Reply to Former Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "Former Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax - murder/suicide?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I cannot understand why people insist on revising history when a tragedy like this takes place.

I've not seen any evidence whatsoever that Justin was an abuser and that Cerina was a domestic violence victim. The only physical violence documented in the divorce records is of Cerina hitting him. There are dozens of examples of him being a shitty human and an alcoholic. But that's not being an abuser and that isn't domestic violence.

Cerina's bestie went on record saying that Cerina was not afraid of him, and that she'd agreed to leave immediately if she ever did feel frightened. She wasn't a victim. All indications are that she was strong and stable as she fought for what she wanted in the divorce.

https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15744657/justin-fairfax-estranged-wife-shooting.html

Why is it that we have to create these false stories about her being a DV victim in order to make sense of a tragedy like this? The simplest answer is usually the right answer. Access to a handgun when someone is depressed and drinking and undergoing a hotly contested divorce or another of life's most stressful moments leads to disaster.[/quote]

But see, you're confused about what domestic violence is, because it's not just hitting. The reason people are going to coercive control / DV / IPV / whatever you want to call it is that it's [b]so much more common[/b] than the other form of assault, which is a one-off completely lost his cool in anger thing. Like so much more common. But it's often emotional and verbal and hidden. The only people living who know if Justin Fairfax was a coercive controller are his kids, and the only people who should be asking them about that are licensed mental health professionals. There's a chance that he really did just snap. But it's actually way less common than people think. Especially given his addiction, which is [b]highly[/b] correlated with abusive behavior. Not just physical, but mental and emotional.

The only way our jacked up family court system is going to change is if the myths around how these situations work die.

And here's one good write-up by an expert:
https://dremmakatz.com/coercive-control/explaining-coercive-control-to-people-who-dont-quite-get-it-a-series/

A quote:

[quote]Myth 1: When it comes to domestic violence and abuse, the incidents of physical violence are the most important thing

Survivors often get told many hurtful and harmful things based on this myth, for example:

‘they didn’t hit you very much or cause major injuries so the abuse wasn’t that bad’;

‘they haven’t hit you for quite a long time, so the abuse is over’;

‘they never hit you so there was no abuse’;

‘Because you weren’t subjected to severe, frequent violence, you weren’t justified in complaining about the abuse or fighting back physically or verbally against your abuser’;

‘we can’t help you with the stalking, economic abuse, or the weaponization of your children. Come back if they hit you, then we’ll do something’.

The reality

Coercive control is a highly serious, damaging, potentially life-destroying form of abuse in its own right. Some coercive controllers are very physically violent, perhaps causing injuries that might require hospitalisation. Others are violent at a lower level; for example, their violence takes the form of slapping, pushing, shoving and hair pulling. Meanwhile, some are not physically violent at all.

Does this mean the less violent ones are less harmful? No. Coercive control perpetrators’ tactics vary based on their resources and personalities, and they tailor their approach to their abuse based on what they think will work best. Sinister, isn’t it? The coercive control perpetrator’s ultimate goal is to completely subordinate and subjugate the victim-survivor. So if they judge that being highly controlling and very violent is the best way to completely subordinate and subjugate the victim-survivor, this is what they’ll do. If they judge that it is best to be highly controlling but not violent at all, then that is what they’ll do.

Remember, being violent carries risks for the perpetrator: It is a very obvious act of abuse that they might be punished for. So if a perpetrator can achieve their goal of completely subordinating and subjugating the victim-survivor without using much, or any, physical violence, that is often what they will do. Some perpetrators are more skillful and clever than others at strategizing and carrying out their plans. Sometimes the least violent ones are the most successful at meeting their abhorrent goal of subjugating and subordinating the victim-survivor.[/quote][/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics