An example of unkind deeds and cover-ups (being a shit) in regard to criminal matters is a father who commits incest on his daughter. When the daughter tells her mother who in turn calls the police, the father cover ups by saying that the mother refuses to have sex with him and the daughter repeatedly made passes at him.
He succeeds at being a shit when others believe him. In some cases, mothers and daughters accept the blame. They have internalized the beliefs with which the father defends himself and for which others excuse him.
To this day, some victims of sexual abuse and rape are silent out of fear that they will be held responsible. See Patricia Francisco, Telling: A Memoir of Rape and Recovery (New York: Harper Collins, 1999) and Surinder Jaswal (2005). Child and Adolescent Sexual Abuse in Health Facilities, Indian Journal of Social Work, 66 (4), 395-413, 2005.
Other sources of my understandings of what it means to be a shit come from my job as a social worker. I have had direct experience with many children who have experienced abuse and neglect and perpetrators have refused to take responsibility for their behaviors. They prefer to let the children feely as if they did something wrong and they deserved or caused these adversities.
My work with survivors of sexual and physical assault of women provides additional background to the present investigation. Society assigns blame to survivors for their own assaults and thus colludes in foisting on victims responsibility for their own rapes and battering. What did she do to provoke it? Why didn’t she kick him you know where? Why didn’t she just leave? These examples hardly do justice to victim-blaming statements that shift focus from those who truly are responsible. Such a diverting of attention lets perpetrators off the hook. Then they are free to abuse someone else, or to re-abuse the victim who is now silenced.
Monday, May 28, 2007
Stay the Course When You Get Blow Back
Former President Jimmy Carter provided of model of what not to do when enactors blow back--that is, when they have harsh or soft responses to the objections of others to their unkind deeds.
Mr. Carter was unprepared for the responses he got when he famously criticized the administration of George W. Bush as the “worst in history” in terms of its “adverse impact around the world.”
A Bush White House spokesperson had an immediate harsh comeback, which was a cover-up that diverted attention from Carter’s criticism. Tony Fratto said Carter’s words are “sad and reckless evidence” that Carter is “increasingly irrelevant.”
This is hardball. Fratto’s words must have been a direct hit at the hot buttons of the aging statesman. The next day in a nationally televised interview, Carter tried to take back some of he had said. In this electronic age, there was no way he could. The day after Carter’s attempt to roll back his words, President Bush delivered a soft cover-up when he said his (Bush's) “actions are based on what’s best for this country.”
Fratto said of Carter’s rollback on his criticism of Bush, this “just highlights the importance of being careful in choosing your words.” Fratto chose his own words of criticism so carefully Machiavelli would be proud.
In actuality,Carter had a point. At the time he criticized the Bush administration, the United States was in fact held in disfavor throughout the world for its foreign policy. Had Bush and members of his administration chosen to be accountable, they would have said that they take the words of an esteemed elder statesman seriously.
They would have promised to look into the truth of Jimmy Carter's words and report back to national and international audiences.
Instead, a spokesperson attacked Carter and Bush took the “high road” of virtue that Michiavelli recommended.
Carter had the support and encouragement of many. For example, Hillary Rodham Clinton refused to criticize Carter’s words and said the Iraq policy has failed, President Bush is stubborn, the Iraqi government is unwilling to make “tough decision” and as a result “our young women and men are in harm’s way.”
Carter waffled when it is important for recipients of unkind deeds and cover-ups to stay the course. Jimmy apparently could have used back-up. Before his famous remarks, He might even have strategized with confidant(e)s about the many possible ways that the president and his team might respond. Had he done so, he would have stayed the course.
Routinely, a spokesperson or two says something really harsh and then the president comes on the air with soft but firm words that expound on his own virtue, while indirectly casting his critics as unenlightened and unpatriotic.
Jimmy Carter made the big mistake of acting alone. By the time others spoke up to endorse his views, he had already tried to take back his words. He did not stay the course.
Mr. Carter was unprepared for the responses he got when he famously criticized the administration of George W. Bush as the “worst in history” in terms of its “adverse impact around the world.”
A Bush White House spokesperson had an immediate harsh comeback, which was a cover-up that diverted attention from Carter’s criticism. Tony Fratto said Carter’s words are “sad and reckless evidence” that Carter is “increasingly irrelevant.”
This is hardball. Fratto’s words must have been a direct hit at the hot buttons of the aging statesman. The next day in a nationally televised interview, Carter tried to take back some of he had said. In this electronic age, there was no way he could. The day after Carter’s attempt to roll back his words, President Bush delivered a soft cover-up when he said his (Bush's) “actions are based on what’s best for this country.”
