I'm just going to drop a little Malcolm X in this thread.
“Usually when people are sad, they don't do anything. They just cry over their condition. But when they get angry, they bring about a change.” ― Malcolm X
I could almost see the relief of her kids in that obit. They have every right to be as angry as they are.
They do have a right to be angry. I just think there is a better place to release that anger. While I understand why they did, I personally never would do that. Also, that is fine you disagree.
I think judging someone for reacting the way they did to an abusive parent's death is just wrong. It doesn't matter if you wouldn't do it. You have this attitude that what they did was somehow wrong but have nothing to back that up.
I think anger is healthy. It all depends on how you handle it, though. My stepmom used to terrorize me and my dad let her. He still does. Yet anger gave me the strength to push back. Sometimes, you can't calmly tell people to leave you alone. "Why would you ever say that?" doesn't always work. Sometimes, you need to get a little angry. There is nothing wrong with that.
That being said, you don't use that anger to hurt others. You use it constructively. You can't just fly off the handle all the time. Sometimes, you have to take that anger and push it towards making sure shit gets done. Like, when a teacher turns a blind eye to your child being bullied. You don't just raise hell. You raise hell methodically.
All of this is reminding me of a conversation I had with my grandpa (who was the least angry guy I've ever met) back in middle school about a paper I had to write for black history month. It always stood out to me that he said something along the lines of people always talk about what a great man MLK was because he was able to bring about change in such a peaceful manner, when they're neglecting to mention that Malcolm X showed them what the other option for change was.
Basically that people will prefer and go the peaceful route for change only if they know that continuing with the status quo will make that peaceful option possibly morph into a less peaceful one.
Plus, MLK was angry. Just look at the Letter from Birmingham Jail. He was pissed. Being angry is not incompatible with nonviolent protest.
"We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed." -MLK
I think it's less about FEELING anger and more what you do with that feeling. It's how you deal with that anger that is important, not whether you feel it at all.
Taking that anger and going out and killing someone? Not good.
Taking that anger and channeling into social change work or advocacy? Good.
Exactly this. I see anger as a fuel. Fuel can be good and bad - anger can spur change for the better, or demoralize and/or endanger people.
I think people generally say to "let go of anger" because they can only think of/see the bad things that come from anger, but are failing to see the good things.
Post by pixelpassion on Sept 11, 2013 14:30:56 GMT -5
This reminds me of a conversation I had with my therapist after I started seeing her about my child abuse related complex trauma. She always used to ask me why I didn't get angry, and why I was so afraid of anger.
I think in comparison to the despair and shame that the children in the obit could have been feeling (which are very disabling), anger can propel someone to action and to take control of their lives. It can be consuming as well, but I think expressing anger is healthier than turning it inward into self-loathing.
I never said they had to lie. They didn't have to write anything at all. They could have simply put the day she died or even said she is survived for no one.
But why?
Out of respect? Something else?
No, not out of respect. The abuser does not deserve respect. However, if they are using that for a message to those that have been abused, why not just make an article about it. More people will see the article than the obit. They can also talk about it during their talks to help those who have been abused. There are better and more effective ways to release that anger rather than putting it in some person's obit.
All of this is reminding me of a conversation I had with my grandpa (who was the least angry guy I've ever met) back in middle school about a paper I had to write for black history month. It always stood out to me that he said something along the lines of people always talk about what a great man MLK was because he was able to bring about change in such a peaceful manner, when they're neglecting to mention that Malcolm X showed them what the other option for change was.
Basically that people will prefer and go the peaceful route for change only if they know that continuing with the status quo will make that peaceful option possibly morph into a less peaceful one.
I had never considered this. If your grandfather is still around, please tell him that he inspired a stranger on the internet.
I never said they had to lie. They didn't have to write anything at all. They could have simply put the day she died or even said she is survived for no one.
She couldn't respect them, so why in the hell would they respect her? Why was it so shocking they wrote the truth?
