Part II of II on “Responsible Citizenhood” is in labor.  

The waters have broken, and there is a flood of information and synthesis of concepts gushing forth on many topics, and my brain is dialating.   They will have to be posted in stages.

Translation:  I am being a Responsible Citizen (see prior posts) and exploring who is my Congress, the Constitution, who is funding whom, and finding all kinds of juicy information on whose idea was it to reinstitute a national religion called Fatherhood, funded by all of us.  I have also located a few new (to me at least) search tools How many thoughts have been provoked!

But, this (relatively) recent news alert reminded me, that Part of Responsible Citizenhood might entail learning how to handle a gun, and being willing to use it during a home invasion.  Even a home invasion by an estranged husband:

Wife fought off Pa. man killed in shootout

by Michael Rubinkam

Let’s look at this headline again.  This woman fought him off, and neither she, nor any of her offspring got killed.  If you look up the articles and read the details, she made a mistake, which, if you read below and see how WIGGLY Pa considers the “PFAs” when it comes to what they mean, is almost understandable.  But once the situation became clear, she took QUICK action to protect her children, get free, and call for help.  

This is not, folks, how it often plays out.  Who knows whether, God, fortune, or luck played a role, but we DO know this woman didn’t stop to debate, and she also didn’t panic and go dysfunctional.  May I propose that this woman listening to her INSTINCTS and acting on them may have prevented a higher body count.  LESSON ONE:  Don’t jerk around with someone who has just crossed a boundary.  Don’t second guess instinct.  And (next time) don’t compromise one INCH on an existing protective or restraining order — it sends a mixed message, and could lead to this.

May I propose something else?  I suggest that lawmakers and courts consider that women are people too, and smarten up to having us believe the fiction and play the slot games with any intimate partner who has been battering us in the home, or threatening to, etc.  May I suggest that instead of — or in addition to — DISarming him, they somehow ARM her, and if she’s not trained how to do so, get her some professional responsible training.  It could be mace, it could be pepper spray, but constitutionally, it could be a gun, too, at least in the home.  

Given the options, she has hope, luck, prayer, and walking around the neighborhood with her instincts on alert, her antennae up, and then trying to also rebuild a life.   “LIFE, LIBERTY, and PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.”  Now what was that first one again?  

Detriment:  May give a whole new picture of “motherhood” to “fatherhood” people who don’t believe women should be allowed to separate, do not have equal rights, and VAWA should go back to where it came from.      

In this above statement, I omitted the comma between “fatherhood” people and who don’t believe.  This is generous on my part, because I am conceding that there could be people all excited about and promoting fatherhood who DON’T believe these things.  In fact, I don’t really believe this.  I think that what the “fatherhood” movement is about is that the genetic / gender / biological composition of a family and household (one man, one woman, both married) is more important than the character or behavior of such families.  I am not the only person who believes this.  Some data is here (hover cursor for my comment.  Note:  This dates to 2002, almost 7 years ago.      .http://www.canow.org/fam_report.pdf. 

Now, when I married, I picked someone of the opposite gender, rather than someone of the same gender and, when it came to wanting children, either adoption or a sperm donor.  This is probably because of how I like my sex, and the other versions didn’t concern me.

However, when I realized that my opposite-gender person’s main concern was my gender and household function ONLY, and not me as a person — and began physically punishing me for showing up as a person like him, and expecting to pursue some personal goals, not only the laundry/cleaning/nursing/f____ing role (in addition to supporting him in his business, and — if I wanted necessities — also working myself in and/or outside the home for pay) — I made a determination that behavior was the determinant, not gender, or a two-parent status.  The MAIN reason I did this was because we had children, and it was a damn lousy role model they were being exposed to.  The children were of my gender, and they were being taught how this one was somehow inferior and equipped with fewer rights, if any, and no boundaries or ability to say NO without taking retaliation for it.  THAT’s a lousy role model, and he got himself evicted, not after several warnings.  

I suppose you would like me to get to the story here, how THIS woman saved her life, her children’s life, but alas, not the pursuing policeman’s life, or her husband’s (although I lay that one as his responsibility — no one forced him to threaten his wife with a gun or kidnap his child, or place himself above a clear law he knew was in place upon him).

