Okay... In my last blog, I got a little bit sidetracked at one point... When I was talking about the girl who wanted to fight me because her boyfriend left her, supposedly for me, but in reality because she is "psycho" (his words). My digression was about why girls go after the "other woman" instead of the guy that did the dirt:
"Speaking of the girl that wants to fight me over this boy... What's up with that? Why do females want to fight the other woman in situations like that? Why don't they go after the man? Honestly, the other female isn't the one betraying you. She's not the one that's supposed to treat you right and be faithful to you. The man that's allowing this female to get all up in his space is the one that's in the wrong... Take it up with him, because half the time, the other woman doesn't even know about YOU until it's too late. That stuff amazes me. If ever oh ever my boyfriend does some crazy mess, I'm going after HIM, not the female, because he's the one I'm in a relationship with, not her." - "Looking Up", July 31, 2008
This kind of thing happens a lot. We see it in movies, on television, hear it in songs, read about it in books, blogs, poetry, et cetera et cetera. But we never seem to question the logic of these females (or in some cases, males because they do it too.) What makes it okay to direct your ill feelings about the situation toward the only person in the situation who has no ties and no responsibilities toward anyone except themselves? Why isn't the cheater being held accountable for their actions?
Think about it: Persons A and B are married. Person B steps outside of their marriage and sleeps with Person C (who is unaware of the fact that Person B is married), starting an affair. Person A discovers this and gets angry. Does Person A (i) confront Person B, who they are married to, or (ii) confront Person C, the outsider who has no clue of the true nature of their relationship with Person B?
More and more often, the second option is the one chosen by Persons A. Instead of confronting the ACTUAL perpetrator, they go for the co-victim, who they perceive to be the perpetrator. They spread rumors about the person, harass them, call them blocked and play on their phones, slash their tires, show up at their jobs and try to get them fired, put dead animals in their mailboxes, physically assault them... You name it, they do it. And what happens to Persons B all over the world? Person A usually cries/screams/fusses/gives them the silent treatment/ throws them out/ignores them for awhile to make the point that the behavior exhibited is unacceptable, then... Takes. Them. Back. Why??? Why punish the person who is probably feeling almost as hurt as you are instead of punishing the person who caused the madness? It makes no sense to me at all, yet... its the norm rather than the exception these days.
What makes us (humans) vilify the victims & glorify and encourage the perpetrators? Do we love punishment that much that we constantly let people walk all over us all willy-nilly? Why do we allow ourselves to be doormats for people not only to walk on, but to scrape the mud and dog shit off their Timberland boots on, creating rather disgusting smears that we loathe yet embrace? And then we complain when it happens again, even though we knew from the time we saw the boot coming the first time that it would happen again and again if we allowed it.
Please someone explain this to me, because I don't get it.
-Breathe easy-
Posts
1 comment:
Because the perpretrator has made it seem like the co-victim as you call it has done the wrong doing.
Let me explain...
Peson B makes it seem as if Person C KNEW that Person A existed. Or by fact Person C did know about Person A but didn't care. Person B allows for the drama to progress as a "show" rather than a conflict. But because Person B feels like THEY are the prize to be won, then their goal now is to find out who is the "better" mate by letting Person A & C "duke it out". Hence leaving the "winner" the more worthy person.
Instead what should be happening is that Person A should not hold either party at fault WITHOUT ALL evidence and information. Because if Person C did in fact know about Person A, shouldn't C be held accountable also? Or case in point, Person B did withold information, why should Person A waste thier time with "punishment" but instead just get rid of the problem (Person B)?
So what happens now? Person A moves on and gets a new Person B that won't find another person X to mess around with. the origianl person B & C can go their own ways or whatnot.
Post a Comment