Equality is held up as an attractive concept - usually by those that have not achieved it - to equalise those above; needless to say it rarely applies to themselves being equal to others on lower rungs of ladders they are not willing to discard. "One should not be so proud of (quality x)" is usually the pious statement expressed in private whispers by those that either do not possess it or are on the lower rung from those they would equalise - and usually it applies not to those in power that could vanquish those that profess this.
Thus those that profess equality between members of a faith usually assume that their own superior quality due to race is understood and won't be overlooked by those they are attempting to convert or have converted, just as the women who complain about other women assuming superiority of beauty don't go about embracing those obviously far less - and if they do, generally it is due to a confidence of a contrast showing them in better light. As for equality between categories where they might lose superiority, forget it.
No woman who is seen as owner of a house (due to living rent free until death of the owners makes her de facto owner) would admit to equality with one who happened to work away and pay rent life long, and lose on the ownership of the family property. No woman who either is popular or happens to have a clout due to some position would stoop to admitting equality with one who is without.
Not that different, this "equality", from the "all women are equal" stance used often merely to pull down some achievers who happen to be women, while no such equality is presumed by those professing this equality between all women to exist between either all males (no woman would admit to her husband or father or brother being only as good as the poorest man on street), or even between females that possess old fashioned tools of power and those that don't for the moment, whatever the said tools - a house, a husband, a son, a car ...
"Now that we all have (degree x) aren't we all equal?" asks one - and uses a logical reply to malign one that negates this with good reason. Perplexed about this malicious usage of a truth I turn to S finally after years, and he clears it up with a "that would make you equal to Einstein" - the ridiculous extension of a false proposition that is clear only when taken to this level.
But of course, those that need a cross to hang someone they hate don't deal in facts, reason, logic - theirs is to gossip and shoot arrows, dodge if you can.
And so an ugly relative blames a beautiful one for pride of beauty while a less literate one blames the same person for achievements academics. A glimmer of the true reason comes through only with the "a fly won't fly off her nose" comment by one, which the placid one in privacy of her family makes light of with a "they of course have flies fly off their noses all the while", but not in confrontation with one who makes the first comment.
................................................................
Monday, March 12, 2012
Monday, March 5, 2012
Heart and rectitude
Everyone in the g clan held Kg as a loving, caring member of the extended family, when I was able to interact with them, on a general if not an everyday level. I had put aside the memories of when I had in fact interacted with her on an everyday level, giving her every possible benefit of doubt quite intentionally - a legacy of my other lineage, the D clan inheritance of nobility of spirit and persona.
So I never compared those earlier memories, never compared the contrasting images, put aside everything that went against her and let fresh experiences take root, to see if they did in fact prove her clan right. She was a blood relative after all, for all her hatred of my other half of lineage, and I was more willing to give her this benefit of doubt than she had been for all the two decades odd difference of age.
She was an aunt, and on those occasions when we had interacted on everyday basis I was a helpless young child in her power, although neither she nor I had thought of me as a child. Else she ought to have been dead of shame when she persecuted me deliberately and viciously at ten, if not before, that is.
Nearly forty seven years have passed, but the memory of her extreme inappropriate behaviour is still quite fresh - as is my then instant reaction. She had then asked me my opinion about something an adult ought to never mention to a child, but she had done so deliberately to persecute a ten year old, with a view to making public whatever answer I would give, at the very least, and possibly worse, but primarily drown me in terror at her power over me - my parents having left her in charge, of two of us, in effect - and shame at the question being asked at all.
"Do you think your dad has a filthy relationship with (Mrs. A--e)?" She had asked. My instant reaction then, of heart and mind and whole being, was that to speak this at all was extremely inappropriate of her, to speak of it to a ten year old, any ten year old, much less a relative of her own bloodline. I was horrified cold, with all emotions frozen and a mere logic of the situation flooding my mind - that she had asked this only to get a reaction, to report it to whoever could hit me for whatever reaction I had as reported by her, and her sole objective was a vicious persecution of me carried out deliberately. This was worse than when she made me sweep dust from under her feet, literally.
