women get celebrated every day for being women, but I certainly don’t experience that. It’s usually pointed out in articles (when women do something heroic or over the top) BECAUSE it’s not normal for women to be heroes.
And I know you think that since “We expect these heroes to be men.” that is the type of message that I get as a man but its not. The expectation, or presumption, is that men by virtue of being men are screw ups for whatever reason and that is the story that is worth telling. From there as men we are expected to do things in order to “correct ourselves”.
Problem is though when men do those things all of a sudden they don’t count and if we dare try to call attention to our gender about it we are “asking for cookies”, or however that goes. Basically setting up a situation of be good and be ignored or be bad and become the official representation of our entire gender.
Or is the desire for positive gender depictions to counteract the negative ones only a valid concern for women?
I don’t expected to be celebrated for my gender, but my actions.
Ideally this would be nice. I would go even further to say that it would be nice if people were celebrated/called out for their actions, not their gender. But as it stands now that’s not the way its happening. Like I said above about women’s birth control options. It would be nice if the men that speak against women would called out for just their words and actions but they aren’t the lead is usually his gender, but when a man that supports said options speak up the last thing that is brought is his gender.
It could be framed that men are taken for granted, true. But it also could be framed that they are always considered hero-types, whereas other people are just not. Weak, less capable.
Or it could be framed that men are “the villains” and therefore those are the only ones that should be brought up.
And speaking of villains I wonder if this were a female politician getting her past pulled out of the closet like this would people be going over the event with a fine toothed comb or would they be saying this is just another attempt at attacking a female politician.
It’s obvious that those Secret Service agents were men. But still that is what people focused on as they went apeshit over the “if there were more women….” angle. So with that seal team its fine that “just know” that they were men and no need for a “are men brave” angle but with those Secret Service agents it needed to be pointed out that they were men and there was a pressing need to talk about the intelligence of men?
Because men are assumed to be brave, thus it is normal to expect them to be taking folks like Bin Laden down. The agents behaved in a way that wasn’t noble or expected and thus was attacked for being a guy that put a bad name to the role they were playing
But when women are shamed because they are women is it right? I don’t think it is but yet and still we’re supposed to be okay with men being shamed because they are men.
I think if people fuck up they should probably be scolded yes. Women fuck up and wind up on the news too. And I guess they should. People should be chastised for their actions not their gender, not “because he’s a man!” or vice versa. All fuckupedness is pretty universal.
And I know you think that since “We expect these heroes to be men.” that is the type of message that I get as a man but its not. The expectation, or presumption, is that men by virtue of being men are screw ups for whatever reason and that is the story that is worth telling. From there as men we are expected to do things in order to “correct ourselves”.
And women feel this too. That women have to police each other and themselves. I believe you feel that way, why can’t you believe me?
Problem is though when men do those things all of a sudden they don’t count and if we dare try to call attention to our gender about it we are “asking for cookies”, or however that goes. Basically setting up a situation of be good and be ignored or be bad and become the official representation of our entire gender.
Or is the desire for positive gender depictions to counteract the negative ones only a valid concern for women?
Nope, I think all humans need to be celebrated for their actions when they are good, and not cast as “black” or “gay” or “woman” or “man” when they are bad. Sadly, we live in a world where we like to classify things.
Ideally this would be nice. I would go even further to say that it would be nice if people were celebrated/called out for their actions, not their gender. But as it stands now that’s not the way its happening. Like I said above about women’s birth control options. It would be nice if the men that speak against women would called out for just their words and actions but they aren’t the lead is usually his gender, but when a man that supports said options speak up the last thing that is brought is his gender.
Or it could be framed that men are “the villains” and therefore those are the only ones that should be brought up.
It could be framed however any of us want it to confirm our bias I guess. No winning in an conversation like this other than everyone feels shit on at this point.
And speaking of villains I wonder if this were a female politician getting her past pulled out of the closet like this would people be going over the event with a fine toothed comb or would they be saying this is just another attempt at attacking a female politician.
If I knew she was a bully? Acting like this? Or hurting people? I’d want to know. That’s just me though.
ause men are assumed to be brave, thus it is normal to expect them to be taking folks like Bin Laden down. The agents behaved in a way that wasn’t noble or expected and thus was attacked for being a guy that put a bad name to the role they were playing.
I’m not fully convinced it was because they acted in an unexpected way if for no other reason than the fact that again it wasn’t how the agents f’d up it was how men f’d up and how things would be better if more women were around.
hink if people fuck up they should probably be scolded yes. Women fuck up and wind up on the news too. And I guess they should. People should be chastised for their actions not their gender, not “because he’s a man!” or vice versa. All fuckupedness is pretty universal.