YATESVILLE, Pa. (AP) — Hobbled by a broken ankle, the estranged wife of a man killed in a shootout with Pennsylvania state troopers managed to fight him off as he threatened her with a gun before he kidnapped their 9-year-old son, the woman’s friend said.

The order of events is a little jumbled in the paragraph.  The AP wanted it out fast, I guess, and so we get this:

• A. Her ankle was broken
• B. She was estranged from her husband
• C.  He was killed by PA state troopers in a shootout (i.e., he was shooting back).
• D.  1.  She fought him off 2.  while he threatened her with a gun.
• E. He kidnapped their 9 year old son.

Having been through a FEW of the events above (not including the shootout), let me put it, I suspect, chrono.

• B.  Cause of broken ankle — don’t know and probably not relevant.
• D.2 He threatened her with a gun
• D. 1 THIS MOM FOUGHT BACK.
• E. THEN (having been fought off), he grabs their son and dashes off (probably in a car).
• C. State troopers, apparently, caught up with him, and I’ll gol-dang bet he shot first.  Predictably, they shot back. 
• Thank God the state troopers had some firearms training, so HE got killed, not his wife and not the son he kidnapped, this time.

First of all, let’s deal with the grammar dishonesty (gender bias?) with B.  “She was estranged from her husband” which has an element of the truth, and distorts the actual context.  This is such common press practice in domestic violence homicide (or incident) reporting:

LEGALLY, it appears he’d acted first, and she had responded with a “protection from abuse” order.  Unless the news disagrees with the judge that is THE most relevant factor in the case, apart from this incident.  It most certainly is prime factual,  legal and emotional dynamic CONTEXT of the incident.  “She was estranged” could’ve been, she got tired of his dirty socks around home, she wanted to pursue another affair, or he did; he refused to work OR was an alcoholic, she was bored, he was using drugs or alcohol, or they had other “irreconciliable differences.”  “She was estranged” already must minimized the truth.  If a protective order was in place, and these reporters are not aware enough yet that this produces LOTS of hot news leads in the form of crime reporting, they need to review the job descriptions — or their editors do.  (To tell the truth, I didn’t notice this the first time through the story myself, although I have always thought it an odd phrase).  

B.  THEY were estranged.  or, better,

B.  “In _____ (date) (or how recent), she obtained a PFA (say it:  “protection from abuse“) order (in what court, or county), forcing him to leave the family home.

It is so typical of abusers, abuser enablers, and for that matter, the bulk of the family law system, to IGNORE THE ACTIONS and TALK ABOUT WHO “WAS” WHAT RATHER THAN WHO “DID” WHAT.  IT”S PSYCHOLOGY NOT EVIDENCE.  THIS IS NO ACCIDENT!

From the 2002 California Family Court Report (link above):  (under “Loss of Due Process”)

A. Lack of procedural and evidentiary due process,since the Family Code was 

separated from the Code of Civil Procedure and the Evidence Code in 

1992. 

Alas (and the emphasis of other articles on this event) — – Mad Dad was not in a compromise mood, and shot at responding officers.  Terribly, he got a cop, too. Again — and these officers WERE brave, and they DID stop a kidnapping in process.  

That’s about a recipe for suicide by cop.  Whether or not he had thought THIS far ahead, one thing is clear:  He’d pre-meditated far enough ahead to bring a gun and point it at his wife.   

I experienced a decade of being exceedingly afraid of my husband in the home, being traumatized, and eventually being sure enough (because he talked about it often enough, fantasizing about this, and telling me, so, or otherwise bringing it up casually in conversation:  “I’ll just have to kill you.”  At this time, both our children were under 8 years old.)  This has caused economic devastation upon me, my daughters, and people associated with both him, and us.  It has wasted taxpayer funds year after year (in family law, where our case shouldn’t have been at the time) and taken almost 20 years of the prime working years of my life and trashed them repeatedly, under threats, stalkings, intimidations, sudden appearances at my home, and in general, one hell of a mess.  He is still only working part-time, if that, doesn’t pay taxes (I don’t because I don’t earn enough), he is not financially independent yet and, because of this and unfortunately, neither am I.  Our state is broke (supposedly) which is headline news, and is getting people very short-tempered in general.

