Phyllis Chesler And Sergeant Heather On Why Abuse Victims Cave
My friend in the LAPD, Sergeant Heather, worked domestic violence cases for a while, and learned something very important -- something I often tell people who write me about their own or another's domestic abuse situation.
If you tell a victim they're in danger, and that they (and maybe their children) must leave their abuser, they often or even usually respond by getting defensive and staying with that abuser.
Sergeant Heather told me that she found that the best way to get victims to leave their abuser is to send them to group sessions with other victims. They hear what others are going through, or have gone through, and their defenses are down, and they can admit there's a problem.
The psychology of domestic abuse victims in a group situation is relevant vis a vis the Afshan Azad case -- but in reverse. Azad the young Harry Potter actress who asked for the charges to be dropped against her brother and father who threatened to kill her and "badly bruised" her over her relationship with a Hindu man.
Phyllis Chesler writes at Pajamas Media:
When a woman's batterer is finally arrested, she is often the first to plead with authorities to let him go. He is her provider, perhaps the father of her children; she "loves" him. More to the point: she is now really afraid that he will kill her because his abuse has been publicly exposed and he has been arrested for it.When a woman turns to the law -- which is there to protect her -- she may be endangering herself even further. As powerful as the law may be, criminals do not obey it and police officers cannot be everywhere and at all times. When the law is not looking, the further outraged abuser will exact vengeance. He will kill the woman who turned to the law, who publicly shamed her husband and family.
This is what Muzzammil ("Mo") Hassan did in Buffalo when his wife Aasiya finally got an order of protection against his savage beatings and verbal and psychological abuse. He beheaded her. This is what husband-batterers of every ethnicity tend to do -- not behead, but murder battered wives when they leave or turn to the law. This is one reason that so many battered women stay.
Interestingly, according to my most recent study in Middle East Quarterly, only among Muslim batterer-murderers do the woman's family of origin and/or the husband's family of origin sometimes collaborate in her honor killing. This never happens in western cases of domestically violent femicide.
...I can only imagine the pressure that Afshan's mother Nelofar and her other brothers and extended family members have been exerting on poor Afshan. Just as incest victims -- not their attackers -- are blamed and ostracized; just as battered women who finally get orders of protection or even kill in self-defense are blamed and ostracized; just imagine the pressures being brought to bear on Afshan.
I would strongly advise Afshan not to go home -- ever again. Poor Aqsa Parvez did so (her mother lured her there with sweet talk) -- so that her father and brother could honor-kill her for refusing to wear hijab and for being "too western." The Said sisters, Sarah and Amina, also listened to their mother, who lured them home with the promise of a reconciliation; they were honor-murdered within hours. Yes, as I've written many times before, mothers, sisters, aunts, women as well as men, all play a collaborative role in honor killings. Like men, women also uphold patriarchal and status-quo values.
Chesler advises:
Afshan: You are playing the part of Padma, a powerful witch, in the next and last Harry Potter movie. How would Padma handle this situation? Channel her strength. Defend yourself; protect yourself. As to your longing to be loved by and reunited with your family -- perhaps you must give it up, tragic and unjust as that might seem. Even if you give up your Hindu boyfriend, it is too late. You have already shamed your family publicly. Their honor will require nothing less than your death.Why not contact the women in Britain who are campaigning against honor killing? They will support you. Why not contact Diana Nammi, the co-founder of the London-based International Campaign Against Honour Killings who may be reached at http://www.stophonourkillings.com/.
UPDATE: How sneaky and disgusting. Phyllis Chesler blogs that there's no evidence Afshan dropped the charges. The father and brother's defense attorney spoke to the press in a way that that seemed to be the case. More here.
Better solution.
A. Know that your life is in danger.
B. BUY A GUN. Learn to use it.
C. Repeat step B.
D. Disavow said family members now and forever.
E. Shoot on sight.
F. Repeat step E until the target stops breathing.
Robert at July 6, 2010 5:36 AM
Addition to previous posting:
Anything less is the conduct of a sheep. The law cannot PREVENT crimes, only punish the ones that are broken, and that does not help the dead.
Robert at July 6, 2010 5:38 AM
Are handguns even legal in England?
Also, not really a solution for a girl apparently being controlled by family pressure.
Amy Alkon at July 6, 2010 5:53 AM
They dont need her permision to prosecute.
lujlp at July 6, 2010 6:04 AM
How did they even allow her to become an actress? Wouldn't that be too western? What if she has a kissing scene?
She may also be the family's main breadwinner, but that doesn't mean they won't kill her.
I see too much DV, and it saddens me how weak most victims are in the face of it. I just had a girlfriend who was ready to leave after her husband threw food in her face and poured a beer on her head in a public place. She kicked him out and remained strong for about 6 days (I called her day and night). She knows what he did was wrong and he won't change, yet she let him move back "for financial reasons" - just to sort things out - and now he's been all apologetic and it seems she's forgiven him and deluding herself again.
What many don't understand is that victims of DV live for that period - the apologetic stage where they're treated all loving and wonderful. It's also when they feel they have the power in the relationship, which is intoxicating after feeling powerless.
lovelysoul at July 6, 2010 6:19 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/07/06/phyllis_chesler.html#comment-1729938">comment from lovelysoulSad. If you can get her to go to a group of DV victims, maybe she'll understand.
And you're right from what I've read -- it's this horrible cycle.
Amy Alkon at July 6, 2010 6:23 AM
Step 1: move to America, and not California, New York, or Massachusetts.
Step 2: Get a gun permit.
Step 3: Get a gun.
If your asshole family shows up, shoot them.
The message she needs to get right now is "your family does not love you, and you are now a stain on their honor. If you do not get as far from them as possible and prepare yourself for the eventuality that you must kill them, they will kill you."
This is why Islam as worldview must be invalidated and eliminated.
brian at July 6, 2010 6:25 AM
I was very lucky that a group of therapists helped me admit I was a victim of domestic violence. It sounds silly and unbelievable but there was a lot of family pressure not to be the perfect family, but to appear to be. Getting into a group was worse for me at first because I didn't want to admit I was like "those" women. I viewed them as weak and I "wasn't" like them. Thankfully something clicked because I did leave my abuser. Life wasn't easy but I felt like a huge weight had lifted. Most victims are set in certain patterns and have low self esteem if any. If they don't continue with therapy, they will usually enter relationships that are just as unhealthy if not abusive. I'm on my own for quite a few years because I wanted to take the time to get healthy and understand why I missed so many red flags. I will become involved again, but I'm in no rush. People don't understand that. They think you need to be part of a couple. I'm in Jamaica on my own right now for a vacation and I can tell you being alone is really nice!
Kristen at July 6, 2010 7:02 AM
Sorry, I left something out. While the group scared me at first, I did stick it out and found it to be very helpful. There was something about knowing I wasn't the only one or that I wasn't alone in what I was experiencing that helped tremendously. For me, that was the best part of the group. People weren't looking at you with 8 head wondering why you stayed. They all had been through the same thing and had so there was no judment. As a survivor of domestic violence I can tell you that the perception of being judged is sometimes scarier than the actual abuse.
Kristen at July 6, 2010 7:05 AM
If abuse victims could just up and leave, they wouldn't be abuse victims. Being in an abusive relationship can make people question the very nature of "normal." And once people start questioning their own perceptions of things, it's easy to twist them into accepting any situation.
MonicaP at July 6, 2010 7:12 AM
Yes, it's very easy for an abuser to twist the situation and make the victim question their own belief system. I really found this idea of gaslighting profound. I had not realized until I read it here in one of Amy's columns that this was often done to me:
"(Gaslighting) is actually insidious emotional abuse that gets its name from the 1944 Ingrid Bergman movie, Gaslight, about an heiress whose husband makes small changes around their home (like making their gas-powered lights flicker), then denies anything's different, making her believe her sanity's gone off its hinges. In a relationship, writes Dr. Robin Stern in The Gaslight Effect, you're being gaslighted when somebody relentlessly pressures you to believe the unbelievable and do what you know you shouldn't. Stern explains that the gaslighter "needs to be right in order to preserve his own sense of self and his sense of having power in the world," while the gaslightee allows him to bully away her sense of reality and self because she fears losing his love and approval."
My ex was a master at this, especially in his relations with his girl "friends".
lovelysoul at July 6, 2010 7:21 AM
LS and Kristin, I'd like to get your comments on something. I'm not saying what I've said below to be sarcastic or to challenge your stories. What I'm trying to do is gain some better insight into the mindsets involved.
I've been up close and personal with a few couples who had abusive relationships. And in these relationships that I'm familiar with, there was always a mutual component to it -- the partner who was being physically abused was also, in their own way, attempting to control the relationship. For example, I knew a couple where the man beat the woman mercilessly. He didn't work; he was stoned all the time. She worked and supported them both. However, she was also his drug connection; he got all of his drugs through her. When asked about this, she would explain that this was what she had to do to keep him from beating her. However, those of us who knew them gradually came to realize that this was actually her way of attempting to gain the upper hand in the relationship; by making it easy for him to stay stoned all the time, she kept him dependent on her.
She fiercely resisted any attempts to get her help or to get her husband arrested for his abuse. One time, I had to call the police on her husband because he drove his car to where we worked and threatened to drive it through the front door. She offered to give the policeman a BJ if he'd let her husband go, but they found a warrant on him for a parole violation, so they had to take him in. I thought she was going to lose her mind over that. You would think she'd be happy to be away from her abuser, but instead, she went into a blue funk. She was unconsolable until he was released a few days later. Those of us that knew her realized two things at this point: (1) she had grown accustomed to using "abuse victim" as an all-purpose excuse, and (2) she couldn't live by herself because then she'd have nobody to control.
Now, I am NOT NOT NOT making any excuses for her husband. He was a short-tempered jerk and he deserved whatever happened to him. But in this case, it did indeed take two to tango. And this was why she resisted getting help -- because she was, in a way, getting what she wanted out of the relationship too.
Cousin Dave at July 6, 2010 7:52 AM
guys, there isn't much point in insisting she do what an American Man would do with guns and such. She's a Brit Woman. The one thing she may well have is an extensive circle of friends to support her, and that will help well to avoid a sense of isolation. There is no mistake that she no longer has a family, ESP. if her mother becomes complicit [which we don't know] Leaving your family behind, even if you are in your 20's isn't easy... hopefully she will get a chance to not only get into DV groups, but especially into one with ex- muslim women in it. They are the ones who can understand her, and tell her what to watch out for.
I hope for her a turning point for good. She is in a position to be a powerful force in this, but it is also a precarious postition.
SwissArmyD at July 6, 2010 7:59 AM
I just gave up on a FB friend whose husband "unlocked her FB account for her birthday" (LONG story but the gist is she had an Internet affair awhile back) and when I called her on the insanity of that she told me it was a 'mutual decision' (then why the status update, honey?) and her husband, who I have never met, had to start sending me messages about how awesome he is. After blocking them both, he THEN had to create a new account to continue telling me how awesome he is. I've washed my hands of the whole thing; clearly she thinks this is okay, and after talking to a few mutual friends, it's become clear that she would rather stay with him than pull her head out of her ass.
I have no idea what would finally make her see how insane he is.
Ann at July 6, 2010 8:13 AM
Cousin Dave, these relationships are usually very complex and co-dependent, just as in your friend's situation. To a certain degree they feed off each other and the struggle to gain the upper hand.
Whenever power is an issue in a relationship - which it always is with a controlling or violent person - the victim begins to lust for the power too, and it almost becomes a game. They each manipulate each other.
I'm not sure if the victim would become that way had he/she been in a normal relationship, but it definitely occurs in a dysfunctional one.
I just spoke with my girlfriend and she sounds better than I thought. She's looking for a job and planning to move on with her life without him. She's not buying into his manipulation at this point, but she is financially dependent on him.
She has had many non-abusive relationships, and was very successful in the movie industry, making great money at set design. She's also quite beautiful, so how she ended up, in middle age, with this kind of situation is hard to fathom.
She told me that when they met, she was so in love, she paid off $37,000 of his debt, only to have him file for bankcrupcy anyway. She paid $10,000 for his back child support and another $10,000 to get him off a DUI. Then, she gave him access to her E-trade account, and he ran through $89,000 in a year.
Now, after 5 yrs, she's broke and dependent. I'm just like "Why?" She doesn't seem to lack self-esteem or be foolish enough to hand over her financial well-being to a guy, yet that's what she did.
He's a real Jekyll and Hyde though. He seems like the most laid-back, sweet, funny person. But there's this switch that clicks, especially if he's been drinking, when he becomes emotionally and physically abusive. Then, he's sorry the next day.
I think we women particularly have some mechanism to block out pain and bad experiences. It's what gets us through childbirth and allows us to do it again, and it's probably why many women keep forgiving and staying with their abusers.
lovelysoul at July 6, 2010 8:57 AM
Thanks, LS. I will ponder.
Cousin Dave at July 6, 2010 9:21 AM
Chesler says she got it wrong. There is no evidence the girl asked to have the charges dropped.
http://pajamasmedia.com/phyllischesler/2010/07/06/important-update-from-the-ministry-of-magic/
elementary at July 6, 2010 10:05 AM
"Sergeant Heather told me that she found that the best way to get victims to leave their abuser is to send them to group sessions with other victims."
This is why I believe twelve step programs work very well.
The victims that tolerate and perpetuate relationships that have DV are ones themselves that have been raised in a violent environment growing up. It is what is familiar and "normal" to them. (Not many people would put up with this if they had not been abused growing up). But they do participate in the cycle. It's not their fault per se, but they are responsible.
Breaking the cycle and leaving the SO will bring up deep wounds from the past because they are forced to accept they've been in denial and delusion about for so long. Defense mechanisms that kept them safe as a child - but once out of the house, have been become maladaptive and outdated-which means they've been creating most of these adult choices themselves. That is NOT a pretty picture and it stings. Since it's difficult to look at (and nearly impossible without therapy depending on the severity level of abuse) people prefer to be blind to it. Reality can be too painful for them to face.
LS is spot on with co-dependency. Yet another layer of progression stemming from co-dependent relationships (coming from a dysfunctional and abusive family system) is having what is called a co-addicted relationship (addicted to the other person and the "drama").
Feebie at July 6, 2010 10:16 AM
My link got drop-kicked to spam but. . .
Chesler has since posted saying she was wrong, the young actress did not ask to have the charges dropped. That doesn't negate much of what's been written above, but it does make her braver than we had been led to believe.
elementary at July 6, 2010 10:34 AM
"The victims that tolerate and perpetuate relationships that have DV are ones themselves that have been raised in a violent environment growing up."
Although I agree with most of your post, Feebie, I don't believe this is always the case. It wasn't true for me. My parents were not abusive.
My girlfriend also didn't have an abusive upbringing, although she, like me, had troubled siblings, so there was probably drama in her household.
I think victims of DV tend to be overly optimistic people. They truly believe in change, and keep believing in it way too long. This is also exacerbated by our reliance in this culture on "counseling" and the belief that it can cure almost every ill.
I've seen it actually become a part of the abuse cycle. Like with my friend - every time he gets abusive, he promises to get counseling for his "anger issues" (which he's doing now), and there are signs of improvement, so she'll take him back, hoping that he has indeed been "cured". This will last for a few weeks or a few months, then the cycle repeats.
It would be better if the psychological community would just admit that they have a very high failure rate at changing this behavior. They can diagnose him with narcissism, or bi-polar disorder, or attachment disorder...or any number of conditions. But knowing the problem and fixing it are two different things.
lovelysoul at July 6, 2010 10:50 AM
Cousin Dave, victims of DV have no self-esteem. Their partner feeds into their sense of worth regardless of how worthless he may be. Supplying his drug habit is her way of proving herself worthy of him. "oh, he could never live without me." "I do so much to take care of him." Really its a way of insuring that he won't leave you because you are so wonderful. Its sick and yes, its co-dependency at its best.
I have to chalk a lot up to timing. People may disagree with me, but I reached a point where my sense of normal didn't seem to mesh with the people I was meeting. And I have to disagree with Feebie on one point. I didn't grow up in a violent or abusive household. My father was an alcoholic though and emotionally distant. My mother was a manipulator. It was enough to make me feel pretty worthless and when I was 19, the first man that paid attention to me was like a god. It was truly a formula for disaster.
Kristen at July 6, 2010 10:55 AM
I think it's the sunk-cost fallacy.
As lovelysoul points out, the victims are WAY too optimistic about the likelihood of change. You've been with your abusive boyfriend for three years? Well, in ANOTHER three years, when things have finally changed, your relationship will be a shining success story, worthy of its own Lifetime movie! Proof that with love and perseverance, you can live happily ever after and have a love that has withstood adversity, as your hair gently wafts in the breeze.
