Discuss The Archers  permalink

I Fell Sorry for Pat

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 201 - 233 of 233
  • Message 201

    , in reply to message 200.

    Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Monday, 12th December 2011

    I had a friend who had her cheek bone broken for the temerity to repeatedly ask why the joint bank account was cleaned out.... and yes he tried that defence.

    I would in no way excuse any one male or female for cruel demeaning verbal abuse... but it can be very easy to define a woman speaking o9r voicing her needs and opinions as nagging if you don't want to hear the message. It is a stereotype as any other 



    Once the reason for the cleared account had been given, what WAS the purpose in endlessly repeating the question?

    Did it come as a surprise to your friend that eventually her husband lashed out?

    Or did she take pleasure in taunting him beyond control and then getting him arrested for it?


    it can be very easy to define a woman speaking or voicing her needs and opinions as nagging if you don't want to hear the message. 


    How many times is it reasonable to repeat the message before it becomes nagging?

    Report message1

  • Message 202

    , in reply to message 201.

    Posted by ruralsnowflakebliss (U8131914) on Monday, 12th December 2011

    The key was he didn't want to tell her any reason... and oh she was trying to reason.

    If you think communication is 'nagging' then so be it.............. she was trying to communicate. How else was she supposed to... stop asking him what was wrong?

    Of course she should have just stopped the accounts and walked away but most people would seek a reasonable explanation first IMO

    Asking isn't 'nagging'

    Nagging is a crude biased perception and used to define and demean principally women... almost by definition the repeated need to ask questions/ make requests is a position that lacks power.........

    As I said true abusive behaviour, verbal included is something else and it is something to be careful when we chuck the nag word around.

    Not many men are everdefined as nagging are they... when a word applies mainly to one sex then think a little deeper

    Report message2

  • Message 203

    , in reply to message 201.

    Posted by ruralsnowflakebliss (U8131914) on Monday, 12th December 2011

    See you just used the lashed out defence.... plus ca change. She 'made' me... she 'provoked' me.... poor little helpless me... how many years did battered woment get sent to jail when they 'should have walked away'?

    In the event she never did get an explanation.......... the money was gone

    Was it so unreasonable to expect nay demand the dignity of an answer to joint finances?

    I am not looking to caricature men.. I am not looking to excuse poor communication..... however I am equally disiclined to get the same ugly old sexist carp thrown up about 'nagging' women

    BTW do you know why I think Pat doesn't nag? It is simple... Pat is effective... she doesn't actually say much to Tony and what she does say is listened to (even when she is wrong)

    But I am afraid I do see sexism... would you define Brian as a nag? He goes on and on a steam rollers over all... or is he not because he is effective?

    As I said the likeliest nag is Clarrie... ineffectual voice in the wilderness

    BTW the greates abuse can often be done by those who control the power of silence... I ahve a superb example in my family. You probably won't believe me so I won't say how long

    Report message3

  • Message 204

    , in reply to message 203.

    Posted by Now Locking for a house (U3261819) on Monday, 12th December 2011

    Yes, silence is power..... It does not expose. Many women expose more than many men. Physically and verbally. Verbally is physical isn't it? Well, you know what I mean. Many men keep their mouths shut and their bits hidden.

    .......and if men did what they were told straightaway, women would not need to nag.......Sorry!

    It is a serious issue.

    Report message4

  • Message 205

    , in reply to message 204.

    Posted by Now Locking for a house (U3261819) on Monday, 12th December 2011

    When I have been assured something will be done,I have experimented with not saying anything about it more than once. The result of the experiment was ......absolutely nothing! It is not always OK to do nothing. Some things need to be done!

    Report message5

  • Message 206

    , in reply to message 204.

    Posted by ruralsnowflakebliss (U8131914) on Monday, 12th December 2011

    Mmm well the familys example is my great grandfather... apparently came home from work and presumably had an argument there... refused to return to work and simply never spoke to his wife or his only 8 year old daughter agin.

    Scarring....

    Went to his grave and never explained

    and who had the power there.................?