Now a few years ago it occurred to me I had never, would never, be so heartless, much less ignoble, to any cousin (including daughter of Kg) or niece or nephew, even a distant relative only through marriage or a stranger child, and however much reason if any to be disapproving of their parent or parents one had, I had always believed an adult must let a child grow in blissful sunshine as one would any plant. Then after all these years I was able to finally deal with judging the behaviour of this person with dispassionate impersonal reason, being finally able to see the ten year old that I then was as a child rather than as myself and an interested party in the horror of the event who could not judge and waited for someone else to do it.
Never happened though - and she was able to carry on the persecution she intended by reporting on my lack of an emotional reaction and a no comment stance by imputing a guilt of an adverse opinion on it, and persecuting to the hilt by the stamped and addressed letters they were supposed to fill in and mail fortnightly - or possibly theirs were weekly, ours fortnightly. The person they reported to beat up someone within an inch of her life for repeating an abusive word he used everyday to address everyone in family, from infants to the old woman who cared for his home and children only so she could protect them, her descendents, from his wrath. This beating up of a mother of four driving her into arms of death was then publicly justified by him as a madness that came over him due to the inappropriateness of the repeating of the abusive word, however often he used it in the same company.
And I was punished to be treated on par with any unrelated orphan with poor clothes and shoes - office cleaners' children had shoes often better in school, and they knew it - and bleeding limbs through winters, with manual labour to serve the despot justifying expense of food (school expenses were paid for by the many scholarships fortunately), and going to school held as a benefit for me rather than a right, to be withdrawn at any given moment. This went on until I was eighteen, when I was told to leave, with repeated beating of my head on walls until one day throwing me on bed and climbing on me was enacted out to convince us I had to leave.
So Kg did triumph, and her brother carried out her vendetta against a sister-in-law as per her desire, by hacking the firstborn of the beautiful intelligent educated wife his sister hated for the rectitude Kg lacked.
I had put it all aside when a young adult and made attempts to the best of the ability with a blank covering all this and earlier bad taste of any memories left in mind or heart. It would have all remained submerged but for the vendetta she carried out further, and her wishes he attempted to make me bend to much later, for no foreseeable reason. When he tried devious means to make me go meet her, it was inexplicable, and after several years it occurred to me that the point was she was still going on against me and my mother.
She went further and gossiped about it to some neighbours of ours she had known when living with us, and told a niece - one forever fooled by her, never mind how she had terrorised her as an infant, but then again perhaps this subconscious terror is what drives this niece into accepting this aunt as one in good faith - about how it was inappropriate for a woman to speak of a husband's bad temper to her children. This coming from the niece remained a question, it did not fit - the niece had not reported the whole conversation, merely a snippet, waiting for a reaction that couldn't then be given in absence of the whole picture.
Now after years of the question on the back burner it is clear what conversation took place, and again, this ugly vendetta of a malicious vicious person is only comparable to a nazi illiterate lout maligning Einstein to justify burning his works.
Children are neither blind nor deaf nor idiots that can be fooled by falsehood fed in face of facts seen and heard everyday, and those that are thus fed are damaged into accepting a twisted mindset and ignoble behaviour as reality and an ideal to be followed.
Men who return home to their children and give them of their love and heart and beings are as obvious as those that don't because they call a neighbour to inform their family every weekend to the effect that they shall be spending the weekend with a girlfriend's family, and no one has to inform the children that this is unusual to say the least - the neighbours are all home after all. Children who accept horrible beatings of themselves and their mother from the breadwinner as a routine normalcy subsequently go on to repeat it in their own lives, and daughters choose to marry those that will make it happen so their own fathers seem normal, but all the while it is more than obvious to everyone involved that this is neither necessary nor normal, and is in fact as horrible as it gets.
One cannot expect justice from so ignoble a clan, so vicious, so malicious; and yet they demand mercy and forgiveness pleading their years, and cry about lack of heart for one not melting and saying it is all ok. This is on par with nazis demanding friendliness from such inmates of the camps as managed to survive and complaining to the world about injustice of the not forthcoming matey acceptance.
