See what you made me do ...by Jess Hill

[magentaflame]

Recently I discovered a little App called 'Audible' .
Two reasons for this, firstly I was afraid of paying money for books that will eventually begin piling up beside my bed and become ornaments instead of joining my main library. And because my eyes are beginning to feel the strain. (those lenses are becoming thicker)

Also a sneaky little confession..........who doesn't like being read to sleep?

I've enjoyed many items so far. And I especially like the books read by the authors.
I'm finding podcasts to be a tad tiresome unless they are humorous.

I am glad that one book in particular was on Audible rather than paper. 'See what you made me do' by Jess Hill.
It's extremely traumatic to listen to and I dare say if I had had to read it, I would have put it down and been afraid to pick it up again. Listening to it though has made it more palatable ...only just. I have to admit when reading psychological sciency stuff my brain tends to fade a little. In this area I'm a listener and a inquisitor, not a labour ridden cushion. I always question what I hear but not always what I read.

I can honestly say this book will turn your thinking around. I now understand violence and coerciveness against women. I understand the drive behind it and societal norms and traits that allow it to happen in the first place. I was gobsmacked. To learn that testosterone causes violence is a myth. One of the reasons for testosterone is about status in men. And I loved the analogy given. Basically "most" men think that toilet cleaning is women's work even if they live alone it's a job they'd prefer to handball to someone else. Because they see it as a degrading job. As men see most women's oriented careers, hence lower pay rates and conditions etc.. But if you held a world wide competition that only men could enter, to who's toilet was the cleanest the testosterone level would rise in those competitors with every stroke of the scrubbing brush. I guess its also like the early ads for a new invention called the typewriter. They depicted a woman in front of it....It then became a woman's job to type. The computer not so much though and is now dominated by males. Imagine if they had put a woman in front of a computer in the early ads?


I guess it's like the word "c***" . When a man calls another man that word he is not always thinking of a female at the time but he is unconsciously asserting his status above the other man by inferring he is lesser being than himself. ie a woman.

To learn that it's not about guilt but shame. An innate trait all of us have from birth!!!!! To learn women know shame in abundance because we walk that tightrope from when we're extremely young. Men aren't called pushy, or sluts or stepping out of line. Men are basically told to show their masculinity "over" others not to show shame because it's unmasculine .......that's until they can't anymore. And that's when it comes pouring out of them either hysterically or calculatedly.
And it all gets mingled up in a soup that is not good for anyone.

Anyway I'm only half way through this book and it is quite harrowing. But it's made me look at men in a different way rather than "all men are barstards" . A lot of them are and different societies have played their part in this...you reap what you sow, so to speak.
The book explains why women don't leave. Why they go back, why they simply put up with it. (which panged at me me a little)

All the studies referred to in this book I had no idea about ....but the book explains why that's so as well. It's detrimental to our own children. Because they will repeat the cycle.....YES! even your children.

I came to this book way too late. But I would recommend it to anyone. And I think all people in the justice system should read it but not just read it. Talk about it.

[Betty Boop]

I broke the cycle.

Societal norms though, women do this to men too, that can't be explained by a societal norm. I'd go so far as to say the majority of these abusers are mentally ill.

[magentaflame]

I broke the cycle.

Societal norms though, women do this to men too, that can't be explained by a societal norm. I'd go so far as to say the majority of these abusers are mentally ill.

I knew that would come up. Unfortunately, most of the worlds violence is perpetrated by men. The book explains why the old adage of someone is 'mentally ill' to perpetrate abuse has been proven false. Granted a small proportion are. But most abuse is perpetrated by normal every day blokes and why it is so widespread . The book asks why this is so. What was also interesting is across the world studies have been shut down. It's more comfortable for governments to stick to the "mentally ill" excuse. It's also based on studies from the 1930's. The studies in the 70's and 80's are more up to date with stricter studies by not only interested parties like phycologists but scientists as well. It's why "domestic violence" is now a defunct term. It's called 'domestic abuse' to cover more insidious forms of abuse being control and coercion.

I'd love you to read the book. The author gathers many studies and experts.....it's not just her own opinion.
Societal norms implores gender reactions to 'shame' . There is overwhelming evidence of shame playing a major part in abusers and perpetrators actions.

[spot]

Would it not be simpler just to describe this widespread and reprehensible behaviour as sadism? If it's not an appropriate word, how does it differ from what you're describing?