I wonder, and I DO reflect — SUPPOSE I HAD FOUGHT BACK, AND NOT ONLY THAT, THREATENED BACK:  IF YOU EVER DO THIS AGAIN, YOU’LL BE MISSING A BODY PART.  OR DEAD!    And then dropped everything until I had learned self defense.

Or, I had told been less committed to my marriage vows, and dumped his ass out on the street — in other words, brought it to a head earlier.  WHY did I not do that?  (a number of reasons:  #1.  VAWA and awareness of DV laws was not commonplace.  #2.  I’d never had a similar experience where I had to set a boundary with a violent man before, and wasn’t acquainted personally with such situations.  #3.  self-defense and handling a gun is not a typical part of the public school education, and not exactly promoted, as in, exercising 2nd Amendment rights, in general.  We are not hunting our food, but buying it, for the most part (or growing it).  I was not raised in urban areas, where awareness of guns and gun violence was commonplace, but in more rural; people shot deer, or sometimes squirrels, not people!  I also wasn’t raised on TV.  

School rewards taking orders and obeying rules, at least theoretically.

And that’s not “feminine” behavior.  

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

WHAT IF MEN UNDERSTOOD  – – – REALLY UNDERSTOOD  – – – THAT EVEN WITHIN A RELATIONSHIP, A SMACK WILL BE SMACKED, BACK, HARDER, BECAUSE IT’S SO OUT OF ORDER?   WHAT IF WOMEN WEREN’T SO DESPERATE TO SURVIVE ECONOMICALLY, OR FOR SEXUAL ATTENTION, OR TO HAVE A MAN ON THE ARM, THAT NONE OF THEM COMPROMISED?

WOULD THERE STILL BE FAMILIES AS WE KNOW THEM NOW?

Maybe the fatherhood guys are “right.”  Maybe  (from that perspective) if men are not needed to provide for and protect women,and defend them from other suitors, stalkers, or rapists, or to help them, particularly when they are more vulnerable, pregnant and raising young kids, the differences between the sexes (as to functions in life) would so blur, that, well, the drive to achieve and provide would diminish, the wheels of the economy would crumble (and a lot of faith institutions also), and life just wouldn’t have that same glow, or afterglow.

Without the primal urge, there would be no skyscrapers (9/11?) or cathedrals, and no empires, multi-national or otherwise.  Maybe.  life just wouldn’t have that zest and drama.  Newspapers would need to find other ways to sell the products, if there weren’t crises to report. 

Well, that’s a larger topic.  But it seems a natural question:  If the nuclear family ain’t what protects, and provides for its young, the only alternative is for equality of income.  NOW, Papa Obama and the majority of  Head Start, Zero to Five, Administration for Families and Children, (sorry sir to pick on you, this wasn’t your idea to start with) might be out of work.  ONLY if the ONLY way to produce income is a “job” that MUST be done outside the home, ONLY then is it essential to have the other functions of raising a family:  care, daytime feeding, and education — to be done by someone else, institutionally.  

However the people so vigorously promoting this solution ONLY (and highly suspicious of, say, the homeschooling option which is a lot more fluid, lets mothers network and find each other’s long suits, collaborate locally to find the best teachers (including some of each other, as well as hired professionals), and fire the lousy ones — now THAT’S a plus) and actually have a better understanding of who their children are, and possibly better relationships with them, not rigidly defined ones) — these people — and I coudl show you, or you could look for yourself — are THEMSELVES either inheriting wealth, or have sufficient assets to go fund ggovernment policy, publicize and drive various programs through and teach THEIR young how to own businesses and produce passive cash flow, themselves.

Then who would work in the businesses they own?  There has to be a steady population — and the majority of the population — that does NOT know how to live independently from the government, or the “employee” situation — or life would, well, it just wouldn’t work right.  Who would work the factories, produce the many, many terrific products we enjoy in this country, the material prosperity, the varities of fast foods (and agencies pronouncing that fast foods are bad for you), and all that?