But often hearts work subterraenean despite logic, and a child expects a father to protect the child and punish the attacker - and this child might survive in adulthood, as long as the person supposedly father lives, never mind he never did carry out any of the functions of a father other than allowing the child to live in the house (demanding service in exchange for the food) and beatings, beratings, galore, so his ghouls might be satisfied.
Fact is, a ten year old has no idea what a filthy relationship is, however unusually the two people concerned have behaved through their lives - no matter how much her husband prohibits it and no matter how categorically his wife disapproves, they have not only continued to meet but to carry on trips out of town together, with some thin cover (thin, because not only they returned to the homes kept by the wedded partners for all the benefits thereof, but never actually went into a nunnery no matter how loudly they proclaimed their relationship as based in quest of something other worldly) - and the forcing of this awareness by mentioning any related concepts or words to a child so small amounts to sexual harrassment.
And this was by a blood relative, an aunt who is supposed to be a loving person.
Her niece praises another aunt, one who refused to accept her share of the property of her father-in-law, while conveniently forgetting about Kg's financial morals or principles. Kg was about to divorce her child's father when he died even as the case was not yet finished, so she had her grip on the property that he had in his power which in fact belonged to her father in law, whom she had not seen in all probability until then much less lived with. Kg fought for the property in the name of the child and lost in court, and for all her assertions or gossips about rectitude against the unquestionably far superior relative she carried on vendetta against, Kg has not made any attempts to keep up any relationship between her child and her grandfather the owner of the property she fought to keep.
The niece who is informed about her mother's shortcomings has no clue as to the real vicious vendetta of Kg, terrorised as she is from the babyhood when she was thrown at the wall and fell on floor with no pulse and no breath, because his food was not yet ready after he had returned (from his girlfriend's place?) home; the baby had high fever, and the mother alone with two children had been anxious for the baby, holding her.
The niece is now blind due to several determined attempts by Kg's brother to make that happen - once was not enough, so she the daughter was punched by the father, the brother of Kg, in the eye that had sight returned after a horrendous operation of the detached retina, the operation that he informed them was needed only because he had cursed the daughter.
And so terrified as she is right since the babyhood throwing on the wall and subsequent slapping and punching her into blindness, she prefers to play and sing their tunes, with no thought given to who is blaring nazi propaganda. It is far more convenient to howl with the wolves rather than not.
That explains why my mother wrote to me calling me brave.
........................................................................
The reason my mother was unwilling to bring a poor niece home was not unwillingness to support a poor relative, but the abhorrence at the malicious watch that she fully expected to follow, always comparing and demanding why niece did not so well as her own children did, was she being a slave driver, was she discriminating ... and she had every reason to expect this from the year of horrifying persecution she had seen of her daughter only through letters of the persecutors, with the certain knowledge of all those letters being intended maliciously with a complete lack of fair treatment to her daughter, never mind any question of anyone with any heart towards a mere ten year old.
Now, the unwillingness of an aunt by marriage is held up as a fault to be punished - with a stepdaughterly treatment of his own child by the pawn of the g clan, the abandonment of the daughter post horrible beatings and starvings, and worse, far far worse, unimaginably worse.
It is always easier to persecute an innocent person with throwing muck, rather than support a niece one is using as an excuse for the persecution of another one. Any man who does wish to support a niece or a nephew or both can send wherewithal to suffice while there are relatives galore that would be physically present to support them in the milieu they are used to, rather than the poor school in a faraway metropolis where the supposedly privileged child goes to, a region where one has to use at least one other language if not two for all purposes and if one is unable to do so failure is guaranteed.
So the cheapest possible shot is, blame the sister in law, the wife, for the unwillingness of the man to support his relatives, and blame his children for the support they don't receive. And g clan was always in top form for cheap shots at that, cheaper the better.
........................................................................