Fratto said of Carter’s rollback on his criticism of Bush, this “just highlights the importance of being careful in choosing your words.” Fratto chose his own words of criticism so carefully Machiavelli would be proud.
In actuality,Carter had a point. At the time he criticized the Bush administration, the United States was in fact held in disfavor throughout the world for its foreign policy. Had Bush and members of his administration chosen to be accountable, they would have said that they take the words of an esteemed elder statesman seriously.
They would have promised to look into the truth of Jimmy Carter's words and report back to national and international audiences.
Instead, a spokesperson attacked Carter and Bush took the “high road” of virtue that Michiavelli recommended.
Carter had the support and encouragement of many. For example, Hillary Rodham Clinton refused to criticize Carter’s words and said the Iraq policy has failed, President Bush is stubborn, the Iraqi government is unwilling to make “tough decision” and as a result “our young women and men are in harm’s way.”
Carter waffled when it is important for recipients of unkind deeds and cover-ups to stay the course. Jimmy apparently could have used back-up. Before his famous remarks, He might even have strategized with confidant(e)s about the many possible ways that the president and his team might respond. Had he done so, he would have stayed the course.
Routinely, a spokesperson or two says something really harsh and then the president comes on the air with soft but firm words that expound on his own virtue, while indirectly casting his critics as unenlightened and unpatriotic.
Jimmy Carter made the big mistake of acting alone. By the time others spoke up to endorse his views, he had already tried to take back his words. He did not stay the course.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Bush Defenders Succeed at Being Shits
There they go again. Bush defenders once again have succeeded at being shits. This time the recipient is former U.S. president Jimmy Carter who said the Bush presidency was the worst in history.
A featured letter in my local newspaper, called the comment “contemptible” and immediately attacked President Carter, who won the Nobel Peace Prize.
This is classic. Being a shit is composed of four parts.
1. An unkind deed. In Bush’s case, he has so many unkind deeds it would take years to catalogue them.
2. Desire to cover up unkind deeds. Bush and his spokepeople want to do impression management and make Bush out to be cowboy hero.
3. Cover-up. When Carter exposed the president, the first strategy was to attack Carter. The attack leaves out Carter’s genuine accomplishments and calls upon a tradition of former presidents not commenting on sitting presidents. Carter decided not to honor this because he believes too much is at stake.
4. Recipient buy-in. I hope Carter knows this attack on him is a cover-up. I am less sure that naïve and trusting readers will realize that what this letter writer and other Bush defenders are doing is enacting a perfection rendition of being a shit.
A featured letter in my local newspaper, called the comment “contemptible” and immediately attacked President Carter, who won the Nobel Peace Prize.
This is classic. Being a shit is composed of four parts.
1. An unkind deed. In Bush’s case, he has so many unkind deeds it would take years to catalogue them.
2. Desire to cover up unkind deeds. Bush and his spokepeople want to do impression management and make Bush out to be cowboy hero.
3. Cover-up. When Carter exposed the president, the first strategy was to attack Carter. The attack leaves out Carter’s genuine accomplishments and calls upon a tradition of former presidents not commenting on sitting presidents. Carter decided not to honor this because he believes too much is at stake.
4. Recipient buy-in. I hope Carter knows this attack on him is a cover-up. I am less sure that naïve and trusting readers will realize that what this letter writer and other Bush defenders are doing is enacting a perfection rendition of being a shit.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Unkind Deeds and Cover-Ups: Nick and Cara
Cara said to Nick when she found out he has been seeing another woman, “What do you want? A harem?” Nick responded, “Two women? That’s not much of a harem.” Cara laughed, tickled by the charm that endeared Nick to her. With the laugh, Cara’s tension lifted, and they talked about other things.
Nick had finessed Cara in an elegant, tailor-made way. His involvement with another woman had hurt Cara, and he covered up through humor. He had been with Cara long enough to know that a humorous response would distract her and lift her mood. By her laugh, Cara cooperated with Nick. She enabled him to be a shit.
The potential for being a shit exists wherever two or more people congregate. Persons who succeed at being shits are so good at what they do that recipients do not realize they have been had. Cara, for example, did not know that Nick had hoodwinked and distracted her.
On Being a Shit sheds light on a pervasive human condition. In this book, I develop and test a theory of being a shit. This is the theory.
Being a shit is composed of four parts:
1. an unkind deed,
2. a desire to evade responsibility for the unkind deed,
3. cover-up, and
4. recipient buy-in; that is, the enabling responses of recipients that let enactors off the hook.
Enactors succeed at being shits only if the recipients of their unkind deeds buy into their cover-ups. Without recipient buy-in, enactors fail at being a shit.