[Betty Boop]

First search for the book tells me it's going to cost me nigh on £10 to read that! who is this woman? a professor?

I think what you are saying applies to things years back, a few reviews on the book claim she's blaming patriarchy?

[spot]

First search for the book tells me it's going to cost me nigh on £10 to read that! who is this woman? a professor?

I think what you are saying applies to things years back, a few reviews on the book claim she's blaming patriarchy?

Patriarchy could be an even better term than sadism and has the advantage that it goes back a lot earlier in history. It does assume, however, that only males display the attributes described in the book - and yes, I do have a copy. If you check with the Marquis de Sade you'll find that the identical behaviour can be seen in men-on-men interactions, women-on-men, women-on-women, and presumably variations between. The same point is made by the author in the introduction. I would entirely agree that the great majority of such abuse is men-on-women, but at the same time it's why I'd prefer to call it sadism.

But, regardless of the preferred name for it, if anyone thinks what's described isn't sadism I repeat my original question, - in what way is sadism different?

[Betty Boop]

First search for the book tells me it's going to cost me nigh on £10 to read that! who is this woman? a professor?

I think what you are saying applies to things years back, a few reviews on the book claim she's blaming patriarchy?

Patriarchy could be an even better answer than sadism and has the advantage that it goes back a lot earlier in history. It does assume, however, that only males display the attributes described in the book - and yes, I do have a copy. If you check with the Marquis de Sade you'll find that the identical behaviour can be seen in men-on-men interactions, women-on-men, women-on-women, and presumably variations between. I would entirely agree that the great majority of such abuse is men-on-women, but at the same time it's why I'd prefer to call it sadism.

Now, if anyone thinks what's described isn't sadism, I repeat my original question, - in what way is sadism different?

sadism
/ˈseɪdɪz(ə)m/
Learn to pronounce
noun
the tendency to derive pleasure, especially sexual gratification, from inflicting pain, suffering, or humiliation on others.
"beneath the apparent loving concern she had glimpsed spite and sadism"

I think sadistic behaviour is linked to the sexual act and requires someone to be in pain physically or humiliated during the act, that's where they get their kicks. That's where us common people place the word sadistic anyway when its specifically linked to abuse that happens during sex.

As much as my ex was nasty and abusive he wasn't sadistic.

[spot]

That's useful. Thank you.

Let's try another angle. Why on earth would any woman living in a historically patriarchal society - which is pretty much everywhere, anytime - ever make such a fundamental mistake as to get married in the first place, if society has progressed to the point where they can make their own living. Back when it was practically impossible for women to work they might get pressured into it, but I don't think that applies today.

[magentaflame]

First search for the book tells me it's going to cost me nigh on £10 to read that! who is this woman? a professor?

I think what you are saying applies to things years back, a few reviews on the book claim she's blaming patriarchy?

I am more than happy to buy it for you . or if you have audible I can send it.

She mentions things in 2017. The whole thing is she doesn't 'blame' anyone.

It's Friday night here I'm having a couple I'll get back to this tomorrow.

[spot]

I'll throw in another try at clarifying my suggestion. Marriage is ownership, it's based entirely on property rights. "To have and to hold" is a feudal expression of ownership. Patriarchal societies the world over forced women into marriage, and still do. But as soon as women become financially independent I have no idea why they would continue to cooperate with that situation. It's like volunteering for slavery.

Just so we've got the same source in front of us, this is from the Oxford English Dictionary: That part of a deed (beginning in Law Latin with the words habendum et tenendum, and in English deeds ‘to have and to hold’) which defines what estate or interest is thereby granted.

[magentaflame]

I'll throw in another try at clarifying my suggestion. Marriage is ownership, it's based entirely on property rights. "To have and to hold" is a feudal expression of ownership. Patriarchal societies the world over forced women into marriage, and still do. But as soon as women become financially independent I have no idea why they would continue to cooperate with that situation. It's like volunteering for slavery.

Just so we've got the same source in front of us, this is from the Oxford English Dictionary: That part of a deed (beginning in Law Latin with the words habendum et tenendum, and in English deeds ‘to have and to hold’) which defines what estate or interest is thereby granted.

I havent looked at marriage like that in a long long time. Financially independent? Now that's a whole nother discussion.

The patriarchy thing though....Jess doesn't get to that until maybe chapter six or seven.

[magentaflame]

First search for the book tells me it's going to cost me nigh on £10 to read that! who is this woman? a professor?