(Along with the domestic violence kidnappings, suicides by cop, traumatized kids, and sometimes dead people, that go along with when this doesn’t work out so well…..).

Well, that dialogue is what I get for thinking.  It’s Monday night quarterbacking, I guess, “what-if” scenarios.  I cannot turn back the clock in my own case.  The fact is, if I hadn’t been who I was, probably the genetic and particular DNA of my two wonderful daughters (who are probably not reading this, yet), and with whom I am NOT spending any more time, would not have been born.  I have already determined (and she’s spoken with me recently) that woman number two was targeted for a certain gullibility and in a certain venue, for use to get the kids away from me.  He’s out on the loose again, troubling me, because I’ve been contacted, and her, because of what that indicates.  

HOWEVER, the rest of this post, below, shows how the local Women’s Resource Agency describes why women should keep coming, keep asking for “PFA” orders and keep playing the odds, because, it’s after all, only about ONE out of THREE cases that violates these orders, and “NOT ALL” do “WHAT HE DID.”

Well, in school, 66% is not a passing grade.  Last I heard, 70% was.  We are talking 66% success rate when the other 33% (add your decimal points later) might get killed and result in this.  We’re not talking about graduating from high school, but living out a normal lifespan, and not in terror, trauma, or having to before a child is ten, witness a homicide.  Or two.  Or being kidnapped.  About officers NOT having to make that sacrifice, and THEIR children lose a Daddy also.  How is THAT “promoting responsible fatherhood.”

I think that the time of restraining orders may have passed, and that we probably need to focus on both attitudes, cultural values and self-defense techniques (including weapons if necessary) that make it ABSOLUTELY clear that any such violation of a personal boundary in the form of a HIT will be met with equal, and to make a point, slightly greater responding force to emphasize the unacceptability of it.

I think local communities will have to figure out processes, not “states” they wish to achieve.  And this requires being realistic about restraining order and a valid understanding of what abuse IS.

I have one:  ABUSE is violating personal boundaries (and, most time, state criminal laws) in order to establish a “giving orders” situation between what should be intimate partners.  As such, it qualifies as “two-year-old” behavior and should result in the adult who has regressed to it, and thinks that 2009 is, in fact, closer to 1920 (when women finally got the vote) should be treated like the two-year-old mentality of, the world should conform to you when you don’t like it, without your submitting to some process of negotiation, compromise, or humility.  I would like to add that, as I recall this, I always wondered why our daughters didn’t go through the famous “Terrible Twos” {is this an Americdan term only?  I don’t know…}  rebellious stages. I remember this at the time also.  It could be that we weren’t dumping them off in daycare, where they needed more attention, oir it just possibly could’ve been that we had a much larger Terrible Two in the home, in the form of their father, and they knew this.

Only when it’s UNacceptable throughout society to beat women, and terrorize anyone, will this stop.  The only acceptable reasons for doing anything like this in defense of life’s essentials — and these do not include maintaining a status quo in which the abuser’s world is perfect, and his ego cannot handle rejection, the need to apologize, or occasional value conflicts.  The heart of any really good intimate relationship would do real well to closely resemble what’s written in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, which most of us (and our legislators) have apparently forgotten.

I happen to be a Christian, and my faith tells me about when this will, and will not happen.  I have had to often re-evaluate the duality (us/them) and domination (Christ came once and was humbled/crucified voluntarily, but will return in authority as king and by force put down all rebellion, bringing in world peace), and I assure you, in the many, MANY years I have been around and working (through music) in several faith institutions, the music is terrific, but within white (in particular, but not only) Protestantism, nondenominational especially, equality of women is “anathema” and these places are producing wife-beaters and wife-killers.  They do not communally or prominently acknowledge the laws of the land in their hearts, and many (those who do not ordain women, or and hate even the concept of them in leadership, let alone of gays, or lesbians) , despite sometimes sheltering a battered woman, or helping her (i’ve been helped a few times recently), they will NOT stop sheltering the doctines and attitudes that produce more batterred women, and more overentitled men.  this is behind the “fatherhood” movement, and it produces a form of social schizophrenia, in which we have a public school system where “God” is not allowed, or prayer, yet public policy where “faith-based” advice and policies are promoted.  Well, which is it, folks?