Nick had finessed Cara in an elegant, tailor-made way. His involvement with another woman had hurt Cara, and he covered up through humor. He had been with Cara long enough to know that a humorous response would distract her and lift her mood. By her laugh, Cara cooperated with Nick. She enabled him to be a shit.
The potential for being a shit exists wherever two or more people congregate. Persons who succeed at being shits are so good at what they do that recipients do not realize they have been had. Cara, for example, did not know that Nick had hoodwinked and distracted her.
On Being a Shit sheds light on a pervasive human condition. In this book, I develop and test a theory of being a shit. This is the theory.
Being a shit is composed of four parts:
1. an unkind deed,
2. a desire to evade responsibility for the unkind deed,
3. cover-up, and
4. recipient buy-in; that is, the enabling responses of recipients that let enactors off the hook.
Enactors succeed at being shits only if the recipients of their unkind deeds buy into their cover-ups. Without recipient buy-in, enactors fail at being a shit.
Friday, May 18, 2007
Enactors Play Hurt or Get Angry
Enactors of unkind deeds have so many different cover-ups that it's hard to figure them all out. I just discovered one more that has manipulated me more times than anyone can count. That is the person who does something unkind and when you ask them to behave differently in the future the person says sorry, acts hurt, and slinks away. Oh, my, I with my mountain-sized sense of guilt immediately feel guilty, as if I did something wrong by requesting another behavior in the future. I'm tempted to run around telling people what happened to make sure I am not a bad person. I doubt that I am the only one.
Another way that people who do unkind things defend themselves is to get angry. Many times I avoid dealing directly with someone who is out of line because I don't like to be yelled at. For many years, I didn't know that I avoided direct communication when I was displeased because I did not want to get yelled at. My mind has played tricks on me.
Whether someone slinks away acting hurt or whether someone yells at me, they have me. I cooperate with the cover-ups and they succeed at being shits.
I wonder how many other people do similar things.
Another way that people who do unkind things defend themselves is to get angry. Many times I avoid dealing directly with someone who is out of line because I don't like to be yelled at. For many years, I didn't know that I avoided direct communication when I was displeased because I did not want to get yelled at. My mind has played tricks on me.
Whether someone slinks away acting hurt or whether someone yells at me, they have me. I cooperate with the cover-ups and they succeed at being shits.
I wonder how many other people do similar things.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
On Being a Shit
This blog is for anyone who has been the recipient of unkind deeds and cover-ups, a broad audience indeed. From time to time, I will post examples of people being shits. I invite other people to post their own examples.
I will also post a theory of being a shit and will test the theory. The following is how I see unkind deeds and cover-ups.
No matter where we go, we run into other mortals who practice the art and craft of being a shit. We are awash in execrable[1] behaviors. Everyone contributes to them. They’re such a part of our everyday lives that we fail to notice them and take them for granted.
Some practitioners have reached that state of perfection where recipients think they are at fault. Getting others to believe it is their fault is a crowning achievement of being a shit. Without the cooperation of others, being a shit would be impossible.
Being a shit dates back to antiquity and perhaps to the dawn of human history. According to legend, one of the first instances was when a member of a mastodon hunting party threw a spear into the side of fellow hunter and then inquired of the injured one why he had been so stupid as to get between a hunter and his prey.
The injured person said to the hunter who had caused the injury, “My heart goes out to you. You must be disconcerted that this accident should befall you.” The spear thrower accepted the injured one’s apology with grace. The wounded hunter was filled with gratitude and vowed his undying loyalty to the spear thrower. Since that time, wrong-doers have had an unbroken record of success in convincing others that they are at fault.
[1] execrable=loathsome
I will also post a theory of being a shit and will test the theory. The following is how I see unkind deeds and cover-ups.
No matter where we go, we run into other mortals who practice the art and craft of being a shit. We are awash in execrable[1] behaviors. Everyone contributes to them. They’re such a part of our everyday lives that we fail to notice them and take them for granted.
Some practitioners have reached that state of perfection where recipients think they are at fault. Getting others to believe it is their fault is a crowning achievement of being a shit. Without the cooperation of others, being a shit would be impossible.
Being a shit dates back to antiquity and perhaps to the dawn of human history. According to legend, one of the first instances was when a member of a mastodon hunting party threw a spear into the side of fellow hunter and then inquired of the injured one why he had been so stupid as to get between a hunter and his prey.
The injured person said to the hunter who had caused the injury, “My heart goes out to you. You must be disconcerted that this accident should befall you.” The spear thrower accepted the injured one’s apology with grace. The wounded hunter was filled with gratitude and vowed his undying loyalty to the spear thrower. Since that time, wrong-doers have had an unbroken record of success in convincing others that they are at fault.
[1] execrable=loathsome
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