Agreed.
women feel this too. That women have to police each other and themselves. I believe you feel that way, why can’t you believe me?
I’ll admit that was mostly from you starting off with “I know you think….” in your last comment. A bit aggressive on my part. Sorry.
Nope, I think all humans need to be celebrated for their actions when they are good, and not cast as “black” or “gay” or “woman” or “man” when they are bad. Sadly, we live in a world where we like to classify things.
That wasn’t a comment on how you think, but rather how people on a large scale think. It would be nice if you representing all people on this but you don’t.
It could be framed however any of us want it to confirm our bias I guess. No winning in an conversation like this other than everyone feels shit on at this point.
Fair enough.
If I knew she was a bully? Acting like this? Or hurting people? I’d want to know. That’s just me though.
I’m glad you do. But most people are still stuck in “Girls/women don’t do stuff like that” mode that either such a story would be largely ignored or it would be spun to look like she’s because attacked because she’s a woman.
Julie you seem to be all over the place here. We don’t laud ‘men’ when they do something as amazing and brave as Bin Laden because ‘we expect men to be brave’? Heck if we expect that type of bravery from people just because they are men we should be having Man Parades every day. You might expect it and it might be ok with you to simply dismiss it as just another act of bravery by men which we expect but I don’t.
On the other hand when you respond to women f’ing up suddenly you ‘guess they should be’ and as happens a lot in these conversations we are suddenly back to turning it into ‘it should just be about people though’. No such consideration was shown for the Secret Service Agents.
It is a nice spin to put on things; we all know men are brave and so don’t even bother mentioning how great men are when they save us but do when they let us down from that ideal (we can discuss another time the pressure of THOSE expectations). But that is not the reality of things; We didn’t give men credit for Bin Laden kill because that would have been sexist, it was our ‘service people’ and we brought up the gender thing with the Secret Service because it played into out society/media’s obsession with pointing out how deficient men are in comparison to women.
THis happened with the banking collapse too; all of a sudden the very women we weren’t supposed to discriminate in in finance because they were ‘as good as men’ now suddenly would have been our salvation if they’d been in those same positions simply because they are women; because they ‘care more about people’ and ‘think more about society and families and children’.
This happens when women write articles (Atlantic Monthly?) about how great inventions will be now that women are involved because unlike men they don’t just bring brawn to the table they are able to work in groups, multi-task and concentrate for long stretches on problems. This from a woman writing an article on a laptop computer, powered by the internet and electricity for God’s sake.
This happens when we hear so often it is almost a cliche that we’d have less wars if women were in charge, how women are a civilizing force.
The disparity between the coverage of the Special Forces and the Secret Service didn’t come from some innate respect for men’s bravery and nobility; it came from just the opposite.
Human beings do laudatory acts.
Human beings fuck things up.
Women in power would probably fuck things up as much as men in power. They might do it differently, but they’d create violence, problems, issues. People fuck up when they get power.
They’d also do good things.
Women have had a hand in great discoveries. I’m sure there were loads of gay people and people of color too, who didn’t get credit.
No one who is an everyday hero gets lauded nearly enough as they should be.
Men are treated as disposable units, I agree on this, that’s the very evil flip side of the normalization of men being the ones in line of fire as heroes.
The media LOVES scandal, page views, clicks, inflammatory titles and 24/7 titillation. Thus SS and prostitution was a hotter ticket then Bin Laden. They can use what they have (generalizing) to get people riled up and sharing the story.
I don’t have anything else to say to you today Michael, got stuff to do. Have a good one.
I’m happy to know those are your opinions Julie. Clearly they are not society at large’s opinions. Somehow that seems to be an impossible thing to acknowledge here. Anyway enjoy your stuff…
This is way off the subject, but I couldn’t help but notice in the article that the moms seem to assume that their sons are or will be heterosexual, or at least they will be attracted to women. (Of course, a “cheerleader” can also be male, but I suspect the term assumes a female cheerleader.) Am I reading too much into the language?
Yeah, but pretty much every article about parenting or relationships is a bit on the heteronormative side. Seeing as this isn’t an article about how to talk to your kids about relationships, or something like that, I don’t see it as such a big deal. You gotta read pretty deep into it to pick up on it.
Fair enough. Maybe I was being too quick to find fault.
I think maybe the heteronormativity was a little more notable to me because of the nature of the bullying that Romney is accused of. Basically, I was wondering out loud, perhaps there are ways in which Romney’s alleged bullying has some things in common with what the article says “we want for our sons”….