On the other hand, if you cut and run, you just proved that you were a fucking idiot for the last three years, and that it took you way too long to figure it out.
Pirate Jo at July 6, 2010 11:00 AM
I think victims of domestic violence put too much faith in their own role in stopping the behavior. As in, "If I fill the dishwasher the way he likes it, then he won't freak out and beat me." It takes a lot to admit that you have no control over the other person's behavior, and that they won't stop just because they love you. "Something is broken in them, and you can't fix it" is a hard thing to accept if you've taken it on as your life mission to fix people.
I also see a lot of people wanting to look like the "good guy." And the good guy clearly doesn't leave someone who needs him/her.
MonicaP at July 6, 2010 11:02 AM
Monica, LS is right about us having a "therapy fixes anything" culture. The idea that some people are just born bad is one that a lot of people rebel against, and I'm not really sure why... maybe it contradicts, in their mind, the idea that America / Western civilization provides opportunity to all. (I personally don't see any contradiction; just because an opportunity exists doesn't mean a person will take advantage of it. But there's a lot of confusion these days between equality of opportunity and equality of result.)
From what I've see, the psychology community is pretty up-front in the literature that the success rate of therapy with Cluster B personality disorders is very low. Of course, I don't know that therapists will admit that to their patients.
Cousin Dave at July 6, 2010 11:19 AM
I agree about the optimism,especially when a person sees so many good things about their partner.
As for me, I was raised with drama and abuse.
My husband is much more calm and calculated. He is still abusive.
I saw the signs and refused to marry him unless he had counseling. We did get counseling and it did help with the violence (however the counselor said that I must do whatever he told me to do - after all, it was not harmful). For the most part, I think counseling is a bunch of hoowie. An abuser will not willingly give up control and is likely to use counseling to pacify the victim and will likely manipulate or try to manipulate the counselor so that he or she "wins".
I have since realized that it is all about control. The actions taken to exert control will escalate as long as they work. The behavior will get worse, perhaps even ending in death until the weaker person gives in.
Of course, if it was just this, the person that was abused would leave. The abuser can be charming. if I met someone just like him, I would fall for it all over again.
My guy is brilliant: an attorney, a film actor, an author, a radio host, a musician, a singer, a song-writer. a mover and shaker in the community. He is charitable, he's charming, he's principled. He's clean and attractive. He doesn't use alcohol or drugs. He is financially secure. He also happens to see me as one of the most beautiful women in the world.
While he is much improved, I know the things that he is capable of doing. I can never let my guard down because I know that he would run with it.
He finally gained respect for me when after I had drawn the line and he crossed it, I was able to make love to him, tell him I loved him, and then I paid off all of our debts and and took off with half of our money and our baby.
He looked me in the eye and smiled. He told me that he never thought I would have the guts to do it, but it was what needed to be done. He smiled and shook his head when he realized I had even had sex with him after I made my decision.
Before this, when I was upset, he knew it and he kept me "locked down" until I forgave him.
He has not touched me aggressively in more than a decade. I still say that he is abusive because he still looks to get the upper hand and I believe that he is still the type of person who would do whatever he could get away with doing. I guess it is part of has nature.
Jen at July 6, 2010 11:23 AM
Like with my friend - every time he gets abusive, he promises to get counseling for his "anger issues" (which he's doing now), and there are signs of improvement, so she'll take him back, hoping that he has indeed been "cured."
I've seen this in my sister. All of her relationships have been filled with drama and violent outbursts (physical and emotional), always followed by tears of remorse and promises she will be better. We used to blame it on the alcohol before I realized, no, it's just the way she is. She started anger-management counseling (again) after assaulting me next to my mother's hospital bed.
I do believe she is genuinely remorseful for her behavior, and there has been some improvement with the counseling, but it's a fragile improvement. She has to work so hard to be what most people would consider "normal," and it doesn't always work. She can change her behavior if she tries very hard, but she can't change her innate reaction to things. I can't imagine how difficult it is to live with that kind of internal stress.
MonicaP at July 6, 2010 12:00 PM
Maybe victimhood is hard-wired into our biology, all of us, the same as "men are visual creatures" and "women suck up to alpha powerful males". Did you ever think of THAT?
The responses her seem to vary from the scornfully contemptuous ("What stupid victims, how could anyone be such a doormat, I'm so much smarter I'd NEVER let someone…") to the compassionate ("Wow, have I ever been there.")
The only really useful piece of information was that if you've got a friend being abused, don't browbeat her/him that it's abuse, instead get them to a support group to hear other people in the same situation talk about it more openly. Yes, it's very sick that people don't listen to reason but when you think of it, it's just one more person telling them what to do, isn't it?
It's very disturbing to read about how even victims are engaged in power plays of their own, but that part is true, too. "I can quit whenever I want" or "I'm tough enough to take a few knocks" or whatever it is
The spurious connection with Islam and honor killings was unnecessary. Hindus do honor killings, too, but neither Hindus nor Muslims have anything to do with why AMERICAN victims return to their abusers.
vi at July 6, 2010 12:07 PM
He finally gained respect for me when after I had drawn the line and he crossed it, I was able to make love to him, tell him I loved him, and then I paid off all of our debts and and took off with half of our money and our baby.
Yet you took him back. With a baby.
He smiled and shook his head when he realized I had even had sex with him after I made my decision.
Well that's something to be proud of.
Pirate Jo at July 6, 2010 12:08 PM
@ LS & Krisitin:
I misspoke about original family systems always being *violent* to have an outcome that equals a predisposition to DV in relationships. (But many are).
I can also tell you that in my case the reverse happened with the physical abuse - I had my first boyfriend get physical with me and I left...never looked back (but continued to pick violent partners - I was just able to see the red flags sooner and get out before the fists went flying). That was the only encounter with actual physical violence perpetrated against me in a relationship that I experienced outside my family home.
Shaming, emotional abuse, verbal abuse, neglect and abandonment (if consistent and moderate to severe) can do a lot of damage to a child's belief systems of who they are and their own worth. It can set them up for selecting abusive partners.
No one escapes childhood without some form of dysfunction or abuse - no parent is perfect. But typically, where the child got folks who were able to do a fairly decent job at raising them have enough esteem on board to move forward past those obstacles and are very unlikely to pick partners who will not abuse them physically or otherwise. People who don't, get stuck in the pattern...over and over again.
PS. Alcoholic homes are typically pretty abusive even if there isn't a lot of physical abuse going on.
Feebie at July 6, 2010 12:30 PM
People who don't, get stuck in the pattern...over and over again.
I agree. Just being part of the family dynamic created by other people's dysfunction can normalize these patterns.
MonicaP at July 6, 2010 12:33 PM
I know why I caved. I am at work so I cant post it right now, actually I have to write it first. There are several different reasons I caved and I figure they may not apply to ALL abuse victims, but I cant be totally unique either, so some may apply to others. It will take a bit of time to do....Ill be back, and post incase any here want to read it.
rsj at July 6, 2010 12:38 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/07/06/phyllis_chesler.html#comment-1730102">comment from vivi, can't write much now, but look at Chesler's history. She's been there.
Amy Alkon at July 6, 2010 1:05 PM
I can't explain everything, but perhaps I can explain some things about why I went back.
At the shelter, they were angry with me. My husband called the shelter. They accused me of giving out the number. I was confused. They had not even given the number to me. I had signed up to use the phone. My turn was at 8:00 at night. He called before then. They accused me of compromising their security. There were also no locks on the doors and I had a toddler. Stairs have no gates and there was no other childproofing.
A friend said that my husband could stay with her. I said I wanted him out before I got there. She agreed. When I got back to the house, they were both there. My husband was bawling and begging for forgiveness. I told him to get out. She said that I was the coldest woman she had ever met. She would love to have a man that loved her so much.
After about three hours, emotionally exhausted, I fell asleep. When I woke up, he was still there.
I guess I should have left again, but I really didn't feel comfortable going back to that shelter.
Jen at July 6, 2010 1:40 PM
Well after I posted my comments I thought I sounded mean, and mainly I guess that comes from you having a kid and still staying with a guy who you say is abusive. I'm glad he hasn't hit you or anything like that.
It just sounds awful, being with someone who, rather than having your back, might stab you in it, the minute you let your guard down. It sounds exhausting and stressful. I think I'd grow to hate someone like that.
How old is your child now? Does he treat your child okay?
By the way, your friend and the shelter really let you down. It must be hard going through something like that and feeling like you have no one.
Pirate Jo at July 6, 2010 1:47 PM
I can understand where you are coming from.
It's all a mixed bag.And yes, it can be stressful as could leaving. I've had 4 strokes. I don't know if the stressful situation has contributed to my health problems.
Our son just turned 18. He has known that our relationship is strained. When he was younger, he said that if we broke up, he would live with his dad because he could count on his dad. He also said that I would love him no matter what and stay in his life, but his dad would completely cut him off both emotionally and financially if he didn't choose his father over me.
The vast majority of the time, he treats our son well. He can be harsh. A couple of weeks ago, after our son worked 5 1/2 hours in 100 degree plus weather and then worked out for two hours, our son said he was tired and my husband verbally blasted him because "he had no right to be tired after all he had done for him, etc...."
Our son gets mad if I intervene because it just makes my husband go on (and on).
The hardest part is not getting support if you share your problem. I remember telling friends about a conflict my then boyfriend and I had and they said, "Well of course he hit you." (He was playing too rough and I asked why he would do something that would hurt me. I then asked if he had ever had homosexual thoughts. I thought perhaps he was overcompensating. It became a pattern that I had to work hard to break - and things are not perfect, but better every year.
Jen at July 6, 2010 2:01 PM
It is a slow point here at work. I read through the other posts and they have each made a good point.
Sunk cost fallacy, yes
Ability to perceive reality skewed, yes
Having weakness and vulnerabilities manipulated and expanded? yes
Pride, yes (having to admit to the entire world you were stupid and wrong is not something anyone wants to do)
Forgiveness, yepppers.
A biggie than i havent really seen written about though is fear. Absolute fear. It skews everything...thought, reaction, awareness of danger.
Trust me, being bent over backwards by your throat while he is an inch from your face telling you in a very calm voice that if you try to leave he will kill you, with enough pressure it is hard to breath and looking into his eyes and knowing deep in your belly HE MEANS IT!!...pair the periodic adrenaline spiked fear with the chronic dread of the next escalation....you get emotional zombiedom. Add in all the above...sunk cost, pride, any sense of self-worth about being good enough that he will just see that he needs to change and love you too...add all that together and you get apowerful mix that alters perception, identity and even the sense of self-preservation. it whithers. My big wake up? My son was just talking sentences and I had a cut on my hnad from work and he kissed it and asked me if Daddy did it. I looked at him and realized I WAS as stupid as others thought me if I really really thought my son wasnt seeing all this happening and it wouldnt affect him. He focused it all for me and helped me pull my mind together enough to start planning.
I caved, and waited, waited and waited just a tad more because my abuser was going to jail for a few months. I used that few month window to get gone. Womens shelter. worked my ass off and got my own place. By the time he got out, it ws such a done deal I was off the hook...it also helped that he met a new woman at the halfway house and they got married....I pray for her occasionally.
Leaving is when an abused person is most at risk. I got lucky. I found my will again. Some women never do leave.
Before this happened to me I was one of those smug and judgemental people who swore up and down they would never understand why or how a woman could put up with that, they would never put up with it, oh no sir blah blah blah. Now, Now I know. They use your weaknesses AND YOUR STRENGTHS and twist them slowly slowly slowly, and little items easy to dismiss become bigger and bigger issues that you wind up warping your perception to try to overlook, dismiss, or excuse...it is like that story about frogs in boiling water...
I do know now also that you cannot 'help' the ones in a relationship like this. They will leave and end it when they reach their point of ending it...to put your heart and soul out for those abused is to almost guarantee a beat down for your heart.
We forgive, and go back, and cry and hurt and snivel on your shoulders and you comfort us again and help us move out into our own place and you go by for lunch and find the abuser there because all is forgiven and wont it be wonderful they promised! really this time! pinky promise with flowers! Be happy for me it will work....and your heart will sink and anger will burn you...and then you will see our face all purple or fingerprints on our throat as we weep help me this time really i am leaving, truly....
Save yourselves this if someone you know or love is living this. Tell them you love them, tell them you pray for them every day, tell them when they are ready to be done you will be there for them,then give the number to the women shelter and the other orgs that help and then shield your own heart and soul and dont make your love and happyiness dependent on them leaving it may never happen.
rsj at July 6, 2010 2:02 PM
rjs
You are exactly right. We I say I was "locked down". Those were the times my husband knew I was upset and he was on full alert. I knew that leaving at those times would be at the risk of my life.
An abuse victim has to play it cool and act until they can make their move.
A stint in jail is a great opportunity. Thank goodness his memory wasn't that great and he was ready to move on.
Jen at July 6, 2010 2:15 PM
When he was younger, he said that if we broke up, he would live with his dad because he could count on his dad. He also said that I would love him no matter what and stay in his life, but his dad would completely cut him off both emotionally and financially if he didn't choose his father over me.
That sounds pretty contradictory to me. I'm glad things between father and son are generally good, though. My dad could be a real jerk every now and then, too, but then ALL people can be jerks sometimes. It can be tricky to draw the line and call someone "abusive." There are some people who throw that word around like it's an article of speech, and others who can get the crap knocked out of them and say that so-and-so "gets a little upset sometimes."
I dated a real jerk back when I was in high school. He was a liar and a bullshitter and just generally a slimy creep. I started out with low self-esteem, and dating that guy only made the problem worse. The whole reason I even got involved with him in the first place was that I was naive, overly-sheltered, inexperienced, and socially awkward. He saw me as a mark from 1,000 yards away. I grew out of that and made better choices later on. But I remember the way being with that guy made me feel about myself, and no way no how never never never would I want to go back to that.
Everyone told me I was stupid, which didn't help. Because then, I felt, if I didn't have him, there wasn't anyone else I could really count on, either - just a bunch of people running around lording it over me about how right they were and how wrong I was, and I-told-you-so. If anything, I became determined to prove them wrong.
Pirate Jo at July 6, 2010 2:26 PM
"He has not touched me aggressively in more than a decade. I still say that he is abusive because he still looks to get the upper hand and I believe that he is still the type of person who would do whatever he could get away with doing. I guess it is part of has nature."
Jen, you are basically married to my ex. Charming, handsome, mover and shaker. It's the same type of abuse, physical or not. He loves you, but he loves himself more. The hardest part for me to comprehend was that he never put me down - always told me how much he loved me, how beautiful and special I was. Yet, at the same time, he was doing whatever he could to put himself first and me - and our family - last.
There is a certain type of abuse that is very subtle - so subtle that anyone raised with loving parents and a good family can't really comprehend that anyone could be that way. How can this person be so loving and wonderful, yet be a totally different personality at other times? We stay out of good intent - believing in change and that we can somehow "keep" the wonderful side - but it isn't realistic. He is who is. It has nothing to do with you, and it can't be "fixed", though I applaud you for drawing the line over the physical violence. Just goes to prove that he CAN resist his impulses.
You are/were hurting your son by staying, My ex was hardest on our son, and it had profound, lasting effects. One of the first positive signs I noticed was how much more relaxed and happy my son seemed when his dad was out of the house.
Please consider getting out. If I can do it, anyone can. Don't care or listen to what anyone else thinks or how many people tell you to stay. I know how few friends you have when leaving a "charming, successful" man. But do what's best for you.
lovelysoul at July 6, 2010 2:26 PM
We have a friend whose ex-husband used to beat the shit out of her. He was an $8-an-hour bouncer at a country-western bar, and she was a stripper. They were married for years before we met her. He'd show up drunk to the club and try to drag her off stage while he called her a whore, then beat her the next week when she didn't make enough money.
She was a very attractive woman with extremely low self-esteem.
Towards the end of the relationship, her stripper outfits were always pants with a bra top; that hid the bruises. He almost strangled her once, but she managed to kick him off. (She was a strong lady. She's at least 5'10" and RIPPED. After the divorce, she entered a "figure" bodybuilding contest and won first place overall the only time she did it.)
I don't know exactly what the trigger for her finally leaving was, but I know that it actually happened because she had help. My husband, another guy, and several women accompanied her home one night, packed all of her stuff within a few hours, and moved her in with her friend.
Abusers tend to be power-hungy pussies. Woman-beaters don't pick fights with men that are bigger than them, and people who beat their children stop once the kids get big enough to fight back. I've never experienced it, but I've seen it.
ahw at July 6, 2010 4:11 PM
I can't believe this crap. Don't you women have anything at all going for you? An art, a skill, a trade or career or interest that gives you some satisfaction? I had music. Guy hits me, or plays weird mental games, it's over. I never depended on any dude.
carol at July 6, 2010 5:57 PM
Hahaha. Oh carol. You were me . I said almost the same things word for fucking word.