That’s all the psycho- social-analysis for this post.  What’s below (written earlier) relates more directly to this particular domestic violence double-homicide, kidnapping, assault, and tragedy which began with “she was estranged,” and a look at the neighborhood response.

What probably kept that woman and her children alive was her willingness to fight back.  What put her at risk was compromising the existing restraining order (including drop off at curb), and (possibly) her not having the means or intent to, at ALL times since it was issued, NEVER compromise it AT ALL.  ONE means might be for her husband to have understand that she understood her 2nd Amendment right to self-defense, and having it in the home, AND her willingness and intent to act on it, if even 3 yards of  a restraining order was violated.  This sends a clear message, and would put that man back in a place to reconsider whether he wants to test the limits, or can talk or plan, or manipulate his way out of obeying that order.  

The courts need to do more to communicate this necessity to women who have just separated.  They need to understand that NOW, it’s OK to take a personally aggressive stance and back it up with a willingness to act if boundaries are violated.  That IS, after all, WHY the “United States of America” is no longer a British colony, or any other colony (so far), and we might do well to keep communicating this principle to our young, boy and girl alike. Not to belabor the point, but our schools absolutely do NOT, do this at this point, and I say, intentionally so. You can’t “manage” people so well who understand their self-worth.

However Susan Autenreith may have been raised, at the crucial time, she found something within herself to say No, and stand up to this.  Having made a mistake, she didn’t condemn herself or try to talk out of the situation.  Gun meant FIGHT BACK, YELL DIRECTIONS TO HE KIDS, &  CALL FOR HELP.

How Logical Is This?

~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

About that MOM?  

Let’s go chrono, OK?

Not all (female) readers have been through the process of, say,

(1) childbirth,

(2) being assaulted, threatened, intimidated, battered, and in short abused, or other situations which tell you “Danger! Danger!,”

(3) filing and getting a PFA (domestic violence restraining, or etc.) order with kickout, indicating “Danger!  Danger!” to all and “STAY AWAY!” to Dad, (and, you can’t buy guns, either, or own them), and then 

(4) IMMEDIATELY after these at least actions (applying for a temporary, filing with judge, getting it signed, serving the husband (which then in effect throws him out of the house in some manner), going to court for a hearing to have it made permanent, having it made “permanent” (i.e., facing the ex in that court hearing), and meanwhile attempting to explain this to one’s children in terms they can understand why he can’t live here anymore, then — with a restraining order in effect — typically the NEXT stop is the mediator who will then proceed to act as though there wasn’t really, any serious domestic violence (other than, meetings may be separate) and say, “OK, so long as it’s peaceful communications around the children” and then design some visitation plan any other divorcing couple might have, even the most amicable divorces.  Which appears to have happened in this place.

In 1992, Jack Straton, Ph.D. (NOMAS:  National Org. of Men Against Sexism) recommended a cooling off period.

So far, no one has figured this out, evidently.

(5) Agreeing, after this, to a custody/visitation exchange plan which basically has a split personality:  

Hey, he  was so dangerous, you had to get a judge to tell him  to stay away, and order no weapons in the home, BUT . . . .. BUT . . . . . it’s OK to give this same, by now pretty distraught or indignant/upset man access to the fruit of his loins, regularly . . . .  After all, what about a child’s right to bond with both parents?  

This, I say, gives the man, the woman, and the children a mixed message.  I have also learned (the hard way) since, the courts ALSO are getting contradictory messages (and funding) about these matters.  IS domestic violence a crime, or not a crime?  

And so we get cases like the Autenreiths, where Dad didn’t LIKE having that protective order in place, and made this clear with a 9mm.  His girlfriend helped him get a gun.  Again, his girlfriend.

WHICH BRINGS UP THIS POINT:  Telling a man to not own weapons, and get rid of any he does own, doesn’t prevent him — in the least — from grabbing one from a friend who has one (or in this case, a girlfriend buying one for him.  I believe this is called a straw purchase, and laws exist to address this, but still, it points out that generally there is a way around the law for those who intend to find one).