All of this is reminding me of a conversation I had with my grandpa (who was the least angry guy I've ever met) back in middle school about a paper I had to write for black history month. It always stood out to me that he said something along the lines of people always talk about what a great man MLK was because he was able to bring about change in such a peaceful manner, when they're neglecting to mention that Malcolm X showed them what the other option for change was.
Basically that people will prefer and go the peaceful route for change only if they know that continuing with the status quo will make that peaceful option possibly morph into a less peaceful one.
Plus, MLK was angry. Just look at the Letter from Birmingham Jail. He was pissed. Being angry is not incompatible with nonviolent protest.
"We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed." -MLK
Post by Aristotle on Sept 11, 2013 14:33:38 GMT -5
I think anger can be an incredible motivator for good change but I also think that there is a tipping point at which it consumes you. The reason I feel like those who wrote the obit are past the tipping point is because while they've channeled their anger into a constructive project of raising awareness against child abuse and helping victims, it still feels like they are letting it consume them, especially the parts of the obit about how they hope the mother is paying for the injustices she committed. I don't feel like that degree of anger and hate is good.
I never said they had to lie. They didn't have to write anything at all. They could have simply put the day she died or even said she is survived for no one.
of course they didn't have to write anything. but WHY is it inappropriate to speak the truth? she's dead. she's not reading it. after 80 fucking years, isn't it okay for someone to speak about who she really was?
it's just more shoving under the rug. eff that.
I never said it is inappropriate to speak the truth. I just said that there is a better place to do it.
I never said they had to lie. They didn't have to write anything at all. They could have simply put the day she died or even said she is survived for no one.
but why? she deserved no such courtesy or respect. This was an opportunity for them to tell her true story and to bring publicity to the problem of child abuse. Plus secrecy is a huge part of the abuse cycle and if this is how they chose to break it more power to them.
Last Edit: Sept 11, 2013 14:35:56 GMT -5 by pedanticwench
I have all the books I could need, and what more could I need than books? I shall only engage in commerce if books are the coin. -- Catherynne M. Valente
I think anger can be an incredible motivator for good change but I also think that there is a tipping point at which it consumes you. The reason I feel like those who wrote the obit are past the tipping point is because while they've channeled their anger into a constructive project of raising awareness against child abuse and helping victims, it still feels like they are letting it consume them, especially the parts of the obit about how they hope the mother is paying for the injustices she committed. I don't feel like that degree of anger and hate is good.
Good for whom? This is weirdly controlling, thinking that you get to set some sort of cutoff line for how much anger is too much when it comes to the well-being of some strangers about whom you know nothing except that they are channeling their feelings by trying to stop child abuse.
No, not out of respect. The abuser does not deserve respect. However, if they are using that for a message to those that have been abused, why not just make an article about it. More people will see the article than the obit. They can also talk about it during their talks to help those who have been abused. There are better and more effective ways to release that anger rather than putting it in some person's obit.
In this particular instance, the obit was way more far reaching than an article would've been. Assuming they could've even found someone to publish it.
I think anger can be an incredible motivator for good change but I also think that there is a tipping point at which it consumes you. The reason I feel like those who wrote the obit are past the tipping point is because while they've channeled their anger into a constructive project of raising awareness against child abuse and helping victims, it still feels like they are letting it consume them, especially the parts of the obit about how they hope the mother is paying for the injustices she committed.I don't feel like that degree of anger and hate is good.
You don't have to feel like it. It always blows my mind that people can't seem to understand that just because they don't "feel like" something is right or reasonable or true that magically means it isn't. I hope she IS paying for the injustices she committed. There are entire religions built on the idea that if you are a bad person in life you will be tormented in death. This is not a new concept, and it's not a concept that somehow signals a tipping point into unmitigated and consuming anger.
All Christians and Hindus are consumed by their anger!
No, not out of respect. The abuser does not deserve respect. However, if they are using that for a message to those that have been abused, why not just make an article about it. More people will see the article than the obit. They can also talk about it during their talks to help those who have been abused. There are better and more effective ways to release that anger rather than putting it in some person's obit.
