After watching the video by Soft White Underbelly "Three Generations of Trauma- Lynanda, Nikki and Trinity" (which covers the edited life stories of a grandmother, mother and daughter), I have some thoughts.
Grandmother Lynanda told a story in which she was the victim and she pushed through and now is all about love. Love, love, love. It's all there is. It's all you need, it's the theme of her life and the only thing that kept her going, etc... She was treated like shit/taken advantage of and abused in her very early years on this earth and - turns out - fulfilled the prophecy of continuing the generational trauma. Perhaps not by doing the abuse/treating like shit (of her child/children) directly, but by looking the other way while other parties (that she had welcomed in her/her children's life/ves) did the horrific acts. By letting it happen.
She tries to cover her lack of courage with this story line about how "we're not so different, you and I" / how she's all about forgiveness of the people who do horrible things. Because I guess she's the Dalai fucking Lama. No cowardice here. Reason for everything. Just don't close your heart, ya know?
This prophecy fulfilling certainly was not addressed in Lynanda's story - only what happened to her. It wasn't necessarily made clear to me until the second woman (Nikki) explained her life in a nutshell. Pretty early on mentioned how she (Nikki) was abused by two men (who L let in to their lives), many separate occasions. When N was explaining all of this, all L did was get rigid and squirmy and silently nodded her head. It took the host of this strange operation to cut in and say something to the effect of "and L, how did you feel about this? Did you not know this was going on?" to which L explains how when she "found out" (whatever that means) about the first guy, she took N to the doctor's office to confirm that it was happening - essentially to prove that N wasn't lying - and followed up by going to the police. L alleges that the police expressed that they "thought it would be a better thing to not press charges at her age. So we didn't do anything further."
L leaves the stage. The floor is, once again, N's.
N then proceeds with her story, mentioning that she was always promiscuous/from even twelve years old, she can recall times men would tell her how sexy she was. How she would date older guys but "everyone in the world was older than me at that point". Then mentions how she started drinking and smoking pot in fifth grade. And if she's telling all of this in a linear fashion: Jesus Christ. (Bares mentioning that this is the first and only point L even bothers to feign ignorance/surprise by acting out a "whaaa?" kind of scowl toward N. This is in response to the fifth grade partying. Not the twelve year old dating or the who-knows-how-young abuse.)
What I would like to focus on, at this point:
1. L mentions nothing of the second man's abuse (could this be because it was L's brother this time/a little too close for L's comfort? To have to admit that her own sibling had done this? To have to face exposing him and - in doing so - taint the way he sees her?)
2. L took her daughter to the police and allegedly the police discouraged L from reporting it. Which could happen. But then what? L just shrugged it off and said "yeah, I guess you're right. Welp, see ya! Thanks for all your help and insights!"
3. L says, in the video, the police "thought it would be a better thing to not press charges at her age." She says it in a way that seems as though she could have just shoe-horned that last bit about the alleged denial being "about her" (N) so that L could keep herself successfully hidden. From being exposed as an abuser apologist. Or just downright coward. "It wasn't about protecting me! OR that POS man! It was all for her! And also it was the police's idea, yeah, that's the ticket!"
4. L feels as though she's covered her ass well enough for the meat of the story. And to stick the landing: "So we didn't do anything further," as she artfully decides to swish her face lovingly to her daughter. WE? You have GOT to be kidding me. Oh so you and your, what, 9 year old child had a conference and came to a decision? About this terrifying thing that you brought onto her? And surely you were anything but persuasive?
It's clear as day. Never questioned a person's character so quickly. And yet, the comments on the video: