Skip to main content

Abusers Are The Weakest of the Weak

I was informed just last night that a dear old friend of mine was abused by her then-boyfriend. This wasn't the first such occasion for this. Unfortunately, she accepted his apology after the first time he resorted to violence against her. I sincerely hope with all my being that she doesn't open the door for him again.

Unfortunately, I myself, have been a victim of abuse, when I was an 8-year old boy, an older man took advantage of me. I've known other people whom have been victims of one kind of abuse or another, whether it be physical, sexual, verbal, emotional, mental or psychological.

No matter what I think of the person or how disgraceful I believe his or her actions are, I try to place myself inside their shoes (not literally, of course) and attempt to garner a better understanding of why they think and act as they do. The same holds true for abusers. Having been a victim of it myself, which has had its effects, even 22 years after the fact, this is difficult for me to do, but I still try.

Some people, upon hearing of abuse, immediately asked if he or she was abused before. While I can understand that immediate reaction, I think it draws a false generalization. While it's true that most abusers were at one time abused themselves, most of those whom were abused at one point or another in their lives never abuse another. If it is true that the abuser was in fact abused themselves, some then like to use that as an excuse by saying, "It was the only way they were taught growing up." I can understand that "logic" in very rare scenarios, perhaps in cultures where education isn't commonplace. However, especially in today's ever-growing technologically savvy world, there's so much information that can be attained on a daily basis from a number of different outlets, that it's very difficult for me to understand this form of "logic" in most every case.

As always, I believe there to be a multitude of factors which contribute to an abuser's mindset and actions. Upbringing is definitely one, as are genetics, as are the people whom one surrounds him or herself with, education, etc. Two commonalities I've noticed in abusers are that of insecurity and an inability (or refusal perhaps) to deal with conflict.

Truly, how weak is it for a person to feel the need to resort to violence on a person he or she believes they love? There's that third for power, for a sense of authority, to feel superior to another which seems to contribute to many such individuals' actions and due to their insecurity, this is done through violence. Also, when a problem arises, when communication is essential for two people to come to an understanding and hopefully a compromise, abusers don't seem to know how to deal with it, especially if they're in the wrong. Instead of talking things out and making peace with whatever issue(s) may be present at that time, they try to place a final stamp on those issues, on the communicating of them, through violent means. Of course, this is a very stupid thought-process, as violence won't put an end to the before-mentioned problems and it also brings about another load of them. Unfortunately, the victim may feel very weak due to all of this and feel that he/she deserves the treatment they received, which can result in them not moving forward and the cycle continuing for a much longer duration.

Having been abused myself, I feel awful for any and everyone whom has had to go through something similar. I wish that no person was ever abused in any manner. However, even if a person was abused at one point in their lives, that gives them no right to impose that same level of hatred and violence on another. As far as I see it, those whom abuse, are themselves weak. They may attempt to showcase their supposed superiority to another through violence, but through these very actions, illustrate just how weak they are inside and when they're finally alone, with nothing but pillows and walls to punch, they will curl up and cry in realizing just how pathetic and weak they really are.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun...

Mentioned on Crooks and Liars and Hinterland Gazette!

Due to some tweets of mine, I got mentioned on the following two sites (all my tweets can be viewed here -  https://twitter.com/CraigRozniecki ): https://crooksandliars.com/2019/04/trump-gives-stupid-advice-george https://hinterlandgazette.com/2019/03/istandwithschiff-is-trending-after-donald-trump-led-gop-attack-on-adam-schiff-backfires-spectacularly.html

Face guarding is legal in college football and the NFL

I just wanted to remind fans and announcers especially, that face guarding is legal in both college football and the NFL. It all comes down to contact. So long as a defender doesn't make contact with an intended receiver, he doesn't have to turn around to play the ball. I can't tell you how many times every week I hear announcers talk about face guarding being a penalty. It's not. I even heard one announcer yesterday state, "If the defender doesn't turn around and play the ball, the ref will call pass interference every time." That's simply not true. Courtesy of referee Bill LeMonnier, he says this with regard to the rule at the college level (answered on 8/12/13): "NCAA rules on pass interference require the face guarding to have contact to be a foul. No contact, no foul by NCAA rules." In the NFL rule book, this is written:  "Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to: (a) Contact by a ...