    I also think we generalise a little too much about silent men and verbal women that is cultural conditioning and varies

    Report message6

  • Message 207

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Bonjeenico (U11193987) on Monday, 12th December 2011

    I feel really sorry for Pat. She had just lost her child for goodness sake and there can be nothing worse than that. Sharon may very well have been 'going through hell' too,but it can't compare with what his parents were feeling. Pat may not be handling this very well,but I wouldn't do any better in such a situation. I don't think that she'll make an attempt to see him,but maybe will come across him in a year or so when Sharon gets in touch with her because Rich has developed a serious condition which requires bone-marrow treatment or the like,and she wants Pat and Tony to put themselves forward.... Or else Pat will take to the bottle - she showed an inordinate interest in the wine tonight,I thought.

    Report message7

  • Message 208

    , in reply to message 206.

    Posted by Now Locking for a house (U3261819) on Monday, 12th December 2011

    I read a wonderful article about a feminist theory of silence, concealment and power. Can't remember who it was by.

    Yes, Pat's interest in the wine has to be a signpost.

    Report message8

  • Message 209

    , in reply to message 208.

    Posted by Now Locking for a house (U3261819) on Monday, 12th December 2011

    ....as was Tony's claim that he was not going to allow her to become clinically depressed!

    Report message9

  • Message 210

    , in reply to message 209.

    Posted by Now Locking for a house (U3261819) on Monday, 12th December 2011

    Pat going to bed ahead of everyone is not a good sign. It's a retreat.

    OH and I have a wedding anniverary meal booked for Wednesday. I hope we have a better time.

    Report message10

  • Message 211

    , in reply to message 201.

    Posted by carrick-bend (U2288869) on Monday, 12th December 2011

    Once the reason for the cleared account had been given, what WAS the purpose in endlessly repeating the question?

    Did it come as a surprise to your friend that eventually her husband lashed out?

    Or did she take pleasure in taunting him beyond control and then getting him arrested for it? 

    Are you trying to defend men who abuse women, OI, or do you genuinely not understand what ruralsnowflakebliss is saying?

    Report message11

  • Message 212

    , in reply to message 211.

    Posted by Froginasock (U14272821) on Monday, 12th December 2011

    Any man who hits a woman for "nagging" needs a damn good kicking. No excuse. Not ever.

    Yes, I realise that violence shopuld not beget violence and all that but really, what defence is there? Other than being from the cro-magnon era?

    Report message12

  • Message 213

    , in reply to message 212.

    This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the House Rules in some way.

  • Message 214

    , in reply to message 212.

    Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Monday, 12th December 2011

    In reply to Froginasock:

    Any man who hits a woman for "nagging" needs a damn good kicking. No excuse. Not ever.

    Yes, I realise that violence shopuld not beget violence and all that but really, what defence is there? Other than being from the cro-magnon era? 



    What if the woman keeps verbally abusing the man for hour after hour?

    Report message14

  • Message 215

    , in reply to message 214.

    Posted by Froginasock (U14272821) on Monday, 12th December 2011

    So what?
    He can walk out the door. Get a divorce. Turn up his Ipod. Go down to his shed.

    Report message15

  • Message 216

    , in reply to message 214.

    Posted by carrick-bend (U2288869) on Monday, 12th December 2011

    The goal posts have changed, OI - first you say "nagging", then you say "verbally abusing",but whatever.

    There is no excuse for physical violence, except in self-defence against physical violence.

    Report message16

  • Message 217

    , in reply to message 163.

    Posted by JoinedPeetsBoard_Smeesues_too (U14519481) on Tuesday, 13th December 2011

    Yes of course some things are worse than they were then, Buns. But this younger generationisn't the first and won't be the last to live through a recession. Capitalism is, by its very nature a system of boom and bust and unless we find another way of running our lives it will continue to be o but that is another story.  Boom and Bust is certainly a feature of modern economic systems - maybe it always was? And maybe it is not confined to capitalist systems but is inherent in all systems? Another question ...

    However *this* particular bust is a very severe one** and appears to be affecting young people in a disproportionate manner. I remember the despair of young people who were affected by the economic effects of Thatcherism in the 80s - and this is worse than that was .. I suspect that some of them *never* had proper jobs
    JPBS
    **WE don't know yet how severe ..

    Report message17

  • Message 218

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Gilly May (U15065788) on Sunday, 18th December 2011

    Yes, he could become a character! Played by the actor who played John. I couldn't believe John got 'killed off' , he was always worth tuning in for

    Report message18

  • Message 219

    , in reply to message 217.