Well, this article is discussing bits and bobs of gender non-conformity…or at least of re-examining gender assumptions. And if Romney’s bullying was based on perceived homosexuality…well usually the reason for that perception is because of gender non-conformity. Our society still has a really hard time getting it into it’s collective noggins that gender performance and sexual orientation are not the same thing, and that one doesn’t indicate the other.
But mostly, I saw the heteronormative bits in this article as admissions to just that. The bits where she mentions the cheerleader, for example, is sort of admitting the specific ways in which society accepts traditionally masculine behaviour in men…and part of ‘traditional’ masculine behaviour is desiring sex with women.
“and part of ‘traditional’ masculine behaviour is desiring sex with women.”
Yes nature likes it that way. Which is not to say that desiring sex with men is somehow ‘unatural’ but there is no reason to act as if men wanting women is a ‘tradition’ passed on by our societies / tribes / civilizations. You could nuke the planet and leave 10 babies and bottles alone; when they grow up they are going to want to have sex with one another. Will there be experimentation and will there be 1 or 2 who gravitate towards the same sex? Of course. But the over-riding sexual drive will be men towards women and vice-versa. That’s how we get from 10 to 100 to 100000. Otherwise we die.
Not being glib here at all about homesexuality btw Heather, I just don’ think we should act like such a core/primal part ourselves as reproductiive drive should be considered ‘traditional’.
Yeah you’re misunderstanding what I’m saying. Sexual orientation and gender performance are two separate things. Gender is the cultural baggage associated with biological sex (basically). Sexual orientation is which gender(s) you are sexually attracted to (basically). Traditional gender norms often conflated these two things. A man was not a man unless he had sex with a woman. A woman was not a woman unless she was married to a man. So like in the play/movie Albert Nobbs…we’re introduced to Glenn Close’s character. She’s physically female, but she lives the life of a man. Throughout the entire film though, we’re never quite sure whether Nobbs is a really butch lesbian or a transman (in part because those identities didn’t exist yet). But so, Nobbs starts courting this woman, but it seems as though Nobbs isn’t actually attracted to the woman. Rather, Nobbs is pursuing a wife because that’s what men did at the time…men had wives. So that’s an example of sexual orientation and gender performance being conflated. The stereotype that gay men are somehow more feminine…that’s another example of sexual orientation and gender performance being confused.
So when I say that part of defined traditional masculine behaviour is desiring sex with a woman…my point is that the two (sexual orientation and gender performance) are confused and mixed together in traditional western society. In the article Joanna is listing a bunch of perceived masculine behaviours that society encourages in boys. Included in this, though Joanna doesn’t mention it explicitly, is the desire for men to be attracted to women…the assumption that ‘real’ men are attracted to women…that somehow being gay makes you less masculine. Do you get what I’m saying?
Julie,
I agree with you on your initial statement, which is a clear indication that you are right this time. LOL!
Specifically, this statement: “Usually there’s a fundamental problem in the relationship, and then a fundamental problem in the cheater.”
Assuming that the “cheater” is truly monogamous, not poly person trying to live a monogamous life, certainly, either the relationship should either never have been entered into, it’s currently broken, or at least damaged such that the emotional connection is weak or non-existent.
A key to preventing sexual infidelity is to know who you are marrying. You should know the person you are marrying extremely well before you get married, such that there are no major surprises after marriage. You should have spent countless hours discussing and agreeing on the fundamental, important things in life. Your value systems and outlook on life should match reasonably well so that you aren’t at odds on this and that all the time.
Even the little annoying things, such as housekeeping and spending need to be on the table and absolutely agreed upon before even agreeing to get married. You should be 100% convinced that this is the person you can’t live without, and know that in BOTH your heart and your mind. If you need to change him/her in some way in order to be happy, it’s a mistake and probably won’t work out for mutual happiness.
Many people don’t take all of those steps before marriage, and end up being unhappy, which leads to them looking for that emotional fulfillment elsewhere.
I feel like it’s my birthday and Christmas and the lottery winnings all in one!!!!
Well, shoot, you mean I shouldn’t go into marriage like I’m in a romantic comedy? Heck, how is anyone in the entertainment industry going to make any money showing deep, comprehensive conversations before the wedding scene?
There’s much more money to be made giving bad relationship models through pop culture and then selling self-help books and charging for marriage counseling once the marriage implodes. This “talking things through beforehand” is going to lay people off work and deepen the recession….. Why do you hate America so much?…. : – )