- This topic has 41 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
What really annoys me is the suggestion that Rob’s behaviour is all his mother’s fault. Let’s all blame the woman/mother………..
Well, the abuse has finally turned physical, although somehow it’s all Helen’s fault. But last night’s episode, rather than being shocking (which it should have been) simply opened up an old question in the story for me, and pointed up one of its key flaws. Is Rob aware that he is destroying Helen, and he is consciously seeking to control her and has a plan to take over shop, farm or whatever; or is he so in the grip of a personality disorder that he thinks everything he is doing is for the best? Either way, Ursula is a problem – if Rob does know what he is doing, then she must be in cahoots with him, which strains credibility given the back story we have been presented; but if Rob has such a damaged personality, then it seems to me she must be the same, and then it stretches credibility that both of them are still generally viewed in a favourable light by the rest of the village; surely they are so warped they could not have avoided making unguarded comments that would have been much more widely picked up? It seems only Tom and Kirsty have any negative feelings towards Rob (and possibly Ian, but he doesn’t seem to count anymore). Ursula arriving and turning out “evil” has overstretched this story, in my opinion, and, unfortunately, what was a strong anti-domestic abuse story has slid into melodrama, and its impact has been severely blunted.
Rant over.
I think Rob is in as much denial as Helen, although in a different way. I don’t think he has a master-plan, like some Victorian villain; I’d say it’s likely he has a personality disorder, probably Narcissistic Personality Disorder, which means he has no real empathy for others, has no self-awareness, wants to control everything and everyone around him and reacts aggressively when challenged. Last night, he said he wanted ‘his’ Helen back i.e Helen as she was when he first saw her; he has no idea that he is the person who has begun to destroy that Helen. If he has got a personality disorder, then nothing can be done about it, as he will never admit he’s in the wrong. But I don’t believe he plans ahead, and I don’t believe he’s colluded with Ursula. He probably genuinely believes he’s doing what’s right for Helen, although I think she is no longer his main priority; he’s now more focused on his soon-to-be-born son.
Last night, he said he wanted ‘his’ Helen back i.e Helen as she was when he first saw her; he has no idea that he is the person who has begun to destroy that Helen. He probably genuinely believes he’s doing what’s right for Helen, although I think she is no longer his main priority; he’s now more focused on his soon-to-be-born son.
Right… The manipulation, the gaslighting, the denigration, the colluding with Ursula, the stifling any attempt to assert any semblance of personhood? The trying to separate a son from his mother, the isolation of her from friends and family? Oh, and ordering Kirsty out of the house when he realised Kirsty is onto him and wanted to help Helen escape?
All in the name of ‘doing what’s right for Helen’?
‘You’re a wreck!’, he shouted at her, all venom and contempt. And that topped off a torrent of horrifying emotional abuse. It was a shocking scene.
Rob isn’t in denial. He’s an evil, manipulative – to quote Helen directly – ‘bastard’. No one deals in that level of abuse and control without knowing what they’re doing. His destruction of her is systematic, premeditated and deliberate.
To be serious for a moment, it’s important to understand that trying to pin this kind of behaviour on lack of self-awareness colludes with abusers. It does a disservice to all the real women out there who are dealing with this situation. Why? because, in denial, that is how they justify their partner’s behaviour and manage it. ‘He loves me really, he just can’t control his temper’/I’m stupid, he’s right’/’He’s a wonderful man, he just doesn’t understand what he’s doing’/’It’s my fault – I keep making him angry,’ etc.
Titchener damn well knows what he’s doing – as Witherspoon identified, he’s a high-functioning sociopath. That crying was crocodile tears – if he genuinely wanted conciliation, he wouldn’t have reverted to his default subjugation of Helen after slapping her.
And we shouldn’t be absolving him from any of his crimes. Not for one moment.
Ultimately although Blithe Spirit is right and the scene was shocking conversely, I agree with Glyn: somehow it lacked impact.
However, it had the ring of truth to it for me in my professional experience. Abusers rarely admit their abusive behaviour freely. They generally tend to allege there was some form of provocation from the victim.