I'm willing to bet the obit is getting more attention than another article or blog post about child abuse.
exactly this is effective because it's shockingly outside the norm for an obit. it's a hard slap in the face of the reality of the long term effects of child abuse in a way another article or blog wouldn't be.
of course they didn't have to write anything. but WHY is it inappropriate to speak the truth? she's dead. she's not reading it. after 80 fucking years, isn't it okay for someone to speak about who she really was?
it's just more shoving under the rug. eff that.
I never said it is inappropriate to speak the truth. I just said that there is a better place to do it.
Nope. I think that's the perfect place to do it. An obit is a notice of death and a brief blurb about their life. You suck at life so much that the people closest to you hate your guts? You get a shitty obit. The end.
I think anger can be an incredible motivator for good change but I also think that there is a tipping point at which it consumes you. The reason I feel like those who wrote the obit are past the tipping point is because while they've channeled their anger into a constructive project of raising awareness against child abuse and helping victims, it still feels like they are letting it consume them, especially the parts of the obit about how they hope the mother is paying for the injustices she committed. I don't feel like that degree of anger and hate is good.
Good for whom? This is weirdly controlling, thinking that you get to set some sort of cutoff line for how much anger is too much when it comes to the well-being of some strangers about whom you know nothing except that they are channeling their feelings by trying to stop child abuse.
No, I don't feel as though I get to set some sort of line. I'm conflicted on the issue, as was fairly evident by my post above. I think I'm letting personal experiences influence my opinion on this too much. My mom was horribly abused by her father for her entire childhood and she still really struggles with anger from it. I constantly worry about her and wish that she could feel happy but I know her anger clouds other emotions. She is an incredible mom and made a very conscious decision to be different than her father but it still really hurts her. Sorry if I'm not being clear.
No, not out of respect. The abuser does not deserve respect. However, if they are using that for a message to those that have been abused, why not just make an article about it. More people will see the article than the obit. They can also talk about it during their talks to help those who have been abused. There are better and more effective ways to release that anger rather than putting it in some person's obit.
I'm willing to bet the obit is getting more attention than another article or blog post about child abuse.
It will because of an article. Not everyone reads obits. Not everyone feels that obits are necessary. I don't. I don't want an obit. People write books/memoirs. That will get attention. There are a lot of ways to bring attention to child abuse besides putting it in an obit.
I'm willing to bet the obit is getting more attention than another article or blog post about child abuse.
It will because of an article. Not everyone reads obits. Not everyone feels that obits are necessary. I don't. I don't want an obit. People write books/memoirs. That will get attention. There are a lot of ways to bring attention to child abuse besides putting it in an obit.
but the article is getting the attention it is because its about an obit, not because its about child abuse. do you really believe it would've been posted here if it was some random article about child abuse?
I'm willing to bet the obit is getting more attention than another article or blog post about child abuse.
It will because of an article. Not everyone reads obits. Not everyone feels that obits are necessary. I don't. I don't want an obit. People write books/memoirs. That will get attention. There are a lot of ways to bring attention to child abuse besides putting it in an obit.
If most people don't read them & you don't think they're necessary, why is this obit inappropriate?
Post by pixelpassion on Sept 11, 2013 14:50:36 GMT -5
I don't necessarily think that anger has to be divorced from all reason. The angriest moment of my life had a hell of a lot of reason.
When I was 17, I called the cops on my dad when I had had enough of the abuse. My thanks for not staying silent was a meeting with a CPS worker that proceeded to tell me that I was just having a temper tantrum and that I was a spoiled brat who was wasting her time. I had SO much fucking RAGE at this woman. But I took that rage and I'm now in social work as a therapist for maltreated children to make sure that bullshit doesn't happen to anyone in my care. Harnessing my anger is the best thing that has ever happened to me.
I think anger is healthy. It all depends on how you handle it, though. My stepmom used to terrorize me and my dad let her. He still does. Yet anger gave me the strength to push back. Sometimes, you can't calmly tell people to leave you alone. "Why would you ever say that?" doesn't always work. Sometimes, you need to get a little angry. There is nothing wrong with that.