    Posted by anna kist (U2314477) on Sunday, 18th December 2011

    Too true, Bun. Future does look bleak for many young people at the moment.

    Report message19

  • Message 220

    , in reply to message 196.

    Posted by RS Acre (U6057963) on Monday, 19th December 2011

    No no no, carrick dere! -

    << I don't think there are any "masculinists" in TA.
    Their views on the subject would break the House Rules regarding sexism on BBC MBs, anyway.

    I googled it, and the definition is rather interesting.

    "A "Masculinist" is a "Men's Rights Activist". No seriously. There are actually people who are so stupid they think that men are oppressed anywhere in the world. Just sit and think about the laughably small brain it takes to be an masculinist." >>



    Please don't take the Urban Dictionary seriously will you!? It's usually a highly tongue-in-cheek take on stuff - put a /lot/ of salt on anything you read there!
    Contrary to the UD's words above - masculism can surely be seen as entirely equal to - although separate from - feminism, in that it seeks to allay some of the more unfair discriminations against men.
    & yes - men /are/ discriminated against: think about conscription - women get clean away with that one in most countries; think about child custody cases - men tend to get the **itty end of the legal stick here, no matter how committed & loving a parent they are (I am talking statistically, not anecdotally); think about attitides to male-on-male violence, prison rape of men by men, & the sniggering tabloid reaction to female rape of a male: almost as if all these things don't matter /quite/ as much, cos they happen to a big tough boys, not to a girl ...

    In short, yes - men /do/ get discriminated against, & in many cases it is desperately unfair. Stating that feminism is ok 'cos it's about equalising the sexes, but masculism isn't, because men have had it their own way for too long, is like blaming today's German population for WW2, or ordinary Muslims for 9/11: inaccurate, & simply not on.

    OI may be long overdue a smart poke in the eye with a Bridge Farm-yoghurt-stained spoon, but he doesn't need to be derided for sticking up for gender equality ...


    Rant over. Cheers all
    RSy



    Report message20

  • Message 221

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by angie B (U14596069) on Monday, 19th December 2011

    I'm with you on this. Just imagine that someone that you loved and lost is still alive somehow in another person. I think that anyone who has ever grieved for another would understand this.

    Report message21

  • Message 222

    , in reply to message 220.

    Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Monday, 19th December 2011

    OI may be long overdue a smart poke in the eye with a Bridge Farm-yoghurt-stained spoon, but he doesn't need to be derided for sticking up for gender equality ... 


    *Noooooaaaaarrrggghhh*

    Not the Bridge Farm-yoghurt-stained spoon poke in the eye.

    Can I settle for a horsewhipping from Mistress Shula instead?


    Otherwise - top post.

    Would a girl have been thrown off the Scottish train?

    Report message22

  • Message 223

    , in reply to message 222.

    Posted by RS Acre (U6057963) on Monday, 19th December 2011

    << Can I settle for a horsewhipping from Mistress Shula instead? >>

    Not for you to settle, Boyo - you'll get what ML throws at you, not what you so unsecretly hanker for ...


    << Otherwise - top post. >>

    Thank you Orgers.
    Could you repay my handsomeness in this matter by refraining from baiting a.n.other non-gender-specific poster for a while? Maybe just for Chris tmas? [see wot i did there?]


    << Would a girl have been thrown off the Scottish train? >>

    You wot? Pls explain?

    Cheers old boy
    (_!_)y

    Report message23

  • Message 224

    , in reply to message 207.

    Posted by Brief_felicity (U14259249) on Monday, 19th December 2011

    I feel really sorry for Pat. She had just lost her child for goodness sake and there can be nothing worse than that. Sharon may very well have been 'going through hell' too,but it can't compare with what his parents were feeling. Pat may not be handling this very well,but I wouldn't do any better in such a situation. I don't think that she'll make an attempt to see him,but maybe will come across him in a year or so when Sharon gets in touch with her because Rich has developed a serious condition which requires bone-marrow treatment or the like,and she wants Pat and Tony to put themselves forward.... Or else Pat will take to the bottle - she showed an inordinate interest in the wine tonight,I thought.  me too. Very few of us are at our best in teh dark days following a bereavement - particulalry the loss of a child.