So go ahead with your contemptous words and verbal sneers. I really do hope you never find out up close and personal how it happened.
And yes, I had lots going for me. Intelligent, fluent in a foreign language, Army veteran and it still happened.
rsj at July 6, 2010 6:49 PM
I agree that's pretty contemptuous. Good for you, Carol, having your flute or whatever, but you shouldn't be so judgemental. It's not just weak, stupid women that get abused.
I married too young, so I simply had no experience with mind games, but consider my friend, who, as I said, is beautiful, extremely talented, and had an amazing career in the movie industry before marrying a man she thought was loving and stable. It's not like abusers announce that they're abusers during the courtship phase.
Perhaps, you've never married, but some people take the commitment very seriously and can't just bail out, even when they probably should. Especially when there's children involved, it's not so easy to walk out the door.
You can't know how you'd handle this situation until you're actually in it, which, as rsj says, I hope you never are, but don't be so smug.
lovelysoul at July 6, 2010 7:11 PM
> It's not like abusers announce that they're abusers
> during the courtship phase.
I so, so disagree with this. These people FIND each other, I'm certain.
Look at the length of the comments here. Amy did a thing a few months ago where she pointed out that women are often inclined to think of their lives as narratives requiring way points and dramatic texture. I think a lot of the women who find and descend into these nightmares often have extreme tendencies for this, and are having their souls stroked in VERY specific ways... Ways that other women aren't amused by. Women who don't fall into these relationships have "no experience with mind games" either, and they're not interested in getting any. When a man puts out the vibe (or misbehaves), they move on. They don't bother to finish writing the bad chapter, they just start writing a good one.
I didn't actually read all the comments here... If you're not into this kind of interpersonal drama, whether you're a man or a woman, it's just too mundane to care about.
But the men who need these kind of women know how to spot the twinkle in their eye or the wiggle in their walk.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 6, 2010 9:47 PM
PS — I greatly, greatly admire Carol for being "judgmental".
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 6, 2010 9:48 PM
Their hate filled ideology must have generated so much publicity and revenue to their islamic community that they can afford to go on a killing spree at the slighest reason.
WLIL at July 6, 2010 10:15 PM
Well, I know it's easy to box it up like that, Crid, but it's not so simple.
I don't like drama. What I do like is debating. I suspect many of us here do. We like making an argument, being challenged by others.
My dad was a big debater too. I remember debating with him as a teen about all sorts of topics. It was intellectually challenging, but in a healthy way.
Therefore, I was probably drawn to my ex, not because I wanted drama, but because he was mentally challenging...BECAUSE he was manipulatitive, so good at mind games, so hard to outmaneuver mentally. Winning an argument with him felt like a true victory...and it still does.
We've remained business partners, so there's still ample opportunity to argue. I try not to engage, but we're so used to each other - so aware of each other's strong and weak points - that we're like two chess players wanting another round.
Though neither of us would openly admit we get something out of it, I think, quite honestly, we do. It's mentally challenging, yet the cost of having that in your relationship is too high.
I didn't know that at 20 like I do at 46. And because I was able to have healthy debates with my dad, the fact that someone would try to challenge me mentally was not a red flag. I did not see, at first, how much he was "gaslighting", not just challenging me to think, but trying to tear away at my core values and belief system....for his benefit.
Now, I have a drama free relationship, which I love. I get my verbal sparring "fix" here, which is a more constructive way to channel it.
lovelysoul at July 7, 2010 5:00 AM
Carol, domestic violence is a big problem in this country and I'm glad you're able to sum it up with, "get a hobby." If only I had thought of that.
And Crid, there seems to be nothing you care about. No matter the topic you're there to throw out some unintelligible comment that I suppose is meant to sound smart or smarmy when the reality is it just makes you sound small.Usually you follow up with stating how you don't care about said topic yet you feel the need to comment. You ruined what could have been a good point. I agree with you that as a predatory species,an abuser knows which women to pick, but you sort of dropped the ball after that. If you'd care to have an actual discussion, I'd love to talk to you about it. If its just a need to sound smart that you have, you're missing your mark.
Kristen at July 7, 2010 7:15 AM
Lovelysoul
Thank you ever so much for giving me a bit of insight! I had the same kind of relationship with both my father and my partner. My father is a most loving, caring, and considerate person. I thought underneath it all, most men were that way. I have since found that people should not generalize. Interesting.
Jen at July 7, 2010 7:58 AM
"I so, so disagree with this. These people FIND each other, I'm certain." Most sure they really do as LS admited but far from all.
Therefore, I was probably drawn to my ex, not because I wanted drama, but because he was mentally challenging...BECAUSE he was manipulatitive, so good at mind games, so hard to outmaneuver mentally. Winning an argument with him felt like a true victory...and it still does.
The other point is that abuse is a loaded word. To some it's anything that's not openly complimentary. Like answering "Dose this dress make me look fat?" honestly if it dose. To others it is if they only hit the partner when they deserved it, like when you suggest that they are gay.
I would have put my entire house down on the bet that no one with their shit together and secure would ever fall into that situation a few years ago. I know different now, anyone of us can be over time ground down and broken it's really that simple.The luck ones are when the abuser moves too fast or finds a more desirable target.
One final point I've realised is that you can't save someone who dosn't want to be saved. As much as I'd have loved to harpoon that wedding cake shaped whale whore with a 50 AE it wouldn't have helped. Until they get their shit sraight it's just a cycle that will repeat itself over and over.
vlad at July 7, 2010 8:22 AM
You're welcome, Jen.
I didn't realize the similarity between my dad and my ex for awhile either. In fact, just this morning, I thought of the debate connection. But, just as in your case, one man was loving and had my best interests at heart while the other put his own interests first.
It just proves that all DV victims are not from abusive homes, though a good manipulator/abuser will use elements from your background to gain advantage. For sure, they seek out partners who will respond to their particular style of controlling the situation. My ex used words, and I was too comfortable with that.
I suspect victims who are physically abused may be more likely to be from physically violent households, but emotional abuse is a trickier call.
You've not allowed yourself to be physically abused - or at least you drew the line there. That probably would've been a trigger for you to leave had it continued, since it isn't "normal" for you. But you need to ask yourself why it's ok for him to be emotionally abusive. What are you getting out of that?
lovelysoul at July 7, 2010 8:32 AM
The reason we stil have domestic violence is because the powers that be want it.
Think about it 40 yrs of using the same methods to treat the prolem with no real headway.
But then, if DV were wiped out entirely where would all those well paid "vollenteers" get government and donated money?
lujlp at July 7, 2010 8:36 AM
I think the problem is that we address DV as a "condition" to be "treated" in the first place.
I think people can change if they really want to. Period. They don't need a therapist, or a 12 step program, or support group. All those are nice to have, but not necessary for someone who really wants to change.
Abusers are perfectly capable of not abusing when it serves them. If they're courting you, they're on their best behavior because it matters to them. They only start abusing when they think they can get away with it.
We all have moments when we'd *like* to pour a drink on someone, but we're mature enough not to act on it. Abusers can control those impulses too, they just choose not to. And part of the problem is that we give them this crutch that they have "mental issues" which makes them helpless not to abuse. We give them an excuse.
For instance, my friend's husband has now been diagnosed with "attachment disorder". He's adopted. So am I, but I don't pour drinks on people or abuse them. Yet, it's suggested that he has a disorder, therefore he abuses. It's bullshit, in my opinion, but this psycholgical crap keeps a lot of victims hanging on longer than they should.
Frankly, he needs someone like John Wayne to come along, grab him by the throat, and tell him if he ever absuses her again, he'll be dead. Then, we'll see how much therapy he really needs to quit.
lovelysoul at July 7, 2010 9:08 AM
I am ashamed to say that early in our marriage, he did physically abuse me. I was able to draw the line. Things are much better physically and emotionally. I can see the strides that he has taken. He has actually tried to be supportive of me, especially after the strokes. He has learned that many of the things that he thought was a put put on or show from me have been real physical complaints.
I do have fears of being alone, especially with my health problems. I see my sister, who is on the brink of homelessness after she left her abusive husband. I also come from an abusive family of origin. My father was not abusive, however my mother was.
She hit us when she was mad, woke us up by spanking us in the middle of the night, smacked us "just to get our attention so that we would listen", and held knives up to our faces and threatened to make us look as ugly on the outside as the inside. I believe that one time she drove us across the country without telling our father where she was. I believe that she did the same with my half-sister - changing her name in the process, so that my father didn't dare intervene.
So I guess that even though I have some good qualities and some sense, I do have a bit more fear about change. I know things can be so much worse.
Jen at July 7, 2010 9:09 AM
Lovelysoul, you are absolutely right. A person can only change if he/she wants to. Most therapists worth their weight in salt would tell you that its pointless to force an abuser into therapy because an abuser does not want to change. The rate of abusers who go on to abuse again after court ordered therapy is around 90%, yet the courts still order it. No person will change unless they take a true look at themselves and think there are things that need to be changed. That includes a victim of DV. Until he/she is ready, there is sadly nothing to do other than offer to be there.
Kristen at July 7, 2010 9:29 AM
The problem is not my need to sound smart, the problem is your need to pretend it could happen to anyone.
It doesn't. It couldn't happen to just anyone... It happens to specific people who have specific qualities. Care to guess which qualities these might be? Golly, where should we begin?
> I don't like drama.
About 500,000 words of yours on this blog –on a variety of topics, each depicting naive, forlorn gamines as damsels-in-distress– say you're wrong.
Listen... Ladies... Go ahead. Tell all the rest of the women in the world that it could have just as easily have happened to them. They won't listen any more than they have to this very thread.... Abusive relationships are a specialty interest. I mean....
> If you'd care to have an actual discussion,
> I'd love to talk to you about it.
...People understand this. They know you'll talk their ears off. Plenty of women (and others) have experienced violent episodes, or had single encounters with short-tempered guys... but that's where it ended, so they don't share your fascination.
> but you sort of dropped the ball
> after that.
That's crazed: You're implying that being selected by a predator should be flattering, as if the predator isn't identifying a weakness. But again, the truth is that in America, plenty of women make zero time for this. Others, once they get their bearings, leave threatening relationships.
One of the greatest things about America, arguably the greatest thing, is that women can move and think and compete independently, building whatever associations they want. Even the bitterest bachelors here acknowledge this. Consider the early comments of Robert and brian: To their credit, these guys don't describe themselves as sophisticated students of feminine nature, y'know? Yet their blunt, impatient comments are the same ones most American women make when confronted with Nicole Simpson scenarios: Why didn't she leave him? Why did she stay in a dance with the asshole?
Primitive Islam is a Simpson marriage on a huge scale, m'kay? The will to oppress women, and the capacity of women to submit to that oppression, through chadors and beatings and all the rest of it, is an innate human weakness. But here's the deal: Culture can defeat this weakness, just like it can overpower all the other natural human stupidities. Children can be taught to wash their hands, to not bully other children, to think carefully about their food, to plan for the future, and to not fall into abusive relationships.
A few years ago there was a book review from a young woman who'd been raised in some comfort in Iran, but had moved to the West after the revolution. It might have been this or this. The portrait that accompanied the memoir was all misty and doe-eyed and princessy... And that was the problem. She was completely unaware that it wasn't all about her, that there were global implications from the culture whose monstrosities she so narrowly escaped.
This shit is just not American. You shouldn't argue so much.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 7, 2010 9:46 AM
It happens to specific people who have specific qualities.
This is correct. And David Buss either did or wrote about a study I heard him talk about in which researchers showed videotape of women (I think it was women) walking, and asked which they'd victimize. The criminals picked out the people who'd been victimized.
Now, maybe in the decade-plus I lived in New York, I was never a crime victim because I was lucky or smart, or maybe it's because I walk on city streets like I'd be a lot of trouble to mug or take on.
Amy Alkon at July 7, 2010 9:56 AM
I would say it's not just about women, although they are the most vulnerable. It is about people. I do think that my mother was abusive towards my dad. One day while he was at work, we just left and dove 1200 miles without even packing. We went to 87 schools in the year and a half that we were gone. She verbally abused him before we left.
And I don't think it is just happenstance. A support system of people that won't say, "I told you so" or boss the abused person around is important. After all, they are trying to find their own strength and voice.
For me, the "perfect guy" was scary. I wondered what he was hiding. I remember how perfect we were to the guys my mom dated. I may have been half-starved, but I was clean and dressed well. Our home was perfected clean and decorated by a professional. Our bruises were well covered. I never trusted the slick facade, so when I saw a flaw, I was comforted. At least this person was being vulnerable enough to show a flaw. I thought he must be normal.
Isn't it sick that I was scared by nice? I thought is MUST be an act - he must be hiding something REALLY awful.
Jen at July 7, 2010 10:00 AM
*drove - and the number was 7 - not 87!
Jen at July 7, 2010 10:02 AM
"That's crazed: You're implying that being selected by a predator should be flattering, as if the predator isn't identifying a weakness."
Wrong again, Crid. I never implied that it was flattering. If anything I accepted responsibility for my part in that relationship. I have acknowledged that it was my own weakness that made me prey and my own weakness that kept me there for as long as I stayed. I am a very different person now but I recognize that its a problem and that there are men and women that are still prey for an abuser. Education goes a long way towards prevention. Since you've gone on the record with your lack of interest, why are you still here?
Kristen at July 7, 2010 10:47 AM
One day while he was at work, we just left and drove 1200 miles without even packing.
There's a great short story by Richard Russo built around the identical situation. It's in "The Whore's Child." Ironically for this discussion, the woman in the story is scared back home by an abusive guy she meets.
kishke at July 7, 2010 10:58 AM
You know why court order theroy doesnt work?
Becuase its designed to fail, see my above comment.
When my famill was ordered into therpy the first thing the theripst did was to sit us all down and explain how the reason my father was abusinve was because he was a memeber of the patriachry and as a misogynist he deepest desire was to exersice control over the family in general and women in paricular.
After it was explianed to her we were there because of my step mothers abuse it took her about ten muinets to come up with the explination that my fathers lack of presence in the home durring the day(appaernlty working for a livig is abusive to housewives) and the fact that we kids (10 and 8 yrs old) hadnt swithed our allegence(she acctually used that word) to our step mother over our mother - and that the abuse we were recivig was a cry or help for a lonley woman.
I somehow doubt that if my father had punched my sister in the stomach(at 6 yrs old) for not standing still while getting her hair brushed, and subsequently twisted her broken arm behind her back it would have been seen as a cry for help.
Therpy doesnt work because of the crack pot ideology of the last wave of feminism and the political power they dont want to surrender.
If they acctually put in place a system which yeilded real results they'd lose thier power
lujlp at July 7, 2010 11:13 AM
Jen, I'm very sorry about what you went through growing up, and, for sure, it made you ripe to be attracted to an abuser yourself. It's great that you have so much insight into the situation now, and that you were strong enough to draw boundaries regarding your physical safety.
Certainly, people who are weakened by abuse as children are more attracted to abusers, but it isn't always the case. There may be a dynamic, a certain personality type, that is more prone to being abused or manipulated, which is why this kind of dialogue can be constructive.
I don't understand why Crid always needs to shut it down. Learning from others experiences, noting similarities and weaknesses, are helpful to those who may encounter abuse - for those who might otherwise be prone to dismiss it or overlook certain warning signs. Yet, he's always like, "just shut up. It can't happen to anyone. There are people it didn't happen to." Yes, we know that, but they're not here right now and probably don't have much to add to the topic.
It can't happen to those who know what to look for, but I find that this is woefully misunderstood by way too many women. Smart women. In fact, most of the women I know who have been abused are quite intelligent, more so than average.
My girlfriend, for instance, comes from a family of geniuses. They're like something out of a novel. Her father retired from the CIA, and her siblings are all chemists and physicists, etc. She is extremely bright, and was, up until getting tangled up with this guy, very independent, financially and otherwise.
So, maybe it "can't happen to anyone," but why is it wrong for us to genuinely explore the reasons it may have happened to some? Why be contemptuous of that? Sharing insights is not only helpful to those still IN difficult circumstances, like Jen, but provides critical information to those who may encounter some form of abuse in the future.
lovelysoul at July 7, 2010 11:14 AM
> I never implied that it was flattering.
Reread the passage: As long as the problem is all with the predation and not with the prey, you're into it. As soon as someone points out that the fate is NOT random, that women's conduct of their own lives is a big part of this, you say they've "sort of dropped the ball."
> Education goes a long way towards prevention.