So in dramas that have focused on domestic violence, what we see is the perpetrator often taking the stance, “It’s not my fault. It’s her – look at her behaviour. She made me do it!” Which is typically the way cases like this are defended in both the criminal and the family court.
That’s why I recognise the scene on Friday when Helen spoke up for herself and condemned Rob, he hit her and then he descended into self-pity. With most abusers, I’m prepared to believe there is some remorse but most of them are unable to accept that they’ve done anything wrong. This, of course, adds to the victim’s confusion as Blithe Spirit says. Helen won’t be able to understand how he can claim to love her and yet physically harm her. She will minimise the harm caused to her and excuse him for it. So she’s going to blame herself and reinforce the negative emotions he has created in her that make her doubt her reality.
Still, I imagine there won’t be any more physical violence now. It’s not quite the Jordache (Brookside) or Mo Slater (Eastenders) storyline. I don’t think we’ll be having a “procedural” murder trial/diminished responsibility defence set up.
(If you thought getting to this point in the story in “real time” took a long while, you ain’t seen nothing yet! In the real (legal) world, getting to a murder trial would take a long time, too.)
And having spent so much time in bringing the story to this point, I don’t reckon “The Archers” has either the time or the patience to be dealing with the consequences of this story – which could be protracted. Again, back in the real (legal) world, making an application for an emergency order in the family court to prevent Rob’s abuse could be started very quickly (within a working week). As an alternative, if Helen reported the incident to the police straight away they’d also take action quickly on an assault charge and probably remove Rob from the home. That’s not going to happen here. Many women suffer violent assaults on multiple occasions before making a complaint. Very few go to the police/the court after one slap. And despite publicity for the recent change in the law, most people wouldn’t know that the psychological abuse is now an offence, too.
Which begs the question in my mind, how will they get rid of Rob in the end? Divorce? Desertion? Driven away in handcuffs by the police? Or death?!
Blithe Spirit, I think you’ve slightly misinterpreted what I was saying. Identifying someone as having Narcissistic Personality Disorder does not ‘absolve’ them, but it can explain their behaviour. It is a fact that many wrong-doers (rapists, paedophiles, serial killers) believe their own lies and twisted logic; remember that when Kathy’s rapist was finally convicted, he still believed the women he’d abused had consented? Paedophiles also, horrible as it may sound, think their victim colluded or even initiated what happened. High functioning sociopaths, too, believe they’re in the right, they can’t understand moral discourse and they’re devoid of conscience. It’s chilling to think there are so many about. Rob, I think, ticks many of the boxes on the Hare Psychopathy Test.
P.S Just to clarify—you’re right that a sociopath would *know* what he was doing, but my point is that his interpretation of what he was doing would contrast considerably with what a ‘normal’ person think. He’d also think that his actions were justified.
Which begs the question in my mind, how will they get rid of Rob in the end? Divorce? Desertion? Driven away in handcuffs by the police? Or death?!
I’m standing by my suggestion: knives, a distinct lack of police presence, and a grave on Lakey Hill 😉
Mind you, given what O’Connor has thrown at us so far, I wouldn’t put it past him to have Helen knife the dark lord in a moment of blind fury… and bury him under Lynda’s new patio!
There must be a reason why Tom is experimenting with scotch egg flavours….
Apologies, I didn’t intend to re-ignite a debate about the nature of Rob’s abuse – either the men and women in white coats should haul him off to the nearest secure facility or the men and women in blue jackets should take him down to the local nick. I would be happy with either at the moment.
I was more ranting about Ursula, as it doesn’t ring true to me given what we have previously been told/seen of her that she has turned up and co-operated with Rob the way she has, and that (almost) all the village has now been taken in by not one but two “evil Titcheners”.
To all DtD’ers out there – did not hear Fiona Shaw giving a speech on Helen’s behalf during Broadcasting House on R4 this morning, I suggest you look it up. I think there is a link from The Archers’ web page, and I am sure it can be got from the BH page.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.