    Report message24

  • Message 225

    , in reply to message 220.

    Posted by carrick-bend (U2288869) on Monday, 19th December 2011

    First of all, I appreciate you referring, even ironically, to me as "dear".

    I never take the Urban Dictionary seriously - it makes Wikipedia look meticulously fact-checked by comparison, but can be amusing sometimes.

    The most basic definition of feminism is "Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes" - a mirror reflection of that, as a definition of masculism, would be self-evident - equality is, logically, balanced on both sides, and no-one should be oppressed because of sex, race, sexuality or age, but, try as I might, I could only find definitions of "masculinism" which, like this one, included male superiority. (This one, from Wiki, seems typical - "Masculism refers to political, cultural, and economic movements seeking greater, equal, or, among a minority, superior rights and participation in society for men and boys")

    This extract (ironically from Wiki), sums up my position pretty well - "Feminists respond to the different ideologies of Masculism in different ways. Masculists who promote gender equality are often considered male feminists. It is the general opinion of modern feminists that masculism, when defined as "male superiority or dominance", is inherently opposed to the equality cause and is considered a form of misogyny.

    Some feminists are actively involved in promoting men's rights, especially father's rights and social equality, arguing that this position is necessary for feminism and women's equality".

    OI, writing things which seemed to defend some domestic violence against women - citing "nagging" as reasonable provocation.

    When ruralsnowflakebliss said, in #200, "I had a friend who had her cheek bone broken for the temerity to repeatedly ask why the joint bank account was cleaned out.... and yes he tried that defence",

    he replied, in #201, "Once the reason for the cleared account had been given, what WAS the purpose in endlessly repeating the question?

    Did it come as a surprise to your friend that eventually her husband lashed out?

    Or did she take pleasure in taunting him beyond control and then getting him arrested for it?"

    Equality of men and women, something to aspire to that would please many of both sexes - superiority of either sex - no way!

    Cheers back, C-B x

    Report message25

  • Message 226

    , in reply to message 223.

    Posted by JoinedPeetsBoard_Smeesues_too (U14519481) on Monday, 19th December 2011

    << Would a girl have been thrown off the Scottish train? >>

    You wot? Pls explain?
     

    It's this story RS

    travel.aol.co.uk/201...

    JPBS

    Report message26

  • Message 227

    , in reply to message 225.

    Posted by RS Acre (U6057963) on Monday, 19th December 2011

    Thank you bunners.
    Way to go, Big Man! As far as I could see from the vid, Big Man's actions were non-violent, so 3 cheers for direct action. How a Court might have viewed his actions if the fare-dodger had decided to nurse & embellish a grievance is another matter - as is how a Court may have perceived such actions if taken against a female fare-dodger. But this is increasingly off the point ...



    carrick, the implicit dear, was non-ironic I assure (dere may be post-ironic, but am in enough danger of disappearing up own rs at mo without further speculation). Had far too many laffs here at your posts to not appreciate your point on anything!
    But not always easy to see the Irony Alert in someone else's post, hence my po-facing on about masculism. So, try this for size:
    en.wikipedia.org/wik...

    & as for nagging - i fink OI's winding you up. Time to put the Hurt back into yoghurt i reckon ... break out the BF spoons!

    all the best
    (_!_)y

    Report message27

  • Message 228

    , in reply to message 201.

    Posted by Desperate (U14533525) on Monday, 19th December 2011

    I had a friend who had her cheek bone broken for the temerity to repeatedly ask why the joint bank account was cleaned out.... and yes he tried that defence.

    I would in no way excuse any one male or female for cruel demeaning verbal abuse... but it can be very easy to define a woman speaking o9r voicing her needs and opinions as nagging if you don't want to hear the message. It is a stereotype as any other 



    Once the reason for the cleared account had been given, what WAS the purpose in endlessly repeating the question?

    Did it come as a surprise to your friend that eventually her husband lashed out?

    Or did she take pleasure in taunting him beyond control and then getting him arrested for it?


    it can be very easy to define a woman speaking or voicing her needs and opinions as nagging if you don't want to hear the message. 


    How many times is it reasonable to repeat the message before it becomes nagging?  