Goddamn right it does. For the time being, let's have Carol leading this campaign, aided as necessary by Robert and brian. A woman whose ego is still on line in this regard is not going to be helpful:
> A support system of people that won't say, "I told
> you so" or boss the abused person around is
> important. After all, they are trying to find their
> own strength and voice.
"Voices" aren't the problem. "Support systems" aren't the problem. It's like a surgeon complaining that he still likes to play in the mud: Dude, you need to wash your hands. Yeah, absolutely: We told you so. If that stings, it probably should.
> Since you've gone on the record with your lack
> of interest, why are you still here?
I lack interest in the personal narratives. There's never any new insight for those who already respond to these matters as we should. Having these intimate dramas described as meaningfully complicated cheats the truth of the larger topic of the post:
Islam is all fucked up in the way it treats women.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 7, 2010 11:24 AM
> why is it wrong for us to genuinely explore
> the reasons it may have happened to some?
It ain't, so long as you describe it as the intimate topic that it is, not something from which everyone needs to draw lessons. A lot of women –most American women– already have this covered.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 7, 2010 11:34 AM
Personally, I think support systems are huge. My sister left her abusive husband, has trouble paying for her meds and may soon live on the street, in which case she would be very vulnerable. That can make an asshole sound pretty damn awesome.
Jen at July 7, 2010 11:36 AM
"Goddamn right it does. For the time being, let's have Carol leading this campaign, aided as necessary by Robert and brian. A woman whose ego is still on line in this regard is not going to be helpful"
Yeah, let's have the least empathetic, least experienced people on the topic offer their wisdom. "Buy a trumpet and never marry". Problem solved.
You're not helpful. I swear, if someone posted they'd had a cra accident and needed advice, ypu'd come on and say, "Millions of people have driven for 30 years and never had an accident!"
Okay, thanks. How is that constructive at all?
lovelysoul at July 7, 2010 11:38 AM
"A lot of women –most American women– already have this covered."
I don't know how you believe that's true, given the DV rates. Wishing it to be true doesn't make it so.
And, anyway, let's just go out on a limb and assume that there may possibly be some women who might benefit from hearing these narratives. If they don't find them necessary, they can leave...as can you.
lovelysoul at July 7, 2010 11:42 AM
YOU THINK "MOST" AMERICAN WOMEN ARE SUFFERING FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE?
Month after month, topic after topic, year after year, your narcissism amazes.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 7, 2010 11:49 AM
> Yeah, let's have the least empathetic, least
> experienced people
"Empathy" is not a worthwhile value in public affairs, only intimate ones. Carol is deeply experienced, and her experience is the one I want women –all women, around the globe– to most closely emulate. The point you cannot take is that these women are not simply "accident" victims... Their own behavior is a determinative factor.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 7, 2010 12:00 PM
Talk about a strawman. I never said "most". But there are a few here on this blog, right now. Yet, you think it's all about you and your contempt for them. Your narcissism is what's troubling, Crid.
lovelysoul at July 7, 2010 12:01 PM
Its not narcissism crid, its feminist propoganda
lujlp at July 7, 2010 12:03 PM
"Carol is deeply experienced, and her experience is the one I want women –all women, around the globe– to most closely emulate."
Maybe Carol just avoids intimate relationships. My guess is that Carol is about "deeply experienced" in relationships as you are, which isn't much, beyond observation and declaring how you "would" do it, if you did it, which you don't.
Mythical relationships are always perfect. Real relationship are more complex.
lovelysoul at July 7, 2010 12:05 PM
> Maybe Carol just avoids intimate relationships.
If she avoids the violent ones, she has more to teach than do others.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 7, 2010 12:15 PM
"If she avoids the violent ones, she has more to teach than do others."
No, because that's a little late for someone like Jen, who is already with an abusive man, and is probably dependent on him for health insurance and financial support after suffering strokes.
That's the problem. You don't have anything helpful to add to a problem like that other than "turn back time and make it never happen". You wash your hands of any messy situation because you'd just rather they not exist.
And that's fine, but coming on here and making someone already in a tough, complex situation feel worse for having gotten into the situation in the first place does NOTHING to help. It only makes you feel smug and self-righteous. Which is more narcissistic?
Commenters like Kristen, Monica, and myself have more to offer her because we've been there and made positive changes in our lives. Let us have these dialogues because it's not about you.
lovelysoul at July 7, 2010 12:36 PM
LS, he's not worth arguing with. It just feeds into whatever ego boost he needs. He doesn't care yet he not only comments, but his remarks are disparaging. Nobody said most women are victims of DV just that there are more than any of us should be comfortable with. He is not part of any solution and that tells me he is part of the problem. Sometimes people just like to hear themselves speak and I fear that right now, Crid fits that bill.
Kristen at July 7, 2010 1:05 PM
> No,
Yes. Simply yes, and without exception. It's much, much better for a woman to not get into this situation, no matter her particulars.
> that's a little late for someone
>like Jen
So either you want solutions which absolutely answer every problem which anyone could ever have in any context (which seems to me unlikely from you– even you aren't that grandiose a personality), or you want to imagine that your experience has broad applicability to the human condition.
I think the latter... You want to be useful.
That's good as far as it goes. But it doesn't mean you should encourage the problem, and it doesn't mean you get to pretend it's more widespread than it is, and it doesn't mean you get to pretend there's no solution for those who want to avoid it. We're NOT all at risk, and you ought to have the courage to say so.
> that tells me he is part of
> the problem.
Nope, never been in an abusive relationship. Again again again: The cosmos is 93 billion light-years wide, OK? There's more to the world than your experience of it.
Dear Women of Islam— Don't be fooled by the daytime talkshow sisterhood which America might offer as a commercialized calling card. Your suffering is gratuitous: It doesn't need to happen, and Western civilization will teach you and your daughters and grand-daughters (etc.) to avoid it in very, very short lessons... If you want to.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 7, 2010 2:11 PM
Yet another piece that would lead one to believe that "abusers" are always male, and "victims" always female.
Sorry, NO sympathy here for the poor abused wimmins -- until they acknowledge their own substantial (and growing) responsibility for initiating and perpetuating domestic violence.
Until then, tough shit. Too bad, so sad.
Jay R at July 7, 2010 2:20 PM
One could get the impression that most folks here (I am disappointed with you on this one, Amy) believe that women are inherently weak-willed and prone to domination by the menz. Well, if that's true ...
Jay R at July 7, 2010 2:23 PM
All the sudden it goes off the rails....
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 7, 2010 2:43 PM
Jay R, if you'd read the comments, you'd see that I specifically said he/she regarding abusers and victims meaning both can be abusers and both can be victims. I also took responsibility for my role in the relationship. But you don't want to hear that. You want to come here and bash. Like I told Crid, if you'd like to be part of the conversation, read the comments and be a productive voice. Or the two of you can go off in your own little fantasy world where DV doesn't happen or she deserved it.
Kristen at July 7, 2010 2:58 PM
I think the abuse goes both ways. That is way I spoke of my mother who I believe took off with us. I think that verbal abuse along with taking the children and hiding them is a form of abuse.
My mom sure wasn't weak willed. She wasn't afraid to cuss at my father or strike him even though he outweighed her by about 150 lbs. I think he stayed around to protect us. She never hit us around him.
I have been in other chat forums where the policy is "don't feed the trolls" and Crid is definitely a troll. Let's just ignore him.
Jen at July 7, 2010 3:45 PM
Darlin's, I ain't the one hittin' people.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 7, 2010 4:02 PM
Crid is definitely a troll.
Oh, please.
kishke at July 7, 2010 4:13 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/07/06/phyllis_chesler.html#comment-1730422">comment from kishkeRe: Crid = troll. It's best if those who are new to a neighborhood don't run around making pronouncements about who's who and what's what.
Amy Alkon at July 7, 2010 4:18 PM
I am amazed how some people were so gullible and so quick to sympatise with islamic women sob stories. I am sick and tired of being treated badly and discriminated by islamic people, thus I have no time to sympatise for them. Sympatising for them is just a waste of time for those islamic women seems to be always trying to glorify their hate ideology and their islamic men and trying to make us, nonbelievers "envious" about their socalled special status as women in islam for no good reason. It gets even more disgusting when the islamic women keep on harping about their special rights to wear burka, or showed off their islamic headscarves etc or boast about their socalled modernity and then tried to claim victimhood. Those islamic women(and and can be really big bullies and forceful in a nasty way) were not weak, have lots of their own racist islamic organisation to turn to and many of them are rich and therefore they should solve their own islamic problem whether to do with abuse or honor killing or whatever and should not manipulate poor nonbeliever (who already got too much problem caused by their islamic community extremely selfish protectionism) to solve their problem. Furthermore they have lots of islamic organisation that they can go to for help whereas nonbelievers don't have much choice and nonbelievers can't go to islmaic organisation for help for they only admit islamic people. So, where do I, as a nonbeliever go if I need help in a predominantly islamic country? It is scary to even think of the limited option. I am sure other nonbelievers people suffered far more worst but don't know how to manipulate the media to the best of their advantage.
WLIL at July 7, 2010 4:59 PM
Truly, I'm an argumentative little prick, but not a troll.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 7, 2010 5:10 PM
> I am sick and tired of being treated badly and
> discriminated by islamic people
Where do you live?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 7, 2010 5:25 PM
Jen, we can't ignore Crid. While I disagree with him often, there's something very loveable about him. His bark is bigger than his bite and he really does mean well. And there are even times he adds to the conversation!
Kristen at July 7, 2010 6:14 PM
Here on the internet, everyone's bark is bigger than their bite.
kishke at July 7, 2010 6:58 PM
From WLIL's other postings, I gather he lives in Malaysia or maybe Indonesia.
kishke at July 7, 2010 6:59 PM
I seriously, serously disagree with LS's (and others') thinking about this: There's all kinds of dog whistle stuff going on in human behavior all the time. You or I may not hear the notes, and we might not be singing them, either. But in the United States, abusive and predator-types know how to find their targets. It's just not right to say it could happen to anyone, especially in a conversation about the atrocities of Islam. Sharia DOESN'T happen in the United States. Describing our problems in the same breath shows much greater receptivity to Islam than it deserves.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 7, 2010 7:15 PM
Well, I am presently living in some small depressing town in malaysia. I was not only mistreated by islamic people but also by other nasty asians(indians and chinese) who are nonislamic but were as nasty as those islamic people. There are also some chinese and indians in malaysia who are as guilty in imposing the totalitarian islamic culture on individual nonbeliever such as myself. It seems indonesia(though I have never been to indonesia but I met some truly nasty indonesians) is even worst than malaysia. I just hope malaysia won't becaome like another indonesia.
WLIL at July 7, 2010 7:36 PM
Crid, that's because you are naive to the different levels of abuse. It doesn't have to be Sharia law to be abusive.
The simpliest and easiest form of abuse to condemn the victim would be physical violence. I agree with you that once a woman - any woman - is hit once, or no more than twice, she should know best to leave. Pack up herself and/or the kids and get out. Period.
But we were trying to have a conversation about the more subtle forms of abuse - the passive aggressive emotional abuse that not everyone sees as abuse, even the victim.
This kind of dialogue can be helpful to victims who are confused because of mind games - unsure if what they're experiencing is abusive or not.
You have no experience with this, Crid, so let those of us who do - who have dealt directly with narcissistic personality disorder, which almost all abusers have - speak directly with those who may be struggling with it.
And, Jay R, you're trying to make a gender issue where there is none. I, like Kristen, totally believe that men are victims of this sort of abuse too.
lovelysoul at July 7, 2010 7:37 PM
"This kind of dialogue can be helpful to victims who are confused because of mind games - unsure if what they're experiencing is abusive or not."
From my own personal experience (worth two cents, meeebe less) I've learned that if the emotional abuse is that severe and they can't figure it out for themselves, the only thing they are going to find helpful or of use is stern words and professional help. If someone is deluded enough to believe that this type of relationship is normal or okay - I guarantee, you are typing away in vein. Reason won't work..yet. It's only when the pain becomes worse than their fear of taking a good look at what landed them in this position to begin with that they will be willing to move up and out. They didn't get this way overnight, and they sure as hell won't be able to snap to it with their current thinking. Primarily because it lacks the perspective of responsibility. Amy and Sgt Heather are right - a support group is a great place to start...but they have to stick to it.
People who fall victim to these relationships and don't get out have a tremendous amount of heavy lifting and personal work to do on themselves. As long as they are blaming the other party for their woes they will stay stuck in the cycle because the only way out is to clean up their own poop...once they do, they gain esteem, courage - so forth and so on. Only then can they see options. No solution to the problem lies in rehashing self-pity predicament stories, or excuses for their lack of willingness to move forward (over and over) without some serious words about the solution. Some of these posts are missing that entirely.
The solution? Take a good look in the mirror, stop making excuses, and get help. I have a tremendous amount of compassion for these people (and what landed them where they are) but I have little patience in convincing them of doing what is in their best interest if they can't grab hold of the help that IS out there if they earnestly ask .
Feebie at July 7, 2010 9:08 PM
> You have no experience with this
Right. I want to be clear about that. Never beat anyone, never got beaten, never saw an honor killing.
> so let those of us who do - who have dealt directly
> with narcissistic personality disorder, which almost
> all abusers have - speak directly with those who
> may be struggling with it.
You can speak directly to whomever you want. But these are blog comments. On the internet. I'll make you this deal: It you don't say goofy things, you won't be challenged. Meanwhile, it's like being told we're not allowed to talk about drunk driving until we've taken out a school bus on a country road with a belly fulla beer.... Or been taken out within one. Expertise isn't all that useful to the rest of us.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 7, 2010 10:01 PM
Crid, I obviously meant that you have no experience as a victim, so to come on here and disparage victims isn't helpful. I just don't see your point. Don't you think these people wish they had made a better choice? If they could, they'd go back in time and pick a better partner, but unless you're offering a time machine, that's no help.
"People who fall victim to these relationships and don't get out have a tremendous amount of heavy lifting and personal work to do on themselves. As long as they are blaming the other party for their woes they will stay stuck in the cycle because the only way out is to clean up their own poop..."
This is the psychobabble of DV - and, actually, all the self-realization and life change philosophies - that is accepted as a universal truth without challenge. "Once you do the wooork...and only then...after you spend time alone self-reflecting...maybe playing your flute and taking long walks, warm baths, and sipping hot tea....only THEN will you be healthy enough..."
It doesn't really take all that for most victims. Just saying that makes it sound too daunting and exhaustive for most victims to contemplate.
All it takes is the courage to get out. Victims need to know they just have to...leap. And, once out, it really doesn't take a lot of "work" or self-reflection to understand how to avoid being in that position ever again.
On this, I agree with Crid - all you need to know is how to use your legs to walk away the first time anyone mistreats you. This doesn't take a lot of "work", just common sense. Don't want to be with an abusive partner? Don't pick one.
However, there are narcissistic people out there manipulating others. They never have to lay a hand on you to be abusive. Some of you are probably being manipulated by them right now and don't even realize it. They could be your parents, your spouse, your "friend" or your co-worker.
That is the more subtle form of abuse that many fail to recognize. A spouse will be wondering why he/she does such "crazy" things...why he/she always seems to be "wrong" or have conversations twisted around on them...why they're always on the defensive.
I know virtually nothing about being hit or beaten. But almost anyone who would hit you has the same narcissistic personality traits. So, it's important for people to know how to spot them BEFORE they hit you. Before they even have a chance to abuse you, you can avoid them or leave them...but only if you know what you're dealing with.
lovelysoul at July 8, 2010 4:09 AM
Oh, Crid, you twist and twist and twist. You purposely misunderstand the points that are being made. Truly you are a smart man just based on your big vocabulary that you love to show off. Now put that big brain to some use and actually listen to what's being said, let is sink in, and maybe realize that nobody is against you, blaming you, or trying to hurt you. We are just trying to be informative to other people who are hopefully trying to learn from our experiences. Amy wrote about group therapy for victims of Domestic Violence, something I commented on not because I believe the world revolves around me but because it is something I experienced. If we all stopped commenting because of your badgering and demands to meet some criteria of yours that is impossible to understand, Amy wouldn't have a blog left.
As I said earlier, I take responsibility for my part in being involved with an abuser. His actions were not my fault but I can see now that there were things missing in me that allowed me to accept and excuse his abuse. I can also see that he chose me for a reason which was those weaknesses that allowed him to abuse me and get away with it. He did not choose and emotionally healthy strong woman with her shit together. That woman would have booted him immediately. While the red flags were there, the abuse did happen very gradually, enough that he was able to manipulate me into believing that it was my fault, that I was crazy, or that I was worthless. Its not a nice way to live and your comments border the offensive in that you really feel the need to put down any of us who lived in an abusive household. As an adult I take responsibility, but what about children born into that with parents who don't leave it. Do you blame the children for growing up thinking that its normal? Because to them it is normal and many, not all, are going to repeat the cycle.