"Just because there has been unfair treatment of you at my hand does not mean you will ever get any justice from me" - for once truthful assurance in full family surrounding, by msg, circa late sixties - early seventies.
"She doesn't have a good heart" comments using other people, possibly merely other names, over forty years later of persecution that never stopped short of total vanquishing of any chosen target - chosen for the fun of the hunt, a la deer in forest or rather in pet store.
Cowards don't hunt sharks, they stay away from danger to their persons, never mind the wife and daughter alone during '84 riots in Delhi, postpone the return until it is safer for the man of the house. So much so, the very persecution by such a person is evidence beyond par of one's lack of guilt.
...........................................................................
Kg blames a hated sister in law for the severed relationships between her brother and his child, possibly only one of them, possibly more than one - after all he did blind one he could not throw out successfully, and had even told his wife to strangle the baby son who wanted only to be with his father instead of the teenage son of the friend of the father.
Kg blames the sister in law for the strains in relationships her brother has had with his family. And yet this is the woman who filed for a divorce - due to physical abuse according to her relatives, whatever the reason she officially mentioned in the petition. And this was when she was a new mother of then an infant daughter.
What was she planning to inform her daughter one wonders as to her reasons for a divorce, if her husband had not died - all conveniently in more than one way for her - in midst of that case in court, one has to wonder. She couldn't possibly have said it was due to lack of whatever a man is supposed to provide a wife, home or wherewithal or private satisfaction in marital relations. Was she planning to disclose physical abuse as her reason, or something else, in explaining to her daughter why she was not living with two parents? And how was she going to prevent the daughter from getting the story from her father, for that matter?
Does the daughter, now in her forties, still have any idea the mother was in midst of a divorce when she was a baby and her father died before the divorce was final? Has the daughter ever even met her grandfather, uncles and aunts, cousins, who happen to be the mother's in-laws? How does the daughter explain the distance to herself - was she told her father was unwanted and they are all bad people, period?
Or is it merely convenient for Kg to blame the victims of her brother while simultaneously blaming her own relatives by marriage?
Not that different from her brother at that, who "was shocked" that his daughter would inform "non-family members" about "family matters" such as the abuse perpetrated by him, while conveniently forgetting having not only complained to his office "subordinates" about his "family matters" but dictated letters about "family matters" addressed to his relatives to his secretary at the office, carbon copies of which then were sent out to his relatives, making it clear he never had any intention of privacy.
So the "family matters" privacy applies only to anyone mentioning abuse at his hands, just as the principle of women conducting themselves in propriety re husbands and in-laws applies not to Kg but only to others, it would seem.
Not that different either, from the discrepancy of the expected high respect for a man when the said male is the brother of Kg, while a total disregard of the principle when it comes to husbands of his sisters including the friend; "I don't like the man" he conveniently explains, and goes about meeting the friend or using the sisters, as per his own convenience - never mind what the husband of the sister or the friend might have thought, or even explicitly expressed.
Not that different, this "equality", from the "all women are equal" stance used often merely to pull down some achievers who happen to be women, while no such equality is presumed by those professing this equality between all women to exist between either all males (no woman would admit to her husband or father or brother being only as good as the poorest man on street), or even between females that possess old fashioned tools of power and those that don't for the moment, whatever the said tools - a house, a husband, a son, a car ...
.................................................................
So I never compared those earlier memories, never compared the contrasting images, put aside everything that went against her and let fresh experiences take root, to see if they did in fact prove her clan right. She was a blood relative after all, for all her hatred of my other half of lineage, and I was more willing to give her this benefit of doubt than she had been for all the two decades odd difference of age.
She was an aunt, and on those occasions when we had interacted on everyday basis I was a helpless young child in her power, although neither she nor I had thought of me as a child. Else she ought to have been dead of shame when she persecuted me deliberately and viciously at ten, if not before, that is.
Nearly forty seven years have passed, but the memory of her extreme inappropriate behaviour is still quite fresh - as is my then instant reaction. She had then asked me my opinion about something an adult ought to never mention to a child, but she had done so deliberately to persecute a ten year old, with a view to making public whatever answer I would give, at the very least, and possibly worse, but primarily drown me in terror at her power over me - my parents having left her in charge, of two of us, in effect - and shame at the question being asked at all.
"Do you think your dad has a filthy relationship with (Mrs. A--e)?" She had asked. My instant reaction then, of heart and mind and whole being, was that to speak this at all was extremely inappropriate of her, to speak of it to a ten year old, any ten year old, much less a relative of her own bloodline. I was horrified cold, with all emotions frozen and a mere logic of the situation flooding my mind - that she had asked this only to get a reaction, to report it to whoever could hit me for whatever reaction I had as reported by her, and her sole objective was a vicious persecution of me carried out deliberately. This was worse than when she made me sweep dust from under her feet, literally.
Now a few years ago it occurred to me I had never, would never, be so heartless, much less ignoble, to any cousin (including daughter of Kg) or niece or nephew, even a distant relative only through marriage or a stranger child, and however much reason if any to be disapproving of their parent or parents one had, I had always believed an adult must let a child grow in blissful sunshine as one would any plant. Then after all these years I was able to finally deal with judging the behaviour of this person with dispassionate impersonal reason, being finally able to see the ten year old that I then was as a child rather than as myself and an interested party in the horror of the event who could not judge and waited for someone else to do it.
Never happened though - and she was able to carry on the persecution she intended by reporting on my lack of an emotional reaction and a no comment stance by imputing a guilt of an adverse opinion on it, and persecuting to the hilt by the stamped and addressed letters they were supposed to fill in and mail fortnightly - or possibly theirs were weekly, ours fortnightly. The person they reported to beat up someone within an inch of her life for repeating an abusive word he used everyday to address everyone in family, from infants to the old woman who cared for his home and children only so she could protect them, her descendents, from his wrath. This beating up of a mother of four driving her into arms of death was then publicly justified by him as a madness that came over him due to the inappropriateness of the repeating of the abusive word, however often he used it in the same company.
And I was punished to be treated on par with any unrelated orphan with poor clothes and shoes - office cleaners' children had shoes often better in school, and they knew it - and bleeding limbs through winters, with manual labour to serve the despot justifying expense of food (school expenses were paid for by the many scholarships fortunately), and going to school held as a benefit for me rather than a right, to be withdrawn at any given moment. This went on until I was eighteen, when I was told to leave, with repeated beating of my head on walls until one day throwing me on bed and climbing on me was enacted out to convince us I had to leave.
So Kg did triumph, and her brother carried out her vendetta against a sister-in-law as per her desire, by hacking the firstborn of the beautiful intelligent educated wife his sister hated for the rectitude Kg lacked.
I had put it all aside when a young adult and made attempts to the best of the ability with a blank covering all this and earlier bad taste of any memories left in mind or heart. It would have all remained submerged but for the vendetta she carried out further, and her wishes he attempted to make me bend to much later, for no foreseeable reason. When he tried devious means to make me go meet her, it was inexplicable, and after several years it occurred to me that the point was she was still going on against me and my mother.
She went further and gossiped about it to some neighbours of ours she had known when living with us, and told a niece - one forever fooled by her, never mind how she had terrorised her as an infant, but then again perhaps this subconscious terror is what drives this niece into accepting this aunt as one in good faith - about how it was inappropriate for a woman to speak of a husband's bad temper to her children. This coming from the niece remained a question, it did not fit - the niece had not reported the whole conversation, merely a snippet, waiting for a reaction that couldn't then be given in absence of the whole picture.
Now after years of the question on the back burner it is clear what conversation took place, and again, this ugly vendetta of a malicious vicious person is only comparable to a nazi illiterate lout maligning Einstein to justify burning his works.
Children are neither blind nor deaf nor idiots that can be fooled by falsehood fed in face of facts seen and heard everyday, and those that are thus fed are damaged into accepting a twisted mindset and ignoble behaviour as reality and an ideal to be followed.
Men who return home to their children and give them of their love and heart and beings are as obvious as those that don't because they call a neighbour to inform their family every weekend to the effect that they shall be spending the weekend with a girlfriend's family, and no one has to inform the children that this is unusual to say the least - the neighbours are all home after all. Children who accept horrible beatings of themselves and their mother from the breadwinner as a routine normalcy subsequently go on to repeat it in their own lives, and daughters choose to marry those that will make it happen so their own fathers seem normal, but all the while it is more than obvious to everyone involved that this is neither necessary nor normal, and is in fact as horrible as it gets.
One cannot expect justice from so ignoble a clan, so vicious, so malicious; and yet they demand mercy and forgiveness pleading their years, and cry about lack of heart for one not melting and saying it is all ok. This is on par with nazis demanding friendliness from such inmates of the camps as managed to survive and complaining to the world about injustice of the not forthcoming matey acceptance.
But often hearts work subterraenean despite logic, and a child expects a father to protect the child and punish the attacker - and this child might survive in adulthood, as long as the person supposedly father lives, never mind he never did carry out any of the functions of a father other than allowing the child to live in the house (demanding service in exchange for the food) and beatings, beratings, galore, so his ghouls might be satisfied.
Fact is, a ten year old has no idea what a filthy relationship is, however unusually the two people concerned have behaved through their lives - no matter how much her husband prohibits it and no matter how categorically his wife disapproves, they have not only continued to meet but to carry on trips out of town together, with some thin cover (thin, because not only they returned to the homes kept by the wedded partners for all the benefits thereof, but never actually went into a nunnery no matter how loudly they proclaimed their relationship as based in quest of something other worldly) - and the forcing of this awareness by mentioning any related concepts or words to a child so small amounts to sexual harrassment.
And this was by a blood relative, an aunt who is supposed to be a loving person.
Her niece praises another aunt, one who refused to accept her share of the property of her father-in-law, while conveniently forgetting about Kg's financial morals or principles. Kg was about to divorce her child's father when he died even as the case was not yet finished, so she had her grip on the property that he had in his power which in fact belonged to her father in law, whom she had not seen in all probability until then much less lived with. Kg fought for the property in the name of the child and lost in court, and for all her assertions or gossips about rectitude against the unquestionably far superior relative she carried on vendetta against, Kg has not made any attempts to keep up any relationship between her child and her grandfather the owner of the property she fought to keep.
The niece who is informed about her mother's shortcomings has no clue as to the real vicious vendetta of Kg, terrorised as she is from the babyhood when she was thrown at the wall and fell on floor with no pulse and no breath, because his food was not yet ready after he had returned (from his girlfriend's place?) home; the baby had high fever, and the mother alone with two children had been anxious for the baby, holding her.
The niece is now blind due to several determined attempts by Kg's brother to make that happen - once was not enough, so she the daughter was punched by the father, the brother of Kg, in the eye that had sight returned after a horrendous operation of the detached retina, the operation that he informed them was needed only because he had cursed the daughter.
And so terrified as she is right since the babyhood throwing on the wall and subsequent slapping and punching her into blindness, she prefers to play and sing their tunes, with no thought given to who is blaring nazi propaganda. It is far more convenient to howl with the wolves rather than not.
That explains why my mother wrote to me calling me brave.
........................................................................
The reason my mother was unwilling to bring a poor niece home was not unwillingness to support a poor relative, but the abhorrence at the malicious watch that she fully expected to follow, always comparing and demanding why niece did not so well as her own children did, was she being a slave driver, was she discriminating ... and she had every reason to expect this from the year of horrifying persecution she had seen of her daughter only through letters of the persecutors, with the certain knowledge of all those letters being intended maliciously with a complete lack of fair treatment to her daughter, never mind any question of anyone with any heart towards a mere ten year old.
Now, the unwillingness of an aunt by marriage is held up as a fault to be punished - with a stepdaughterly treatment of his own child by the pawn of the g clan, the abandonment of the daughter post horrible beatings and starvings, and worse, far far worse, unimaginably worse.