(How long were they separated?  How hard is it for a man with a plan to get around a piece of paper?)

in order to STOP the cycle of abuse which, without intervention, generally does one thing — escalate, until someone is killed, or more than one, 

WHAT ARE THE ODDS?  HOW WELL DO YOU KNOW THAT MAN?  HOW WILL HE RESPOND TO THE PFA?

=======

HERE IS THE RESPONSE REGARDING “PFA’S” TO THIS PARTICULAR ASSAULT, BATTERY, CHILD-KIDNAPPING, THREATS, CAR CHASE AND DOUBLE-HOMICIDE.  I HAVE EMPHASIZED ANY AREAS  THAT SHOW UNCERTAINTY, LOOPHOLES FOR DANGER:

WOMEN’S RESOURCES OF MONROE COUNTY (PA):  PFA’s WORK IN MOST CASES

By Andrew Scott

Pocono Record June 12, 2009

A protection-from-abuse order [“”PFA”] may be just a piece of paper unable to stop the likes of Daniel Autenrieth, the Northampton County man who threatened his wife at gunpoint, kidnapped their son and led police on a high-speed chase that ended in a fatal shootout in Tobyhanna.

{To review:  PFA, then:

• DEAD PEOPLE — 2, OFFICER, MAN
• WOUNDED — 1, OFFICER
• VERY TRAUMATIZED — 9 YEAR OLD SON, MOM, OTHER KIDS}}

The fact remains that most people with PFAs filed against them comply with those court orders and don’t do what Autenrieth did. So although PFAs aren’t absolutely guaranteed to stop someone who’s unbalanced or really intent on doing harm, people who are being physically abused or feel threatened with physical harm in relationships still should apply for PFAs.

{{Perhaps they should also buy a Lotto ticket?}}

That was the message at a Thursday press conference at Women’s Resources of Monroe County in Delaware Water Gap. Women’s Resources is part of the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence, which provides a network of advocacy, legal, counseling, medical and other support services for domestic violence victims.

. . . 

In Pennsylvania, PFA violators can face up to six months in county jail and fines of up to $1,000, depending on the severity of the violation, said Wendy Bentzoni, a detective with the Monroe County District Attorney’s Office.

If a woman requests a PFA against her husband and he consents to the order’s terms

•  Being evicted from the home he/she shares with the plaintiff/victim and having no contact with that person.
•  Being evicted, but being allowed to have contact.
•  Being allowed to stay in the home as long as there is no physical abuse or threat of physical abuse.

In Pennsylvania, a PFA can be in effect for any length of time up to three years, depending on what a judge rules or what the parties involved consent to in each individual case. If the defendant doesn’t violate the PFA, the order simply expires when its time is up.

In Pennsylvania, a PFA can be in effect for any length of time up to three years, depending on what a judge rules or what the parties involved consent to in each individual case. If the defendant doesn’t violate the PFA, the order simply expires when its time is up.

Of the 450 PFAs granted in Monroe County last year, more than 125 were violated by defendants, Bentzoni said.

{{OK, Let’s look at that.  Suppose it was 150.  150 violated out of 450 is 1 out of 3.  That means for every 2 that WERE kept (as far as they know — by whether or not a violation was reported or not) 1 was not.  How do you like them odds?  Your PFA has a 33.33% of being violated (in which case, see above for potential risk/fallout).  

In some cases, getting a PFA filed against an abuser can worsen the victim’s situation because the abuser sees it as the victim trying to take power away from the abuser{{WHICH IT IS INCIDENTALLY}}, she said. Desperate to retain that power over the victim, the abuser might become even more dangerous.

“Against someone with no fear of the law or jail, a PFA might not be the best action to take,” Kessler said. “In that case, we explore other options with the victim. The goal is to get the victim out of a vulnerable position.”

If the abuser is the sole breadwinner for the victim and their children, fear of losing the abuser’s financial support also might deter the victim from applying for a PFA, Kessler said.

Well, I know in my case it sure delayed getting one.  Often economic abuse can precede physical.