I know, Crid, that you like to challenge on subjects, but please don't let the message and information we're trying to pass get lost because we don't meet some form of your criteria in how we respond.
Kristen at July 8, 2010 6:53 AM
"All it takes is the courage to get out. Victims need to know they just have to...leap. And, once out, it really doesn't take a lot of "work" or self-reflection to understand how to avoid being in that position ever again."
Ok, I'm seriously with Crid on this one. This does not just happen to anyone - at least in any remarkable numbers. People who are in these situations for years and years and years are ill. And that just doesn't just go away.
Feebie at July 8, 2010 9:36 AM
> I obviously meant that you have
> no experience as a victim
You're Goddamn right I don't.
So if anyone has any questions, go ahead and ask, and I'll tell you how I did that. Smile at me and I'll buy you Starbucks.
> to come on here and disparage
> victims
I'm not disparaging "victims", I'm disparaging you. Now, if there's any fun in this friction for others who're reading this, it's probably just the soap-opera reliability of our mutual dislike. But I truly disagree with you. You keep trying to convert Amy's discussion of a topic of global breadth into this tiny little realm of personal expertise... But it's expertise I'd discount even if your sense of scale were proportionate. Which it ain't.
> Don't you think these people wish
> they had made a better choice?
Our topic is the women of Islam. Their culture doesn't let them know there are choices.
I remember a friend talking about Mexico once, how American tourists think the locals have some sort of immunity to the Montezuma's Revenge that tourists don't have. But the friend said no— Impoverished Mexicans are sick all the time and they don't even know it, because their baselines of health & hygiene are so much lower. This is like that.
And people get the runs while living in Kansas City, too, just as some KC women get into abusive relationships without living under Sharia. That doesn't mean the KC women can fix Mexico's water supply, or give Islamic women the courage they'll need for the centuries ahead.
> Could be your parents, your
> spouse, your "friend" or your
> co- worker.
This is like that TV show! I can hear the opening theme song now... A world of treachery and cunning, a dog-eat-dog realm of deception and intrigue...
It's the thing that pissed me off to begin with. You're trying too hard to pretend it could happen to anyone ('And golly, you might not even know it's happening!').
But that's not true. There are many women, the vast majority of American women, who don't get into abusive relationships. They have radar to avoid them. If that radar fails and they stumble, they get back on track and keep moving, having learned what they needed to learn... Their wisdom protects them thereafter. They know THAT won't happen again.
> it's important for people to know how
> to spot them BEFORE they hit you.
> Before they even have a chance to
> abuse you
Other women do know how to spot them. It's like you're shouting 'The sun will come up tomorrow morning!' Other people already know that. If you're willing to concede that abusers can be spotted ("wish they had made a better choice"), you should concede that in the Western world, the people in these abusive relationships find each other... as I said in my first comment.
After that, consider how little this has to do with the people of Islam. Pretending that this could happen to anyone is a really bad way to sell Western values to a culture that's going to be resistant anyway, a culture inclined to thinking about women (and even one's own left hand) as "unclean".
> you can avoid them or leave
> them...but only if you know what
> you're dealing with.
Intimacy with abusers is what we want women to AVOID.
> don't let the message and
> information we're trying to pass
> get lost because we don't meet
> some form of your criteria in
> how we respond.
That's kinda how it works, y'know? If we think someone's wrong, we say so.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 8, 2010 10:39 AM
>>You keep trying to convert Amy's discussion of a topic of global breadth into this tiny little realm of personal expertise...Our topic is the women of Islam.
Enough with this ridiculous accusation of thread hijacking, Crid.
"Our" topic is most certainly not only what you say it is!
Look at the way Amy begins her post, at the top of this very page.
"My friend in the LAPD, Sergeant Heather, worked domestic violence cases for a while, and learned something very important -- something I often tell people who write me about their own or another's domestic abuse situation...Sergeant Heather told me that she found that the best way to get victims to leave their abuser is to send them to group sessions with other victims. They hear what others are going through, or have gone through, and their defenses are down, and they can admit there's a problem. The psychology of domestic abuse victims in a group situation is relevant vis a vis the Afshan Azad case -- but in reverse..."
Jody Tresidder at July 8, 2010 10:58 AM
Sergeant Heather told me that she found that the best way to get victims to leave their abuser is to send them to group sessions with other victims. They hear what others are going through, or have gone through, and their defenses are down, and they can admit there's a problem.
I think one of the reasons people find help in domestic-violence groups is that, while we don't all have the same experiences, we're not all special snowflakes, either, and people's experiences resonate. It can be enlightening to hear: "You're NOT crazy. This is NOT normal."
Listening to other people's stories is on par with watching driver's ed videos of horrible accidents. Don't make similar mistakes. Spot these weaknesses in yourself and course correct while you can.
The problem with Islamic cultures is that abuse isn't just the result of flawed individual thinking: It's the result of flawed thinking that has infected an entire culture. If you complain, people tell you that you ARE crazy, and that it IS normal.
MonicaP at July 8, 2010 11:13 AM
OK... Busted.
But as a rule, the topic IS what I say it is, OK?
______________
Seriously, I think encounter groups and coffee klatches aren't what's going pull Islam out of its lunacy.
Over here, I was talking about how liberals, especially media types, tend to imagine that all the evil in the human heart can be chased away with shame. (Maybe this is an insight into how their own souls are propelled, but I'm not sure I want to know.)
I think what we're getting out of LS (and maybe Amy's Sgt., who knows– I didn't read the post that carefully, as you can tell) is an exaggerated sense of the utility of intimate emotional experiences.
It's like when Bush used to scold Putin for being a strong-armed ruler. The Russians were all like, huh? Over there, that's how it's done.
Yeah, sure... If you could run support groups for abused women in Riyadh and Tehran and all the other Hell-holes, I'm certain many lives would be enriched.
But if you could run support groups for abused women in Riyadh and Tehran, you'd be living in a Star Trek parallel universe anyway. In the real universe, that's not what happens.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 8, 2010 11:24 AM
See Monica's last graf.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 8, 2010 11:25 AM
Thank you, Jody. This isn't off topic. Crid would simply prefer to talk about Islam because those are victims he can't blame for being victims.
I still don't understand why he is so contemptuous of those of us who've been through abuse talking with each other about it, especially since that is one of the points of this thread - how benefial it can be.
Crid, do you show up at AA meetings and shout, "Millions of other people don't have issues with alcohol! It can't happen to just anyone!"
(Uh, well, thanks. But it happened to us, so shut the fuck up.)
Would you go to a grief support group and yell, "You know there are still plenty of people living!"
Why? What is your point? Maybe DV can't happen to "just anyone", but it obviously happens to more people than is necessary, and part of that is because they truly DON'T know what to look for.
How is someone, like Jen, who grew up in such an abusive home, enduring cruel and sociopathic behavior from her mother, supposed to "know"? She might as well have grown up in Islam.
Do you care about people like her, or do you just feel they should figure everything out without any help? Their weakness, in your eyes, is not knowing something that you take for granted...which is stupid. We all need help with different areas of life.
Some people need help learning not to eat too much, as elemental as that sounds, and some people need help in learning to pick better partners and build better relationships....actually, judging from the millions of books on that topic, very many people do.
You are in the minority in your arrogance and smugness because the vast majority of people feel some concern over their skills at picking the right partner and maintaining a healthy relationship.
But they are actually out there picking partners, whereas you have opted not to, so your personal investment in being right or wrong is zip. It's so much fun to ridicule others.
lovelysoul at July 8, 2010 11:36 AM
And, Feebie, you're wrong. Victims of DV are not always "ill". I've had too many friends emerge on the other side of these situations and go on to have healthy, happy, peaceful relationships. It's unfair to label them all as "ill" because they made a bad choice of partner.
A couple of years ago, a lady here at my place married the most controlling guy I've ever met (he was so jealous, he wouldn't let her go to the gynocologist without him!). It took her a few months to get out - and some help, support, and a restraining order - but she's now doing great and has a wonderful man in her life. It was a learning experience, and I'm sure she'd never do it again.
Please understand that it's hard enough for a victim to get out - they're overwhelmed with the practicalities, and the fear that they're undeserving or will be incapable of having a good future life. So, to suggest that they are also "ill" and in need of therapy before they can move forward is just another obstacle....and kind of plays into how worthless and messed up the abuser is already making them feel.
Some may need therapy, but some genuinely move on fine without it, stronger and wiser.
lovelysoul at July 8, 2010 11:55 AM
>>Thank you, Jody. This isn't off topic. Crid would simply prefer to talk about Islam because those are victims he can't blame for being victims.I still don't understand why he is so contemptuous of those of us who've been through abuse talking with each other about it, especially since that is one of the points of this thread - how benefial it can be.
You're most welcome, lovelysoul.
And one of the reasons I've kept reading this thread is to find a clue to a situation that has saddened me for years.
Long ago a fairly good friend of mine, a charming, lively, funny, press photographer I knew well enough to have over to dinner, with his wife and very young children - we also had dinner with him and his young family - committed suicide. I was totally blindsided. (Car exhaust).
We had temporarily drifted out of touch, but when I heard the awful news (almost immediately), we phoned his widow, attended the funeral (a big, dignified one - god, it was wrenching - watching his tiny girls saying their goodbyes) and I later talked for a long time to his wife. (She came to see me about 2 weeks after the funeral - with her daughters - to say goodbye.)
We all "knew" - that is, those of us who were friends with the photographer knew, that his wife was accident prone. Incredibly, it was - pretty much - a low key joke. She had a bruised face once, and a bandaged wrist at a dinner.
Except, she wasn't.
In their last year together, my friend had finally broken her wrist twice. Before that, there had been - she said - bitter verbal rows, then broken furniture, then the punches started. Before he died, she had finally brought charges against him - and was preparing to leave him. He had already moved out into rented accommodation.
(The court date was, she said, probably the tipping point - but he had also lost his main national newspaper freelance gig - because of his spiraling depression...).
She told me so many things.
She talked of her own shame, of being unable to make him seek help. She said he was always so angry after hurting her - at himself. It started just after their 2nd daughter was born - and was never in front of the children. (There was none of the "YOU make me angry" - he always said it was a problem in himself, that he had to deal with.) She said she had sought help from his own mother (his mother was aware of his black moods and actually looked after their daughters for a few months, in the hope he would find the "space" to get help).
Christ, there is so much I didn't understand. Because she wasn't the least bit of a victim-doormat. She worked outside the home and was partly Italian! (That is, that's an accurate description - and she was also lively, outspoken - and talkative....) And he didn't - not in a million years - seem that "type".
I did ask her why she hadn't told any of "us". (i.e. The other journalists who knew the guy socially). She did say - and this has stuck - he couldn't have faced any of you knowing what he was.
I haven't seen her since. (Though I do know she remarried - and that she said - at the time - her role was to get her little girls through their grief - and only talk about WHY "Daddy was so sad" when they were older. The criminal charges were mentioned at the inquest - and were reported - but the kids were not aware of any of that part).
I feel a bit shitty writing this because my knowledge is so incomplete. I have always assumed it was an "outlier" case - simply because I feel, I guess, ashamed of being so utterly in the dark until it was too late. Maybe he was mentally ill? Maybe he was a brilliant actor - and worked at fooling us all? Maybe he got thumped by his own parents - and his own mother felt guilty that he would repeat the pattern?
I don't know.
But I do know enough not to feel contempt for other people's "dramas".
Jody Tresidder at July 8, 2010 1:17 PM
"And, Feebie, you're wrong. Victims of DV are not always "ill"."
What would you call staying with someone who was physically abusive (and going back to them over and over again) despite the facts in front of you? What would drive such a compulsion? I especially cringe at this type of ill behavior when there are children involved (Hedda Nussbaum).
This is not sane behavior.
Feebie at July 8, 2010 1:54 PM
Feebiw, I'm not saying Hedda Nussbaum wasn't ill, or that many abuse victims are, just that it's unfair to generalize them ALL.
Read Jody's heartbreaking story. There are many reasons smart, sane women stay. They often believe that with enough therapy or medication, the abuser will get better. They hope, perhaps too long, but hope is not a mental illness.
Jody, it sounds to me that your friend's abuse escalated as his life took some negative turns, and I can see why the wife probably thought it was the right thing to do to keep the family together and try to get him help, especially since he acknowledged that it was HIS problem, not about her. That was pretty huge, as so many blame their behavior on the victim.
It's easy for the victim to rationalize that this is a sickness...because it basically is...and a spouse promises "in sickness and in health," so it's a real conflict with those vows and your core belief system, to walk out on a sick partner, who may, in fact, have the capacity to get better.
I know Crid will object to this, but it's really true that abusers are often the ones you'd least suspect. My girlfriend's husband is that way - just the funniest, sweetest person most of the time. She began telling me he had this darker side, but I never saw it, and at first thought she might be lying for sympathy or something. I just couldn't fathom this laid-back, Jack-Johnson loving guy as being capable of abuse.
He fooled me, and I have pretty good abuser radar at this point, so don't beat yourself up for not seeing this in your friend. I'm sure no one but his wife, close family (and police) knew.
lovelysoul at July 8, 2010 2:31 PM
> those are victims he can't blame for being victims.
That's me! I wanna double down on people's pain! For example—
> do you show up at AA meetings and shout, "Millions
> of other people don't have issues with alcohol! It
> can't happen to just anyone!"
The context of this fantasy is so twisted, and your reading of what's been said is so demented, that I've lost the will. It's all about your precious, deeply personal, self-aggrandizing insights, pouty-chinned truths that just can't get a hearing from a world that doesn't care.... It's crackers. If this is truly the insight by which Islamic oppression of women will be overwhelmed, then we're truly fucked.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 8, 2010 4:51 PM
Why do haughty islamic women demand more attention about their domestic violence when other nonbelievers suffers as much and don't demand so much special attention? That is what irks me. Islam is nothing special and no special attention should be given to their internal islamic DV problem because that will weaken our nonbelievers status and divert our attention from our own nonbelievers other more pressing problems.
WLIL at July 8, 2010 6:22 PM
I did ask her why she hadn't told any of "us". (i.e. The other journalists who knew the guy socially). She did say - and this has stuck - he couldn't have faced any of you knowing what he was.
This, I must say, makes it sound as though she was complicit in the abuse by saving his face among his peers. Kind of supports Crid's argument.
kishke at July 8, 2010 7:41 PM
Thank you Jody for pointing out to Crid that Amy did blog about groups for DV victims. I see he admitted he didn't read it carefully. Shockers!!
And Crid, just because I disagree with you often does not mean I don't like you. You can dislike me all you want, but I do find you very amusing and sometimes even your points are valid.
Kristen at July 8, 2010 8:25 PM
> You can dislike me all you want
Well, don't make it TOO easy. But at midyear, LS leads the blog's championship for 2010: Her insane line about Alcoholics Anonymous was a masterstroke, a clutch play, a real champion's move.
While I probably drink a little more than such a good-looking man should drink, there's never been a need to go to AA. But friends who are in the program say there's one kind of remark that's just not tolerated at meetings: 'Golly, I never know which of those conniving whiskey bottles is the one that's going to follow me around and jump down my throat!' People who truly live in recovery, no matter how much cruelty and misfortune life has thrown at them, know perfectly well where the responsibility lies. But LS thinks they're the ones I want to mock.
Crid at July 8, 2010 9:41 PM
"There are many reasons smart, sane women stay. They often believe that with enough therapy or medication, the abuser will get better. They hope, perhaps too long, but hope is not a mental illness."
People who believe they can change the other person's behavior because they are such a great-catch are delusional and/or controlling. They lack humility as well.
Something just ain't right in their noodle. And I don't say that while looking down on them...but pity-party stories without the cold hard truth and facts doesn't really serve their best interest.
Feebie at July 8, 2010 10:20 PM
What Feebie said.
Crid at July 8, 2010 10:46 PM
This isn't a pity party. Only your contempt for any discussion regarding abuse between victims makes it seem so, even though this has been proven helpful.
My comment about AA was not meant to imply that you should go to AA, just questioning what benefit would it be for you to go and smugly point out what they already know - that others made better choices.
They know they made the choice to drink. They also know it is hard to stop, and having the support of others who've been there is constructive....not a "pity party".
lovelysoul at July 9, 2010 4:51 AM
"This, I must say, makes it sound as though she was complicit in the abuse by saving his face among his peers."
She is not "complicit" in her own abuse. She viewed him as mentally ill. And she was his wife, mother of his kids, and she loved him enough to try to get him help. Destroying his reputation, and what little was left of his career, while he got counseling, would've been counter-productive.