It is always easier to persecute an innocent person with throwing muck, rather than support a niece one is using as an excuse for the persecution of another one. Any man who does wish to support a niece or a nephew or both can send wherewithal to suffice while there are relatives galore that would be physically present to support them in the milieu they are used to, rather than the poor school in a faraway metropolis where the supposedly privileged child goes to, a region where one has to use at least one other language if not two for all purposes and if one is unable to do so failure is guaranteed.
So the cheapest possible shot is, blame the sister in law, the wife, for the unwillingness of the man to support his relatives, and blame his children for the support they don't receive. And g clan was always in top form for cheap shots at that, cheaper the better.
........................................................................
"Just because there has been unfair treatment of you at my hand does not mean you will ever get any justice from me" - for once truthful assurance in full family surrounding, by msg, circa late sixties - early seventies.
"She doesn't have a good heart" comments using other people, possibly merely other names, over forty years later of persecution that never stopped short of total vanquishing of any chosen target - chosen for the fun of the hunt, a la deer in forest or rather in pet store.
Cowards don't hunt sharks, they stay away from danger to their persons, never mind the wife and daughter alone during '84 riots in Delhi, postpone the return until it is safer for the man of the house. So much so, the very persecution by such a person is evidence beyond par of one's lack of guilt.
...........................................................................
Kg blames a hated sister in law for the severed relationships between her brother and his child, possibly only one of them, possibly more than one - after all he did blind one he could not throw out successfully, and had even told his wife to strangle the baby son who wanted only to be with his father instead of the teenage son of the friend of the father.
Kg blames the sister in law for the strains in relationships her brother has had with his family. And yet this is the woman who filed for a divorce - due to physical abuse according to her relatives, whatever the reason she officially mentioned in the petition. And this was when she was a new mother of then an infant daughter.
What was she planning to inform her daughter one wonders as to her reasons for a divorce, if her husband had not died - all conveniently in more than one way for her - in midst of that case in court, one has to wonder. She couldn't possibly have said it was due to lack of whatever a man is supposed to provide a wife, home or wherewithal or private satisfaction in marital relations. Was she planning to disclose physical abuse as her reason, or something else, in explaining to her daughter why she was not living with two parents? And how was she going to prevent the daughter from getting the story from her father, for that matter?
Does the daughter, now in her forties, still have any idea the mother was in midst of a divorce when she was a baby and her father died before the divorce was final? Has the daughter ever even met her grandfather, uncles and aunts, cousins, who happen to be the mother's in-laws? How does the daughter explain the distance to herself - was she told her father was unwanted and they are all bad people, period?
Or is it merely convenient for Kg to blame the victims of her brother while simultaneously blaming her own relatives by marriage?
Not that different from her brother at that, who "was shocked" that his daughter would inform "non-family members" about "family matters" such as the abuse perpetrated by him, while conveniently forgetting having not only complained to his office "subordinates" about his "family matters" but dictated letters about "family matters" addressed to his relatives to his secretary at the office, carbon copies of which then were sent out to his relatives, making it clear he never had any intention of privacy.
So the "family matters" privacy applies only to anyone mentioning abuse at his hands, just as the principle of women conducting themselves in propriety re husbands and in-laws applies not to Kg but only to others, it would seem.
Not that different either, from the discrepancy of the expected high respect for a man when the said male is the brother of Kg, while a total disregard of the principle when it comes to husbands of his sisters including the friend; "I don't like the man" he conveniently explains, and goes about meeting the friend or using the sisters, as per his own convenience - never mind what the husband of the sister or the friend might have thought, or even explicitly expressed.
Not that different, this "equality", from the "all women are equal" stance used often merely to pull down some achievers who happen to be women, while no such equality is presumed by those professing this equality between all women to exist between either all males (no woman would admit to her husband or father or brother being only as good as the poorest man on street), or even between females that possess old fashioned tools of power and those that don't for the moment, whatever the said tools - a house, a husband, a son, a car ...
.................................................................
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)