Economic abuse can precedes and enables the physical AND IS PRE-MEDITATED.  If the targeted person can’t afford to get away, or see how they could conceivably do so, they will take their chances staying, possibly.  What a great choice — homelessness or increasing domestic abuse.  

So, it seems to me if we want a less violent world, the most sensible thing would be focus on teaching children and young people how to become economically independent.  In a wonderful contradiction of intent, we DON’T!  The entire public schools system in the U.S.A., for the most part, consists of teaching children how to be submissive and take orders, leave the thinking up to the experts, who will grade them, and prepare them for this:  College, and Jobs.  Not, College and BUSINESSES.  Or College, and understanding the economic principles that would help them become business owners, investors, cash-stream producers, foundation producers, and independent thinkers.  How hypocritical.  

And that includes independent thinking about how to survive financially should they choose to have children, or should they not choose to have children, but set up housekeeping (and sleeping) with a partner that might become sick, injured, or — face it – incarcerated.  They should not have to go nurse off Dad, or Mom, or Big Brother the Welfare State, in this case.  The goal should NOT be lifetime jobs, but lifetime progression towards financial independence.  They cannot do this if they aren’t studying people who have accomplished this, and the basic principles of wealth.

We should also teach them not to let any partner or potential partner disarm them economically — whether it be job, or bank account, or credit, or access to transportation etc.  That any such action is aggression, and dangerous to their welfare, creating an artificial co-dependence.  They should know this going into relationships.  

Now right there, we have a SERIOUS problems.  Many world religions don’t accept this, and are not likely to.  

Well, maybe they should, in the US, then lose their tax-exempt status.  Believe me, I’ve thought of it.  Because if they are contributing to the climate of “It’s OK to dominate a woman by any means (or weapon) that comes to hand, because it makes you more of a man,” then they should have to fork over the taxes that society might need to take care of the resulting mess.

And I’ll tell you another “secret” (not a real secret) — one I’ve been thinking about more recently.  The majority of these institutions are in a co-dependent and domination relationship within their own ranks.  If they didn’t dominate and under-educate them on their own sacred scripts (men and women alike), in the US, at least, many people would not be so dependent on spiritual, social, and emotional nourishment on the weekends and maybe ONE weekday.  But that is another post, and probably, blog.  

We ought to teach, besides, reading math writing, sport and the arts (to put it roughly) the PROCESSES and VALUES OF:

Self-sufficiency, Self-defense, and self-discipline, to the point of in-depth excellence and mastery in one primary area.  With that I believe will come sufficient self-esteem not to enter into too many co-dependent relationships. 

I recommend reading John Taylor Gatto’s short book called Dumbing Us Down:  The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling, in which he says, plainly, that the seven lessons he, as a teacher (and at the time NY State Teacher of the Year” actually is teaching is not “relevance” and “interrelationship” of subjects, but the exact opposite.  Specifically, in order from the chapter:  “The Seven Lesson Schoolteacher,” they are:

1. CONFUSION
2. CLASS POSITION
3. INDIFFERENCE
4. EMOTIONAL DEPENDENCY
5. INTELLECTUAL DEPENDENCY
6. PROVISIONAL SELF-ESTEEM
7. ONE CAN’T HIDE.

The next chapter is called the “psychopathic school” after which he details his efforts of getting a little girl who read beautifully out of a class of bad readers.  The girl (reading aloud beautifully) tells him how the administration had explained to her mother that she was, in reality, a “bad reader who had fantasies of being a better reader than she was.”  Then, the author relates how the principal tried the same thing on him:  how was he, a substitute to know whether or not this child could read.

MY EXPERIENCE:  This actually is at the heart of the educational AND the family law system of “experts.”  My “sin” was homeschooling the children, and having fantasies (as do many single mothers leaving abuse) that we could make a sound decision on behalf of our sons and daughter, after we’d made just about the soundest one around — LEAVING the situation!  