Sure, the first time he touched her, she could've immediately called the police, had him thrown in jail, taken all his assets, his kids, and ruined his reputation. Then, I guarantee she'd be labeled a lying feminist bitch on this blog.
It's no win with you guys. If we talk about it amongst ourselves - even try to get someone like Jen to leave - we're throwing a "pity party".
I did not hear any self-pity in this thread. Kristen, like me and others here, is someone who has gone through it and come out well on the other side, so we are only saying that it CAN BE DONE. We're showing her she's not alone.
That is the very reason that support groups work. For AA or DV, the beneficial component is knowing you're not alone and that others have successfully changed their lives.
lovelysoul at July 9, 2010 5:10 AM
>>The context of this fantasy is so twisted, and your reading of what's been said is so demented, that I've lost the will. It's all about your precious, deeply personal, self-aggrandizing insights, pouty-chinned truths that just can't get a hearing from a world that doesn't care.... It's crackers.
Dreadful case of hyperbole there, Crid.
Maybe there's a support group you could join?
Jody Tresidder at July 9, 2010 5:22 AM
She is not "complicit" in her own abuse.
I'm sorry, but protecting his reputation among his peers is complicity. He was breaking her bones, for heaven's sake. You don't wait for counseling to resolve that.
Sure, the first time he touched her, she could've immediately called the police, had him thrown in jail, taken all his assets, his kids, and ruined his reputation. Then, I guarantee she'd be labeled a lying feminist bitch on this blog.
So it's either be complicit in the abuse or take all his assets and his kids? No, there's a middle ground, such as leaving and letting others know. By not doing either, for the reason she gave, she acquiesced in the abuse. Which, as I pointed out, kind of supports Crid's argument.
kishke at July 9, 2010 6:55 AM
There are all kinds of reasons why people stay in abusive relationships. No one is arguing that the abused don't play a role in the abuse. Where I'm confused is in why it's a bad thing for people who have experienced this situation to turn to each other for support in getting out.
To be clear, my ex was not abusive. He was an asshole, which is different but related.
It's not true that people need all kinds of internal healing before they can make positive decisions in their lives. They don't need years of therapy before they can walk out. Many need to be just healthy enough to be able to leave, and that's a strength people can get from others who have lived through similar experiences.
To add to lovelysoul's thought above, I don't care that people go to AA meetings. I'm not an alcoholic and never will be one, but I'm glad the organization exists to help people draw support from each other.
MonicaP at July 9, 2010 7:08 AM
She did eventually call the police and had him charged. It isn't clear from the story how often she left or where she stayed. The kids were taken in by the grandparents, so obviously his family was told. You're assuming she was passively sitting there taking abuse, but it sounds to me that she active, not passive.
I see nothing to be gained by calling up all his aquaintances and co-workers and telling them he's an abuser. It would not have been relevant to them, and it would've destroyed any motivation he had to get better. He was clearly suffering from severe depression. That would've put him completely over the edge, which obviously, he was very close to anyway.
I believe she acted in loving, compassionate manner, even allowing him his dignity in the end and not trashing him to their daughters. To find fault with her - to actually blame her now for the choices she made is cruel. Hindsight is 20/20. I'm sure she already plays it over again and again, thinking of what she might've done differently.
lovelysoul at July 9, 2010 7:16 AM
"You're assuming she was passively sitting there taking abuse, but it sounds to me that she active, not passive."
We didn't assume, that is what she did. That IS passive. "She called the police...eventually".
"I see nothing to be gained by calling up all his aquaintances and co-workers and telling them he's an abuser."
See what Kishke said (totally dig that post).
"I believe she acted in loving, compassionate manner, even allowing him his dignity in the end and not trashing him to their daughters. "
Loving? While he was kicking the crap out of her? Delusional.
Feebie at July 9, 2010 8:49 AM
> Maybe there's a support group you could join?
Turtledove, you're in it. You brought the coffee and cookies, right?
Here in blogland we get to peer into the skull of the dweeb in front of us in the grocery line and fuck around. People leave a big, hinged flap open near the occipital lobe, so you can just flick it up with you fingertip and marvel at the tripe and putrefaction within. Then you close the flap and kinda a turn 'em around, and they're still just standing there! They'll look you in the eye, and everything!... They'll answer questions!... Like everything's normal, as if their values and systems of belief are coherent and appropriate, and NOT based on terror and voodoo and runaway self-regard.
Cracks my shit up. Year after year.
Ever see that movie? It's like that: They don't know anything's wrong....
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 9, 2010 9:18 AM
>>I'm sorry, but protecting his reputation among his peers is complicity. He was breaking her bones, for heaven's sake. You don't wait for counseling to resolve that.
kishke,
I'm not remotely attacking your point (possibly it's spot on).
But I should have made it clearer that most of what I discovered, which was undeniably much too little and much too late, came from just one conversation with the widow (and from some talk at the funeral and a very brief - also very intense - exchange, again at the funeral, with my late friend's mother.)
I never remotely understood the true order of events or exactly what help she had sought and when.
When I listened to her that last afternoon, I was still trying to just process that this "lovely" guy - this sweet, droll, slightly tubby friend with two very small girls - had actually killed himself. Let alone all the rest.
I also don't know, but have long thought possible, that what his wife was really saying to me when I asked her why she hadn't tried to tell any of "his" journo friends the truth at the time - was: "to be honest, would any of you have been any use at all?"
We were all so busy - three of us with very young families, several of us commuting & now working for different news papers and media organizations (but still linked through our area union - the NUJ functioned more as a social club than a socialist organization!).
I've often thought there must have been a sort of collective false intimacy - because all hacks talk incessantly about other people's stories, we all drank and gossiped like mad (though the photographer, like most of that tribe, oddly enough - wasn't much of a boozer at all) - but that maybe it took an outsider - like her - to see how fragile our ties really were?
But there was no comfort at all in thinking: "oh well, if they wanted to keep it all hidden...".
Because we remembered her bruised cheek. And her bandaged wrist one time (and the stupid, fleeting cracks about funny accidents!). That had struck me at the time as just too ironic. This is stupid, but years afterward, I actually went to a dinner party myself sporting a yellow bruise around my eye. Because I really had caught my temple on the edge of the bathroom cupboard! And there were lots of poor taste ha-ha merry jokes - to my husband - about whether he needed to make a confession! And I suddenly flashed back to her bruise and the innocent cracks made...and they didn't seem so bizarre. That's just what people do.
Obviously I hope her life (and her later remarriage) worked out for her children too. I think it's likely - she always had tons of friendly, capable poise - very chatty & well-groomed (better groomed than most hacks!) - but I know I have no right to trust my instincts on this.
I did carry on seeing the other journalists socially for a while. There was no great "Big Chill" about what had happened. Mainly just a lot of appalled head shaking & pained agreement that our friend was the very last guy you'd imagine...and a feeling of relief that the news stories that appeared locally (after the inquest) were brief.
Evidently, it does still trouble me (when I think about it!). I still can't reconcile my "real" memory of him with what I learned. Even though I know this is common enough reaction, even years after a particularly unexpected suicide.
Jody Tresidder at July 9, 2010 9:22 AM
Here's where I disagree with LS. I do feel that the victims are complicit. That's not to say that they deserve what they get or that the abusers actions are their fault. It is a sickness that allows a person to cover up abuse and allow it to continue. To enable a behavior whether its drinking or abuse is a way of keeping someone around. It is the deepest insecurity because the enabler feels worthless and gets their worth by forgiving the abuser or addict. Its an insurance policy that they will not be abandoned which in itself is sick. That is why I do believe therapy, both group and individual is very helpful to a victim. I was told once that after awhile a victim becomes a volunteer. I was very upset by that comment at first but realized how much truth there was in it and that yes, the truth does hurt!
Kristen at July 9, 2010 9:32 AM
> I still can't reconcile my "real" memory of him
> with what I learned.
I hear ya... Truly truly. But I think there's a world of difference between the humility (there's that word again!) of your lesson-taking in that episode and LS's "It's not like abusers announce that they're abusers during the courtship phase."
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 9, 2010 9:32 AM
I was all ready to jump on Kishke for not understanding what was meant, but he gets it perfectly. (Having cro-magnon guys like Jay R and WLIL around can make you fearful being understood correctly.)
I got nuthin' against support groups for battered women. I got nuthin' against ANYTHING that's good for battered women. My contentions, which have yet to be contradicted in this thread, are—
[1.] In America, people who get into these relationships even though they're free to love as they see fit almost always find each other. Plenty of women will have encounters with these monsters which don't blossom into full romances, but they won't be eager to talk about the lessons they learned.
[2.] Our problem cases teach very little about how to clean up the mess in Islam, even if both things can be called "abuse'. I spilled coffee in the kitchen this morning, which I cleaned up. Halliburton spilled an oil well in Gulf of Mexico last spring, but I don't know how to help them.
Dear Women in Abusive Unions: Talk to each other all you want. Talk to anyone you want. Truth is, I'm not interested in your particular problem in an intimate way, and neither is anyone else who isn't, y'know, intimate with you. It's kinda definitional.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 9, 2010 9:51 AM
>>But I think there's a world of difference between the humility (there's that word again!) of your lesson-taking in that episode and LS's "It's not like abusers announce that they're abusers during the courtship phase."
I don't have a clue what you mean here, Crid.
I'm not HUMBLE.
I simply don't behave like an all-knowing GIT about other people's shitty experiences.
I've already burbled on too much here - but you don't even skim read LS's comments properly. You just rummage for something tasty -then do your mangy scavenger act - running around with a single chewed bone in your mouth, licking your chops and asking for a pat on the head for being such a clever little scallywag.
>>Here's where I disagree with LS. I do feel that the victims are complicit. That's not to say that they deserve what they get or that the abusers actions are their fault. It is a sickness that allows a person to cover up abuse and allow it to continue. To enable a behavior whether its drinking or abuse is a way of keeping someone around. It is the deepest insecurity because the enabler feels worthless and gets their worth by forgiving the abuser or addict.
Here's where I disagree with you, Kristen.
You don't appear to want to see any difference between "complicit" and "involved".
It so often looks like the same thing to outsiders, who always have the luxury of disregarding the anguish and confusion of those trying to find the best way out.
Jody Tresidder at July 9, 2010 10:11 AM
>>Dear Women in Abusive Unions: Talk to each other all you want. Talk to anyone you want. Truth is, I'm not interested in your particular problem in an intimate way, and neither is anyone else who isn't, y'know, intimate with you. It's kinda definitional.
Then you know what to do, Crid.
Go and lick up the puddle of coffee in your kitchen & chase butterflies. Be a good dog and stop your yipping!
Jody Tresidder at July 9, 2010 10:15 AM
Why do haters gotta hate? Don't be bitter, Jody.
> You just rummage for something tasty -then
> do your mangy scavenger
It's like I was saying to Kristen, people say stupid things and get called on it. What exactly is the part of what LS says which you think I'd agree with if she posted it under a different name? Some people will insist that you listen to an argument with twenty-seven propositions before the conclusion. Well, if proposition number three is fucked up, then I don't want to be bothered with the rest of them, and I don't want to have to chatter about how nice the conclusion would be if only it were applicable. Because it ain't. LS is reliable that way.
> You don't appear to want to see any difference
> between "complicit" and "involved".
That gets back to the thing about how women aren't likely to talk about having their understanding of this honed by experience. Would you want it known that you were "complicit" in a bank robbery?
OK, would you want it known that you were "involved"?
Our distance from each other isn't a "luxury", it's the way the world works. We're not all intimate with each other because we're not supposed to be. It's part of that whole 'liberty' thing.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 9, 2010 10:27 AM
>>What exactly is the part of what LS says which you think I'd agree with if she posted it under a different name?
Here we go again.
Crid,
I am not a nice little girl who volunteers to read to an elderly blind gent for the good of her soul.
You are free to read from the top yourself.
Trust me. You do keep missing stuff. (And I've already provided this service for you once on this very thread.)
Also, your bank robbery whatsit is silly.
Furthermore, you probably would find some self-serving virtue for being the sort of person who has never been present during a bank robbery.
You would doubtless say there are those people who find themselves strangely, weakly, nay - even in a "self-aggrandizing...pouty-chinned" sort of way drawn to banks likely to be robbed.
And, you would add, there are those superior types who somehow find themselves safely outside a bank when it is being robbed.
Then you would mutter something about it being the American way, or "part of that whole 'liberty' thing", thus silkily reminding anyone still reading that there are foreigners commenting at Amy's!
(Though never, Crid, not once in all the years I've been joining in these discussions, have you ever come near to guessing my true nationality. Which, I'll allow, gives me a certain feeble private pleasure.)
Jody Tresidder at July 9, 2010 11:06 AM
I often wonder what would happen if I did post under another name, Crid. You are as biased against me as Jody says, even oddly when I agree with many of your points, like I have in this thread, which you've admittedly only skimmed.
The biggest disagreement we have is that you believe that victims should know what is going to happen before they marry an abuser - that this couldn't "just happen to anyone". And my belief is that you're basically right, provided the courtship was long enough - 6 months to a year.
Almost anyone can hide their true selves for 6 months to a year. After that, little parts of the facade start to unravel.
I have no idea how long Jody's friend knew her husband before committing herself to him. I can't know if she saw any signs that he was or would be abusive. From Jody's description, he was the last person she - or any of their colleagues, who may have known him longer - would expect to be an abuser.
Obviously, at some point, she was hit. I have no real experience with hitting, personally. Like Monica, my ex was just basically a self-centered ass. There was some physical violence towards the end of our relationship - once he knew I was leaving, which is the most dangerous time - but I didn't live with broken arms or bruises for years on end, so, I don't totally understand what provokes a victim to stay under those circumstances.
I can only surmise that it was similar to my motivations in that I truly believed in the magical power of counseling, and I also believed in the sanctity of my vows to him. This is so easily dismissed when it's convenient. You, of all people, Crid, believe in staying married if at all possible, especially when there's children. I believed that too.
We can't know when Jody's friend started physically abusing, but my guess is that it escalated from emotional abuse, early in the marriage, to physical abuse, as he became more and more depressed and felt a loss of control over his life. He may not have become abusive if life had gone smoother. He always possessed the components to be an abuser, but that doesn't mean the switch would've been flipped.
Actually, that is my point, which you refuse to accept. Some people have the ingredients to be physically abusive, but they won't act on that unless life circumstances cause them to become so angry and/or desperate that they resort to physical abuse. You can marry someone like that, and they may be temperamental, but not physically abusive. Truth is, plenty of relationships exist on that delicate threshold between angry words and punches.
All of it depends on how life unfolds, which is beyond our control, and that is a concept which you despise, because, like Jody says, you believe that when bad things happen to people, there must be a reason they're at fault. You believe logic can keep you safe from most of life's unpleasantries, but that's an illusion.
lovelysoul at July 9, 2010 12:34 PM
I'm sorry, Jody, complicit may not be the best word. I do feel that Crid is right about one thing. I don't believe that anyone can become a victim. I really believe that abusers steer away from someone who has their shit together emotionally. They look for the easy mark because that is who is needy and will confuse neediness with love. It really is so much more involved than would ever be covered here, but as a survivor I should be more careful with my wording. Many victims don't leave for safey issues, but there are many victims who stay because its too hard emotionally to get it together and become healthy. I went through it and I have to admit that while I'm in a better place now, getting healthy emotionally and getting my shit together was very hard and very scary.
Kristen at July 9, 2010 2:19 PM
>>Many victims don't leave for safey issues, but there are many victims who stay because its too hard emotionally to get it together and become healthy. I went through it and I have to admit that while I'm in a better place now, getting healthy emotionally and getting my shit together was very hard and very scary.
Kristen,
I've thought your comments here both remarkably lucid & brave, and I also see the absolute sense in what you say - about many abusers having an inkling of some pre-existing weakness in a chosen victim.
I only wish I could apply your own hard-won insights to the situation I've so incompletely described!
In the end, there are just too many - quite possibly (I just don't know!) superficial - differences.
I don't think you mentioned having children yourself, for example? The couple I've been talking about were also both just in their thirties - pretty much my age at the time too.
It's not much to go on, I know!
As I said before, I long ago lost the right to set any store by any hunches I ever had about the truth of their lives together, and how it all came apart.
(But I've found your own candor amazing).
Jody Tresidder at July 9, 2010 3:02 PM
I also like your comments, Kristen. You are very level-headed and insightful. I'm glad you were able to do whatever you needed to do to get to a better place.
The thing is, we all have weaknesses. I'm sure there are certain severe weaknesses that practically scream, "come abuse me!", but, so much of the time, I see victims who really have the same basic insecurities and emotional needs that every other "normal" woman has.