    OI, when i read this from you I did not detect any humour or irony and felt like being violent towards you, now if you mean what you typed here, you would not think that was strange or or wrong because violence is a normal reaction to being annoyed. Its the same.

    Yes it is. Don't try to wriggle out of it.

    Nagging is when its about washing up or the loo seat or some other mundane thing, not cleaning out a joint bank account. Cleaning out a joint bank account is a big deal. Violence from the aggreived party would make more sense, if when he did not answer the second time she had attacked him she would have a more reasonable defence than him for the violence.

    The interesting thing is that you either think its reasonable to joke about how some thug who basically stole from his partner was in the right to hit her when challenged about it, or you think it really is OK to do that.

    Well normally i don't mind you playing devils advocate and see some value and humour in it but in this case its more literally devils advocate, as in the behaviour is evil by most civilized standards.

    Perhaps I should not go on, but this really did not make sense to me as either humour or serious argument.

    Report message28

  • Message 229

    , in reply to message 228.

    Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Tuesday, 20th December 2011

    My essential point is that we should consider the possibility that in circumstances of domestic dispute women will sometimes persist in endless repetition of the cause of their resentment to the extent that it is possible that they either desire to provoke violence, or are reckless of the probability that that will eventually be the outcome.

    How many hours must a man accept being shouted at before it becomes legitimate for him to respond?

    Incidentally, lest you think I have an agenda, I have never resorted to violence, but have sometimes in domestic disputes reflected that I understand why those less able to exercise self control and to respond verbally, or to refrain from providing the encouragement of any response, might do so.

    And I HAVE been the recipient of violence from a woman. But obviously that does not count.

    Report message29

  • Message 230

    , in reply to message 229.

    Posted by carrick-bend (U2288869) on Tuesday, 20th December 2011

    How many hours must a man accept being shouted at before it becomes legitimate for him to respond? 
    That's an easy question to answer, OI.
    It is NEVER legitimate for anyone, man or woman, to respond with violence to any amount of shouting.

    And I HAVE been the recipient of violence from a woman. But obviously that does not count.  
    It does count.

    Report message30

  • Message 231

    , in reply to message 201.

    Posted by alanis (U2256129) on Tuesday, 20th December 2011

    I had a friend who had her cheek bone broken for the temerity to repeatedly ask why the joint bank account was cleaned out.... and yes he tried that defence.
     

    Once the reason for the cleared account had been given, what WAS the purpose in endlessly repeating the question?

    Did it come as a surprise to your friend that eventually her husband lashed out?

    Or did she take pleasure in taunting him beyond control and then getting him arrested for it?  

    As l understand it, she kept asking because she hadn't got an answer. Are there many situations in which a person whose money has just been stolen is said to have "taken pleasure in taunting" the perpetrator about it? Or in "getting" him arrested - as though he didn't deserve arrest over the theft, even without the subsequent assault?

    Report message31

  • Message 232

    , in reply to message 224.

    Posted by anna kist (U2314477) on Tuesday, 20th December 2011

    But the way someone deals with it gives the measure of the person. Grief doesn't give one the license to upturn everyone else's lives for ever.

    Report message32

  • Message 233

    , in reply to message 229.

    Posted by Desperate (U14533525) on Tuesday, 20th December 2011

    Ok, OI, That makes more sense, when i was much younger i remember mum and stepdad being very sheepish one morning and my mother having a bruise, they admitted that in an argument she had repeatedly demanded that he hit her, as in "go on then! hit me! do it! Go on!
    Eventually he did.

    They were both ashamed as the argument was about sweet fanny adams.

    So your argument makes more sense to me than it will to others, but for the most part domestic violence is men against women and when the violence is frequent and serious its more about serious psychological problems that the man has. I say this because I work in supported housing, at one of the other projects is a refuge, there was a woman there who kept getting found by her husband, going home with him and escaping again. The last time he found her he hung himself outside her window, or so i am told.

    Anyway, there are circumstances where an individual may wish to initiate a physical confrontation with a spouse as you suggest, but there are also circumstances where one partner is fully in the wrong because they are emotionally stunted.

    Report message33

Back to top

About this Board

Welcome to the Archers Messageboard.

or register to take part in a discussion.


The message board is currently closed for posting.

This messageboard is now closed.

This messageboard is reactively moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.