Consider this:

Our form of compulsory schooling was an invention of the State of Massachusetts around 1850.  It was resisted — with guns — by about 80% of the Massachusetts population, the last outpost being Barnstable on Cape Cod not surrendering its children until the area was seized by militia and children marched to school under guard.  (p. 25, 

There is more, but as I review those 7 lessons above, I can’t help thinking about the uncommon similarities between abuse — even it’s definitions — and the family law system, as well as the concept of using another abusive system to handle abuse by one person towards another in the presence of children.

Is ALL conflict bad?  No, conflict involving true self-defense, or boundary violations.

Is marriage, or an “intimate partner relationship,” a person as property contract?  A relationship as property contract?  I believe the law calls it a FIDUCIARY relationship.  As such, no one has a right to commit what in other context would be a crime, to protect loss of contact with this former sexual partner, parent of one’s children, children, or the breakdown of a relationship.

WHEN IT GETS TO THE POINT OF PFAs and RESTRAINING ORDERS, the enforcement should be thorough, immediate, clear, and strong.  The dialogue above illustrates why, in practice, it ain’t.  SO the conflicts go on, and escalate.

I have taught lots of children (and adults) in lots of venues and classrooms, and non-class situations.  There are always rules ,and in-progress negotiation about common standards, there is always a dynamic flexibility within the group, there is the matter of consensus and critical mass.

The superb choir that got me going into music was about 40 in number, and we stood in mixed quartets, holding our own parts, produced records, soloists, and in general moved mountains and kicked butt musically.  It was powerful stuff.  We rehearsed almost daily and worked to pay for some of our own needs (including uniforms, painting the room, and going to conferences).  We associated after school (and sometimes before) and in other venues than school; we ate, played, and attended concerts together.

Since then, I have sung in (and sometimes directed) choirs numbering from approximately 12 up to over 100.  The ideal size (and one of the best choirs I was in) was about 18, or very maximum 20, if they were professionals and unified.  I have had a little choir of only 11 do amazing things, because it was small enough to be responsive.

I have always thought it odd that the top ensembles are generally smaller than a typical public school classroom, and many of them not much larger than a large family, with a cousin or two.  It brings out the best when there is a unified goal that is reasonable (but still stretching limits) to the people involved.  The best choirs also were VOLUNTARY, not compulsory.  They chose challenging music (to keep the participants growing) but always taking into account that the audience might not feel so esoteric in general.  They mixed and matched, but they HAD to set a fairly high standard technically and musically – or in portrayal.

How does this relate to the Wife who Fought Back?

The system they were ensared in was too large, and is ruling and prognosticating by “the odds.”  MOST people (translation: men) do not violate the PFAs, after all, just over 125 out of 450 did in this particular area.  Therefore, the women should keep on coming, because what else could they do? It MIGHT not result in this, after all, NOT ALL men do what Mr. Autenreith did.

And we have this growing crisis of “fatherlessness”?  That’s a fatherless family, and it just made a peace officer’s kids fatherless, too.  I wonder what kind of father the nine-year old will make, should he become one.

I think the doctrine is becoming a little self-defeating, if not downright dangerous.  I mean, this is all about the children, right?  It’s all because children in single-parent families are at risk.

Well, yeah, with some vigilantes running around the place . . . . . However, if she’d been armed and determined…

I think we (Responsible Citizens) need to take a serious look at the Seven-Lesson Schoolteacher and ask, is this what we are willing to be taught, as adults, by our elected officials?  I mean, the same values ARE shared, it is the “Hidden Currriculum” overall, I’d say.  And it’s downright un-American, including “parenting classes.”  The government already had a shot at the majority of the children in this country, through the public school system.  If it were my kids, and the teachers failed, I’d go find me a new teacher and system.

OH, I FORGOT TO MENTION — I DID.  AND MY CHILDREN WERE STOLEN ON AN OVERNIGHT VISITATION (UNSUPERVISED) PRECISELY BECAUSE I DID.  AND PUT BACK IN THE SYSTEM, BECAUSE THEIR MAMA HAD ALREADY FIGURED OUT THAT THE 7 LESSONS WERE BOGUS.  

This is a system that brooks no competitors.  It allows some, but scoops up any stragglers, and family law is a great place to find them, and weaken them for the snatch.