When I met my ex, I was a starry-eyed teen. If there's one character trait that attracted him it was that I was quite traditional - basically wanting to be taken care of by a man financially, stay home and raise a family. I had no grand aspirations of being anything other than a poorly-paid artist, therefore, I was all too willing to be dependent on him....and he needed someone to be dependent on him.
This may have been a weakness, but many other young women of childbearing age across America want the exact same thing, and they don't end up with an abusive or controlling partner. They meet a nice guy, settle down, and raise a traditional family.
So, whereas, I see that this trait drew him to me, I don't view it as something inherently wrong with me that would inevitably lead to another controlling kind of relationship. I was kid - insecure about my looks and wanting to be loved. I'm not that needy young person anymore....and I probably wouldn't have been 5 years from when I met him. I just didn't get enough time to mature before making that decision.
Jody, how many years were your friends together?
lovelysoul at July 9, 2010 3:42 PM
Jody and LS, its hard to have this conversation because I don't want to sound like I'm blaming the victims and yes, LS, we do all have weaknesses. Across the board, I would have to say that there is something in a victim that suits the abuser and usually it is a low self-esteem. Often young girls and women, especially from my generation, had many mixed messages about societal roles. I'm not blaming society, but I see changes in women's roles that are amazing. Many of my friends in high school went on to college and good careers, but as sad as its to say, that still was new. I knew many that thought that careers were until the prince came along or until they had kids. How many jokes do we see in movies and books about the woman who doesn't want to go to the family reunion or wedding because she's single. Some women handle it better than others.
For me, my weaknesses were my lack of self esteem. It doesn't mean my ex had the right to abuse me, but I didn't see things at 19 that I see now. Also, growing up in an alcoholic family where excuses were made for everything, I learned to make excuses for bad behavior and to accept it. Its no wonder I was ripe for the picking. The part I have a hard time with now is when I see women in that situation. Its very upsetting to me because I have to be honest and say that sometimes I want to say to them, "if I got out, you could too, now why don't you!" and I know its not that easy which is why I do believe that for lack of a better word, there is some complicity on the part of the victim. The cover up of the abuser's actions, the forgiving, the staying. Deep down, something doesn't feel right. As much as everything seems normal, there's that voice deep down. All the excuses on why we stay are really just excuses as to why we are emotionally not healthy enough to leave.
And please, don't misunderstand me. There are some who it really is a safety issue and the most dangerous time for them is when they leave or think of it. . For a long time I thought my ex was going to kill me and its a scary scary thing to live which is why I have such trouble with this discussion. I have trouble articulating things I know would have made my choices different because I know situations are different. I strongly believe though that young girls would know that they are worth something and that their worth should come from feeling good about themselves and getting an education and a career that fulfills them. That's a good start to scaring off an abuser. If an abuser can't whittle away what little self-esteem is present, then the abuse will never be tolerated from the get go.
I think a big part of this is the perception of abusers and victims. We need to realize that its not just a minority problem or something that happens only on the wrong side of the tracks but actually happens in middle and upper class homes.Many people don't fit the perception of a victim. I know I didn't. Its one of the reasons I denied it for so long. Part of the shame for me was the stigma and the perception of what a victim looks like. I've done some public speaking regarding DV and had a police officer come up to me and say that was the hardest part for him, going to middle and upper class homes and having the victims tell him they couldn't be a victim because of their social class.
Anyway, I'm sorry for rambling on. Thanks LS and Jody for your kind words. It really is a very personal and emotional issue for me and I have spent a lot of time (years) trying to answer questions for myself because I hope that the answers I come up with can help someone else.
Kristen at July 9, 2010 11:41 PM
tortuously> Trust me.
Never!
> You do keep missing stuff.
So you don’t actually have anything particular in mind, right? Are you really expecting me to sign off on everything? In this Cosh column, I learned that there’s a word for that. But it’s unlikely that you’d imbue my opinion with Papal authority...
> And, you would add,
Why read my comments at all? You translate everything, and what you don't translate, you make up from whole cloth. You're not arguing with things I've said, or even with things tortuously derived from what I've said.
> some self-serving virtue for being the
> sort of person who has never been present
> during a bank robbery.
The ol' switcher-oonie! And it's precisely our topic, too. You didn't say "present", OK? Our choices –the choices you gave us– were "complicit" and "involved". Now, they're just "present" for the bank robbery, or for the abusive relationship. That's the thing about intimacy, is that you can keep going back for more and more words and details an information... But when you're not intimate, you can't and won't do that. Which is why most women who have learning experiences will keep them to themselves. They righteously don't want to have to do a lot of talking about it.
> you ever come near to guessing
> my true nationality
Would it matter? When you and your family wanted the best place to be supported and rewarded for your husband's rarefied field of expertise, you came to the United States. Anything else we need to know?
> you believe that victims should
> know what is going to happen
> before they marry an abuser
No, I believe that many, many women manage to avoid abusers. I don't care what you call this: Radar, or taste, or wisdom, or insight... Just don't call it luck.
> like Jody says, you believe that
> when bad things happen to
> people, there must be a reason
> they're at fault.
You're translating, too. It goes beyond "fault." Which kind of women do you want to see more of, the ones who have this problem or the ones who don't? I think it would be better if more abused women behaved like the ones who don't have the problem. I think more alcoholics should behave like people who don't have alcohol problems. (And as noted above, the people in AA agree with that.) I think people who irresponsibly fall into debt should be more like the people who manage their finances cautiously.
Remember that Sinatra song?... Here's to the winners....
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 10, 2010 12:40 AM
Sorry for the busted links.. That's what happens when you start a comment at work and finish it hours later. I'll make it up to you! Never stop reading my precious blog comments!
In this Cosh column, I learned that there’s a word for that.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 10, 2010 1:01 AM
Kristen, I wonder if you feel that had you not met your ex, you definitely would've ended up with someone just like him anyway.
I think almost all 19 yr olds are insecure. My daughter, at 16, obsesses over her appearance and doesn't see how beautiful she is. She seems self-confident, but there are also self-doubts, which is perfectly normal at her age and a little older.
The abuse you went through sounds worse than mine, as mine was more psychological manipulation. And - this is the weird thing - it INCREASED my self-esteem. Like I said, he never put me down. He always built me up - "you're so beautiful...smart...sexy," etc.
Later, I understood that this, like most things he did, was largely self-serving - the more he complimented me, the more he got laid - but, in practical effect, it doesn't matter WHY someone compliments you, it tends to give you more confidence and self-esteem.
So, I actually came out of the relationship a lot stronger and sure of myself, though part of that was just growing up too.
I feel that, had he not met me - wondering along in NYC - he would've definitely pursued another girl just like me. He still pursues the same type now - petite, physically delicate women, who are somewhat dependent and submissive. The younger the better, as young women more typically have those traits, but he's getting too old to attract 20 yr olds.
But I don't necessarily believe that, had I not met him, that I would've ended up with another man exactly like him. I kind of view it as just a bad draw - first time out.
I understand why I had the traits that appealed to him. I'm southern, and was raised to be more...submissive, is not really the best term...but women from my generation, raised in the south, were expected to cater to men.
So, you could say that made me "ripe" for the picking of someone controlling and/or abusive, but it also could've been that I married a nice farmer, who simply expected me to bring him his sweet tea and fried chicken.
It's just tough to understand how a woman can necessarily armor herself completely against an abusive/manipulative man without possibly becoming TOO tough and unfeminine....destroying the very qualities that make us attractive to ALL men.
And I suppose that has really been the goal of the feminist movement - to make us bulletproof - impervious to the manipulations of men. We can't get hurt...but we also may not be as sweet or trusting, and, yes...though it's become a bad word, if not an outright mental illness...needy.
I just find it a bit odd for women to beat themselves up about those traits, which were pretty much revered in previous generations, and are obviously a normal part of our evolutionary makeup.
Historically, women have always been "needy". Sometimes, we attracted a predator, and sometimes, we attracted a nice guy. In cave man days, it was probably better to attract the predator, as he was more aggressive. So, there may be still some of that at play in this.
lovelysoul at July 10, 2010 3:50 AM
Funny LS, that you should ask whether or not I think I would have ended up differently had I not met my husband. Sadly that answer is no. Looking back on patterns even in high school and the little time after before I met my ex, my pattern was similiar. It was like I chose the same person in a different body. In fact, I had dated someone seriously who was wonderful in every way and I ended up choosing my ex.
I knew many southern women who were beautiful wonderful women who did cater to their husbands, but their catering did not come at a cost to themselves. It seemed to me more of a form of being hospitable, not a desire for worthiness. I could be wrong but that was always my feel.
I don't think women have to become bulletproof. Out of my friends that have happy marriages, some are stay at home moms and some have careers, but they all have a good sense of themselves. That's where I was lost. I didn't feel very worthy which is why I threw away Mr. Wonderful and went back to my pattern of unhealthy relationships and married my ex. It felt comfortable and normal. Mr. Wonderful felt too good to be true. Still, at 19, I don't think I should have been making that decision anyway. I do think that age, emotional maturity, education, self-fulfillment are all things that prevent a person from entering an abusive relationship.
Kristen at July 10, 2010 7:03 AM
" And - this is the weird thing - it INCREASED my self-esteem. Like I said, he never put me down. He always built me up - "you're so beautiful...smart...sexy," etc."
LS, I don't mean to be a stickler here but self-esteem comes from within and is there to access regardless of external influences...that is real self esteem. What you are describing is "other-esteem" - and it is false. (Being built up or down dependent on someone else's view and assessment of you, rather than the resolute and innate knowledge of your own self worth as "you" no matter what).
And for the record, never at any time in ANY of my posts did I call anyone "mentally ill". I am not a doctor. What I did call them was "ill". I wanted to stress the importance of that - as well as the difference.
Feebie at July 10, 2010 9:26 AM
"It's just tough to understand how a woman can necessarily armor herself completely against an abusive/manipulative man without possibly becoming TOO tough and unfeminine....destroying the very qualities that make us attractive to ALL men."
LS, you are thinking in black or white, all or nothing terms again. There ARE plenty of ways to do this without doing those things - but the first one is if you are esteemed appropriately you won't have to make such a choice to begin with.
"I just find it a bit odd for women to beat themselves up about those traits, which were pretty much revered in previous generations, and are obviously a normal part of our evolutionary makeup."
Where did you get that it was part of our evolutionary makeup to have the crap kicked out of us and to subject children to this toxic environment? How does that help humans move forward along the evolutionary path? And just because something is the norm, doesn't make it functional.
"Historically, women have always been "needy". Sometimes, we attracted a predator, and sometimes, we attracted a nice guy. In cave man days, it was probably better to attract the predator, as he was more aggressive. So, there may be still some of that at play in this."
Can someone with an anthropological background please provide some type of context or evidence to LS's statement? Needy was probably not in a female's best interest in the long run. I am also guessing their entire family/tribal network was not structured as ours is today.
Feebie at July 10, 2010 10:06 AM
Well, perhaps self-confidence would be a better term, Feebie. I had pretty good self-esteem going in, and being told how smart and pretty I was didn't hurt any. My point was just that he wasn't breaking me down in that way, like a lot of DV victims are - repeatedly told they're stupid and worthless - which can take a long time to recover from.
I would've been out of there so fast had he ever berated me like that. I come from a loving, supportive family, so it wouldn't have felt "normal" for anyone to talk to me like that.
There are different styles of abuse and abusers. Some are just mean and hit their victims. Those are the easiest ones to spot and avoid (unless you come from that kind of background).
Others, like my friend's husband, only abuse when they drink. The rest of the time, they're sweet and loving...the last person you'd expect until you hear of or witness an episode.
Others, even more subtle, like my ex, don't appear to be abusive at all - in fact, they fawn over their partners, attentive and loving - all the while manipulating them into doing whatever they want or need. They don't typically use violence because they're so good at getting their way that they don't need to (they only get violent when not in control).
Those are the kind I think are much harder to spot. Not saying *every* woman would fall for them, but, judging by the amount of women still throwing themseves at my ex, there's a lot of smart, accomplished women out there that don't seem to pick up on the red flags.
That's because some make the mistake of thinking an abuser is only a person that hits you or verbally attacks you. My "narrative" is just meant to warn that this is not the only style.
lovelysoul at July 10, 2010 10:34 AM
"Others, like my friend's husband, only abuse when they drink. The rest of the time, they're sweet and loving...the last person you'd expect until you hear of or witness an episode."
So then he was an alcoholic? Did your friend grow up in that environment? THAT is the illness.
"Others, even more subtle, like my ex, don't appear to be abusive at all - in fact, they fawn over their partners, attentive and loving - all the while manipulating them into doing whatever they want or need."
I've fallen for them too, LS...but it was because I came from a manipulative household - however, looking back I did know - I just thought I was being to harsh in my assessment. My bullshit detector was going off - I just didn't trust myself to listen to it. That was a mistake. Other women out there would have walked...and I know that.
Besides, women "throwing" themselves at your ex (accomplished or not) and women who fall for his "fawning and attention" are missing what is right in front of them. They are seeking outside themselves that which will MAKE them happy because the NEED it. Well adjusted women will look for someone who compliments them...not completes them. They take care of their own needs so that they don't wind up dependent on someone else, which will put them in a powerless and loosing position every time.
Feebie at July 10, 2010 10:52 AM
Lovelysoul, wasn't your ex much older than you? So you were a teenager being pursued by a man in his late 30s? That in itself is way way off, and something in your receptors didn't tell you that his interest was inappropriate.
So no, abuse does not happen to just everyone. People who are vulnerable, for whatever reason (I think most often the environment they were raised in but there are other reasons) are drawn to and trapped in abusive relationships because of those vulnerabilities. That does not make the abuse their fault. However, that factor must be acknowledged in order to prevent the horrible cycle from repeating over and over again. Calling them stupid, saying that women deserve it because abused men don't get enough attention and telling them to get a hobby (I mean really. Who are you people?!) is not an effective way to help abuse victims.
Sam at July 10, 2010 12:43 PM
My ex was 15 yrs older, so I was 19 and he was 34 when we met. Yes, in retrospect, it seems like it should've been a warning sign, and I often try to tell people that age differences like that are not healthy and don't work, but for every warning I give, there's somebody who knows somebody with a 20+ yr age difference that's lasted 50 yrs, so that, in and of itself...well, I just don't know. I'd love to see a study.
"Besides, women "throwing" themselves at your ex (accomplished or not) and women who fall for his "fawning and attention" are missing what is right in front of them. They are seeking outside themselves that which will MAKE them happy because the NEED it. Well adjusted women will look for someone who compliments them..."
I may have forgotten to mention that my ex is a multi-millionaire. The sad truth is that almost all women, no matter how "healthy", are somewhat swayed towards money. It's the whole provider/status thing, and we are evolutionarily programmed to respond to it.
These women are not necessarily seeking "outside themselves that which will make them happy because they need it"....they are seeking a lifestyle....one, whether we admit it or not, probably 80% of women would "seek" if they happened to meet a charming rich guy, who fawned all over them in a bar. Red flags be damned. He's driving a porsche!
Honestly, some of my girlfriends - who knew the abuse and infidelity I suffered in my marriage - went after him after we separated. That is very telling about how much "health" is really out there among the female population.
I call bullshit. I don't care how "healthy" you are. A charming, good-looking rich man will attract most women over an emotionally stable plumber. That's the problem. We too often look at status over character.
lovelysoul at July 10, 2010 4:05 PM
"I call bullshit. I don't care how "healthy" you are. A charming, good-looking rich man will attract most women over an emotionally stable plumber. That's the problem. We too often look at status over character."
And someone with that emotionally stable plumber probably won't be the *victim* of DV...
Again, just because it's the norm doesn't mean it is functional and/or healthy. There are multi-millionaires without nasty abuse issues.
For the record, I never said I was "healthy". I am merely stating, through all these posts that if you want to take money (stability, drama, abuse) in exchange for happiness then that is a choice *you've* made, you will paint yourself in a corner and you'll get what you get. It's not okay for the abuser to abuse, but what I hope to convey is that YOU play more of a role in your life than you think you do.
I've seen your posts LS. I am no more "healthy" than the next person, the only difference is I am WILLING to see what my part is in my life circumstances. I *choose* to hold myself accountable for my actions so I don't repeat the same mistakes again. All I see from your posts are excuses (but...but...but....).
Like I said, it's not necessarily the DV victims FAULT, but they play a part. (I know, how very un-PC of me - but it is the truth).
Feebie at July 10, 2010 5:04 PM
"I may have forgotten to mention that my ex is a multi-millionaire. The sad truth is that almost all women, no matter how "healthy", are somewhat swayed towards money. It's the whole provider/status thing, and we are evolutionarily programmed to respond to it."
No, LS, not almost all women. Women who are not meeting their own needs and are outwardly dependent in a dysfunctional way.