That being said, you don't use that anger to hurt others. You use it constructively. You can't just fly off the handle all the time. Sometimes, you have to take that anger and push it towards making sure shit gets done. Like, when a teacher turns a blind eye to your child being bullied. You don't just raise hell. You raise hell methodically.
I like this. I think the difference between destructive and productive anger is how well it accomplishes the overall goal. This is really simplistic, and I understand that unhealthy people can have an overall destructive goal and then destructive anger is then perfectly appropriate and that's kind of crappy. But in general with healthy people who are experiencing the emotion of anger, a positive result matters. The "problem" with this is that no one can decide that overall goal for someone else. I think that's why it's extra infuriating when an oppressing group calls an oppressed group angry, because ultimately the oppressing group benefits from the status quo and can not fully grasp the oppressed group's overall goal and judge the productivity of their anger.
For example, I have a friend who recently came out of a cult like church environment and suffered child abuse. He is working through a lot of anger right now. Sometimes I think it is a destructive amount of anger, but ultimately I think he benefits more right now from being allowed to experience his feelings more so than from having to control them. There are a lot of people who are calling him out on his anger and suggesting that it is destructive and harmful because they don't understand his goal of just getting to have his feelings go unmanipulated right now. He's not making poor life decisions, he is in a healthy relationship, he is a good friend, he is just very vocal and unforgiving in his anger right now and that makes people uncomfortable. But it's a process he needs to go through to feel like he has a say in his own thoughts again, regardless of how other people perceive that.
I don't know if that made any sense, I guess the TL;DR is that we can not police feelings for people.
I'm willing to bet the obit is getting more attention than another article or blog post about child abuse.
It will because of an article. Not everyone reads obits. Not everyone feels that obits are necessary. I don't. I don't want an obit. People write books/memoirs. That will get attention. There are a lot of ways to bring attention to child abuse besides putting it in an obit.
I don't want to write a book about being abused. I don't want to relive that. I don't want to be known as Steph who was abused by her mother and father. I want to say "She was an evil bitch and I hope she rots in hell. Memorial contributions in her name can be sent to some charity that helps abused kids." Frankly, that's all the attention she deserves. She doesn't deserve 150 pages detailing how awful she was when one clean concise blurb sums it up.
I'd consider a billboard as an alternative though.
And I'm saying that no, I don't think anger is reasonable. I think it's a totally reasonable reaction, but anger very rarely, in its purest form, has reason or coherence at its core. I think it can absolutely be a motivator, and what one decides to do with that anger is of the most import, but in and of itself no, I don't think anger is reasonable. By its nature it can't be.
And I'm speaking of negativity in the sense that it's the opposite of joy. I do not in any way think anger should be done away with, nor could it ever be.
I guess I don't get why it HAS to be reasonable, or why that even matters. If people only did things that were reasonable or logical we'd all be Spock.
I never said it is inappropriate to speak the truth. I just said that there is a better place to do it.
But if you think it's okay to speak the truth, why not the obit? I'm genuinely curious. You said that the abuser shouldn't be protected. Why shouldn't the truth come out in an obit. Written word is written word whether it be a newspaper article, online forum or obit. What gives the obit a special ranking?
An obit has no special ranking. Obits are meaningless to a lot of people. The only reason people write obits is so they can have closure. I think it is weird. Nobody is going to feel the same the people writing the obits feel. Nobody is going to care as much as the person writing it. Sure it may get some attention, but not always the attention that person wanted.
But why does it matter if it isn't "reasonable"? Why does it have to be?
No emotions are based on reason.
Ding ding ding! Yes, I said this earlier, that joy isn't reasonable either.
IMO, what comes to you when the anger, that raw emotion, subsides? That's what is useful. Rage is very rarely useful, because it's unreasonable and incoherent emotion. But what comes afterwards can be extremely motivating.
Okay, this makes more sense. I was starting to get annoyed that you were being led down a side path of something that wasn't even remotely what you were saying, because your initial comments about how anger makes the wronged party (or group) hard to approach and only leads to the balance of power tipping too far in the other direction was worth discussing, IMO.