I think what you are saying applies to things years back, a few reviews on the book claim she's blaming patriarchy?

https://www.jesshill.net/

[Betty Boop]

That's useful. Thank you.

Let's try another angle. Why on earth would any woman living in a historically patriarchal society - which is pretty much everywhere, anytime - ever make such a fundamental mistake as to get married in the first place, if society has progressed to the point where they can make their own living. Back when it was practically impossible for women to work they might get pressured into it, but I don't think that applies today.

I'd guess that most girlies nowadays still dream of the big white wedding but before I made such a bold statement I asked a younger woman. I was pleased to discover she has no desire to marry, she wants a house and a good job (phew). She seems to think that that is the view of most of her peers, bar one who has always been mad on having babies and getting married.

[Betty Boop]

First search for the book tells me it's going to cost me nigh on £10 to read that! who is this woman? a professor?

I think what you are saying applies to things years back, a few reviews on the book claim she's blaming patriarchy?

I am more than happy to buy it for you . or if you have audible I can send it.

She mentions things in 2017. The whole thing is she doesn't 'blame' anyone.

It's Friday night here I'm having a couple I'll get back to this tomorrow.

It's ok I managed to get a copy, two chapters in.

A couple what? no, I won't ask ...

[Betty Boop]

I'll throw in another try at clarifying my suggestion. Marriage is ownership, it's based entirely on property rights. "To have and to hold" is a feudal expression of ownership. Patriarchal societies the world over forced women into marriage, and still do. But as soon as women become financially independent I have no idea why they would continue to cooperate with that situation. It's like volunteering for slavery.

Just so we've got the same source in front of us, this is from the Oxford English Dictionary: That part of a deed (beginning in Law Latin with the words habendum et tenendum, and in English deeds ‘to have and to hold’) which defines what estate or interest is thereby granted.

I am pretty sure my daughters generation don't have any grasp of where 'to have and to hold comes from' and call me cynical but I reckon they think it means to have one another and physically hold one another

I have over the years often said in my daughters hearing that marriage is a man made construct, she seems to have taken that on board.

[magentaflame]

Isn't the "honey moon" the same thing? You had to consummate the 'deal' so to speak? Hence the 'sin' of having sex outside marriage? The terms, "giving herself freely", and the rise of the inn keeper/pimp? All women were owned by someone. I remember studying Medieval and Tudor Britain where in certain families maids were on hand to show the blood and officials sat outside (sometimes inside the room ) to make sure the "deal"(ordeal if you like) happened.

[Betty Boop]

Isn't the "honey moon" the same thing? You had to consummate the 'deal' so to speak? Hence the 'sin' of having sex outside marriage? The terms, "giving herself freely", and the rise of the inn keeper/pimp? All women were owned by someone. I remember studying Medieval and Tudor Britain where in certain families maids were on hand to show the blood and officials sat outside (sometimes inside the room ) to make sure the "deal"(ordeal if you like) happened.

The showing of the blood on the sheet was more to do with proving the woman was a virgin and hadn't been soiled by another man prior to her being handed over to her husband I think.

[magentaflame]

First search for the book tells me it's going to cost me nigh on £10 to read that! who is this woman? a professor?

I think what you are saying applies to things years back, a few reviews on the book claim she's blaming patriarchy?

I am more than happy to buy it for you . or if you have audible I can send it.

She mentions things in 2017. The whole thing is she doesn't 'blame' anyone.

It's Friday night here I'm having a couple I'll get back to this tomorrow.

It's ok I managed to get a copy, two chapters in.

A couple what? no, I won't ask ...

Oh cool. I can sincerely tell you it opened my eyes as to why I kept going back. At least it's been explained to me now. I've tossed away all I have heard and even spoken in my lifetime. No wonder I ended up in abusive relationships. I've thrown the old book out the window.

Couple of merlots. Had to change my drinking habits it's red wine these days.

[magentaflame]

Isn't the "honey moon" the same thing? You had to consummate the 'deal' so to speak? Hence the 'sin' of having sex outside marriage? The terms, "giving herself freely", and the rise of the inn keeper/pimp? All women were owned by someone. I remember studying Medieval and Tudor Britain where in certain families maids were on hand to show the blood and officials sat outside (sometimes inside the room ) to make sure the "deal"(ordeal if you like) happened.

The showing of the blood on the sheet was more to do with proving the woman was a virgin and hadn't been soiled by another man prior to her being handed over to her husband I think.

In Spain and Italy it was, it was common in catholic countries.