Also, while I don't disagree that women are drawn to money for the whole provider thing, what good does that do if you are continually beaten to a bloody pulp, eh? Or ridiculed daily? How does that fall into your whole evolutionary schema? You are enmeshing these two issues and muddying the waters.
No amount of money in the world is going to *make me* put up with a horse's-ass.
Feebie at July 10, 2010 5:15 PM
Feebie, I wasn't "beaten to a bloody pulp". I specifically said I was never "ridiculed daily"...really, not at all.
I take responsibility for a) realizing, at a very young age, that I was with a smooth manipulator, and b) turning the tables on him and taking my power back.
I write his checks, these days. I run all his (now our) businesses. So, think again, Feebie, if you believe that all victims of abuse are naturally weak little low self-esteem wallflowers.
I've said I was traditional and naively dependent at first. I said I gave him leeway to change, believing in the magic of therapy (and he did seem to change for about 10 years). But, all that while, I took care of myself and my family. I worked - hard - learned about business, and began taking control. I was not passive.
And, today, we are business partners and friends, oddly enough. I really would not change one thing about my life. The only thing I hope to do is make people, like you, realize that your image of abusers and victims is too limited...it is only the "abuse 101" version. Simplified. The "beat to a bloody pulp" model. That's EASY to see. That's not going to help keep an Elin from marrying a charming, rich Tiger Woods.
We have to educate people about bi-polar disorder, sociopathy, and narcissism. Most have no clue and therefore can't possibly know what they're getting into until it's too late - until they're already committed and maybe have a family. That's NOT when you want to learn about these disorders (as I did).
A rich person or a plumber can have them, makes no difference. But I'd say it's a hell of a lot easier dealing with it with money than without.
You can claim that a person who gets tangled up with a narcissist is dysfunctional or predisposed, but even a cursary understanding of narcissism would prove that false. By definition, these are people who can manipulate almost anyone. They've even been known to manipulate trained psychologists.
I had no experience with any of this in my immediate family. My parents weren't abusive or alcoholics. They didn't even drink. No one abused me, mentally or physically, growing up. So, I see no way I was predisposed, other than the southern sensibilities I've described.
If I thought so, I would say so, but what is cautionary about my tale is that it DOESN'T fit with the typical view that the victim must be some emotionally wounded, extremely needy person from a dysfunctional background. If you choose not to accept that, fine, but I would submit that it's because you are uncomfortable with the idea that this issue can't be so neatly summarized and the victims not so predictable.
lovelysoul at July 10, 2010 7:13 PM
"Feebie, I wasn't "beaten to a bloody pulp". I specifically said I was never "ridiculed daily"...really, not at all."
Then why do you believe that your experience is relevant to the people we are speaking about? So this is all about you?
"I take responsibility for a) realizing, at a very young age, that I was with a smooth manipulator, and b) turning the tables on him and taking my power back."
And you are going to edumucate people on narcissism? (This isn't taking responsibility, btw).
"Most have no clue and therefore can't possibly know what they're getting into until it's too late - until they're already committed and maybe have a family. "
This doesn't happen to just anyone, LS. There aren't hidden trap doors with abusers lurking under them ready to grab innocent, perspective females (or males). Bi-polar disorder, for instance is not exactly easy to conceal. I know a few and they seemed perfectly normal to me coming from my background and really off to others. And sociopaths and narcissists have extremely thin skin. If you are walking around on eggshells not to upset them - then you probably have a pretty good idea that it is not a healthy relationship - unless of course it's normal for you.
"And, today, we are business partners and friends, oddly enough. I really would not change one thing about my life."
So what was the point of all your posting then? Jeezuz!
"The only thing I hope to do is *make* people, like you,"
Thread winner! MAKE people like ME? (Read your sentence over and over again...there is something to be learned there.)
"If I thought so, I would say so, but what is cautionary about my tale is that it DOESN'T fit with the typical view that the victim must be some emotionally wounded, extremely needy person from a dysfunctional background."
Ya, ya, ya. Cautionary. But you said you wouldn't change it for the world and you guys are both buddies now. So what is this all about, LS? "Like, okay, it's similar, but really not at all".
All about you, again?
Feebie at July 10, 2010 11:02 PM
All about you, again?
It's always all about lovelyhole. Didn't cha know?
She just uses this blog as a free forum to piss out all her personal issues in lieu of paying for therapy sessions.
Jen Wading at July 11, 2010 12:01 AM
Oh, lovely, Jen W, is back. I missed you!
This wasn't about me, Feebie, until you started being pretty hostile and personally accusatory. You don't know what you're talking about as far as bi-polar or narcissism. Read "The Sociopaths Among Us" and then perhaps you will understand that they don't wear bright flashing signs.
I was posting to help Jen, and then, later, to address the situation Jody detailed, in which she had absolutely no clue, and the victim didn't match who she imagin a victim would be.
You're absolutely stuck on the whole idea that victims of DV all must come from the same kind of dysfunctional background or have psychological weaknesses. I would agree that a sizable percentage do, especially those who are "beaten to a pulp", but I strongly disagree that they all do.
Some just mistake charm for love, or they are so impressed with status or lifestyle that they overlook certain negatives. I did that, for sure. I weighed the factors, and the positives always outweighed the negatives of my situation - and still does.
But that's because I was not really physically abused (until leaving), so I hestitate to call myself a DV "victim" for that reason. It is similar, as it's the same type of volatile, manipulative personality, but it's NOT the same as being beaten or punched on a regular basis. That I do not understand, and agree with you that anyone who allows it would probably be sick themselves.
The only caveat I have is if the abuse starts out of the blue, after years of no abuse. That's not clear from Jody's story, but I've known of cases where there was no physical abuse at all until the spouse lost their job, developed serious depression, health issues or some other life crisis.
This was kind of my hunch about that story - that the abuse was triggered by something in his life, and he had not always been abusive.
lovelysoul at July 11, 2010 6:47 AM
"Some just mistake charm for love, or they are so impressed with status or lifestyle that they overlook certain negatives. I did that, for sure. I weighed the factors, and the positives always outweighed the negatives of my situation - and still does."
Lovelysoul, this is unhealthy. Choosing money over kindness and a partner who's got your back is not a good choice in the mate selection process. May not be pathological, no, but you are really freaked about possibly being grouped with "those women" who are so vulnerable they are physically abused. (Verbal and emotional abuse are not better/less bad than physical abuse, by the way. It's just an easier call for outsiders to make.) You've said a lot of really good stuff on this thread but you're getting so defensive that you're backtracking. I feel like what you started to say way up there is that abuse doesn't discrimate based on socioeconomic status (ie, can happen to someone who's rich and educated) which is completely true. But it doesn't happen to people who have a strong sense of self. And the abuse is not their fault or "deserved" in that case. That's something you seem a little touchy about.
Sam at July 11, 2010 10:28 AM
Sam, I'm touchy about it because I know it's wrong - it's the pat explanation that everyone uses and believes is always true without question.
I never had a low sense of self-worth. That's simply the truth. I dated nice guys in high school and college. Unlike Kristen, there was not a pattern of seeking unhealthy relationships.
I just had no preparation for dealing with someone with those qualities, or recognizing those qualities. I thought "emotional abuse" was only when people called you stupid, or put you down in public, or critized how you look.
My ex never did any of those things. We were the couple everyone else wanted to be. All my friends thought I was the luckiest girl in the world - to find a wealthy, handsome, doting husband. Any one of them would've married him in a heartbeat, and they couldn't ALL have come from dysfunctional backgrounds.
What I'm saying is that it's very difficult to see beyond that facade. Especially, when, like me, you've grown up NOT knowing duplicity.
My dad, for instance, is the kind of simple, small-town man who does business on a handshake, whose word is gold. I grew up around men like that, so I was simply naive to the fact that there are people who can totally appear one way and act another. I mean I *knew* that intellectually, but I'd never really encountered it before.
I'm still confused by it, frankly. I like my ex. He is witty and charming, and fun to be around. He is also helpful and supportive. That is the side almost everyone sees, and the side that is evident most of the time. And that is what I meant by the positives outweighed the negatives, not just money. That was the man I got on most days - maybe 95% of the time.
If it had been 5% good and 90% bad, of course, there's no question I would've left sooner. But 5% didn't seem worth tossing a marriage and destroying a family over. And I still think it wasn't.
Yet, towards the end - as he got older, and life wasn't as much at the tip of his fingertips anymore, and he was under more stress - the 5% grew to 10%, and then I began to believe it just wasn't worth it.
This is where I think many DV victims are. The abuse doesn't start out too bad. It may not be physical. He might just have a short fuse at first, and they manage to deal with that 10%, but the rest of the relationship is good. Yet, as time goes by, and especially if there are stressers, the abuse creeps and escalates until it crosses the line. But, by then, the victim has become slowly adaptive to it.
What's interesting is what Jen did. And I have a friend who did this too. They drew a boundary and their abusers actually complied with it. My friend's husband used to be really verbally abusive - not totally directed towards her, but any little thing would set him off into a curse-filled rant.
She flat out left him, and told him she wouldn't come back until he learned to control his temper. And he HAS! She just told me their son broke a $900 guitar, and her husband handled it so calmly she couldn't believe it. He doesn't rant and rave anymore.
And Jen's husband quit being physically abusive to her when she drew that boundary.
I'll admit I didn't draw the boundaries that I could have. I didn't really think that would work. Because of all the therapy we'd had and the "disorders" he'd been diagnosed with - I viewed him as somewhat unable to control his behavior, but I now believe, especially after hearing these stories, that this was probably untrue.
lovelysoul at July 11, 2010 12:30 PM
Crid: "Why read my comments at all? You translate everything, and what you don't translate, you make up from whole cloth. You're not arguing with things I've said, or even with things tortuously derived from what I've said."
Heck of a job, Crid.
Heck of a job thread-shitting.
You made a total of TWENTY SEVEN comments in this thread, many of them strained personal insults, few of them perceptive, a fair number gross misrepresentations of what others here were saying, and on a topic you insisted you consider "mundane" in the first place.
(And let's not forget, you even had to be reminded about halfway through the thread what Amy's starting subject actually was! Since somehow you managed to get that totally wrong too.)
Then you have the nerve to complain YOUR comments aren't being debated in the manner you'd like!
What's the point of arguing "with things [you've] said" - when the things you said were garbage?
You want specifics?
Here's lovelysoul[July 7, 2010 11:14 AM]: "In fact, most of the women I know who have been abused are quite intelligent, more so than average."
Was that an obscure sentence by lovelysoul, Crid? Was it ambiguous in some way?
I didn't think so.
Yet here's your response to lovelysoul's 11.14 comment, and, yes, they're your CAPS [July 7, 2010 11:49 AM]:
"YOU THINK "MOST" AMERICAN WOMEN ARE SUFFERING FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE?
Month after month, topic after topic, year after year, your narcissism amazes."
Wtf?
Other people here already put some of these questions to you - but I'll run them by you again.
WHY did you keep commenting - twenty seven fucking times - on a topic you insisted was "mundane"?
Why should anyone address YOUR comments seriously - when you admitted - in the very first comment you made - that you couldn't be bothered reading what others had already written?
And why did you consistently misrepresent what people were saying when you did bother to respond?
And finally, one of the last things you wrote here was:
"Which kind of women do you want to see more of, the ones who have this problem or the ones who don't? I think it would be better if more abused women behaved like the ones who don't have the problem. I think more alcoholics should behave like people who don't have alcohol problems. (And as noted above, the people in AA agree with that.) I think people who irresponsibly fall into debt should be more like the people who manage their finances cautiously."
What the fuck does that mean?
Do you just mean you wish the world was a nicer place?
Is that REALLY what you spent 27 comments trying to tell us?
Jody Tresidder at July 11, 2010 1:49 PM
> complain YOUR comments aren't
> being debated in the manner you'd
> like!
No, I'm complaining that you're making shit up. You're not debating, you're fantasizing. It's like LS' melodrama about my appearance at, and opinion of, Alcoholics Anonymous: It's outta nowhere. I never said anything of the kind.
> And, you would add, there are
> those superior types who somehow
> find themselves safely outside a
> bank when it is being robbed.
I didn't say that. So, like, what's the next move? Do you expect me to pretend I did say it? When you discuss things with other people in your life, and make up arguments of theirs, how do they respond to your subsequent assault on those arguments? I mean, it's not like it's offensive, 'cause, y'know, I didn't say that. But it's really weird. If you're offended enough by the things I say to count them, why don't you respond to them?
> on a topic you insisted you consider
> "mundane" in the first place.
How to treat women and what it means for a women to be strong are big topics for all modern people. It's individual narratives that are often mundane. Or as I specifically said:
> this kind of interpersonal drama,
> whether you're a man or a woman,
> it's just too mundane
You'll have noticed I'm not patient with the bitter guys here (including in this very thread) who think history's been written to make them personally miserable, either.
> Was it ambiguous in some way?
Maybe not, but it wasn't relevant, either: You're doing switcherooni again. I remember how John Lennon complained when Newsweek had done that, a month before he died, transposing the questions to him with answers to OTHER questions they'd asked to generate the most salacious possible impact. What was he supposed to do, deny that he'd said it? How much interest are distant people supposed to take the gradations of the participation of a stranger in something bad? This is another level of your bank robbery stunt, where "complicit" becomes "involved".... And when that doesn't sell too well either, then merely "present." You don't seem to want to acknowledge that our interest in the personal struggles of faraway souls has limits.
LS said this, quoting me at the top. Note that I brought her the word "most":
> "A lot of women –most American women–
> already have this covered."
>
> I don't know how you believe that's
> true, given the DV rates. Wishing
> it to be true doesn't make it so.
And there it is. OK, Jody? She really, really believes that most American women are suffering from domestic violence. What are you supposed to say to someone like that? She's not interested in statistics or horse sense or anything else. Perhaps DV has been a formative experience in her life, and she wants to claim a position of centrality in the human project for having been there. I might regard that as just sad. But to therefore infer that all women are at the same risk is ludicrous. Worse, it's counter-productive: Other women (MOST, I affirm) can and do learn to avoid this fate.
> you admitted - in the very first
> comment you made - that you
> couldn't be bothered reading
> what others had already written?
Well, we can talk about whatever we want. For all I know Amy was boasting about the longevity of the sparkplugs in her hybrid car. I spoke up when I saw someone saying something that seemed wrong:
> It's not like abusers announce that they're
> abusers during the courtship phase.
I think abusers do kinda announce those things... Maybe not with declarative statements and published affirmations of intent, but with glances and tones of voice and other enthusiasms... SOMETHING. Otherwise, how would so many women avoid them? I think women —most women– are geniuses for being able to assess interpersonal nature and protect themselves from monsters. I don't know everything (or even much) about how they do it. But I don't have to know that before encouraging other women to follow their example.
> why did you consistently
> misrepresent what people were
> saying
Didn't. Never do. Quoted 'em precisely. It's all on one web page, so anyone can check my math.
> What the fuck does that mean?
Perhaps my neglect of your national heritage is a mistake, and English isn't your first tongue. But as I review the passage you cite, I can't find any fat to cut... There are no fewer or shorter or plainer words by which to make the point.
> Do you just mean you wish the
> world was a nicer place?
I'll settle for more courageous. And thanks for asking!
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 11, 2010 9:29 PM
"And, you would add, there are
those superior types who somehow
> find themselves safely outside a
> bank when it is being robbed"
You may not have said that literally, Crid, but you didn't have to because it's always your message to almost every human travail. Someone had the surperior judgment to avoid the problem.
"It's not like abusers announce that they're
> abusers during the courtship phase.
I think abusers do kinda announce those things... Maybe not with declarative statements and published affirmations of intent, but with glances and tones of voice and other enthusiasms... SOMETHING. Otherwise, how would so many women avoid them?"
So many women don't. You're right, I didn't catch the "most" in your comment, so I didn't mean to imply that the majority of women are abused, but a substantial percentage are. Do you have no interest in them, other than saying you wish they'd "act" like the women who aren't abused?
And, like Jody says, what does that even mean? I think that's just another way of rephrasing your main message (see above)...that others avoided it, so why can't they?
Every comment of yours is unhelpful. You have no real desire to understand how anyone got into an abusive relationship, although knowing that is the key to helping others NOT get into one.
You yourself admit that you don't have a clue how that's done, so perhaps you could listen and understand that many abusers DON'T always act mean with "glances and tones of voice and other enthusiasms". They often don't even start being abusive until well into the marriage.
My friend's husband didn't do anthing abusive to her while they dated and for a year after they married. Then, one night, they had an argument, and he got so angry he threw an oar (from a canoe) at her. She was stunned.
However, the reason for this would've been apparent had she known more about personality disorders. He didn't abuse her before because she was fulfilling his needs. They were in the lovey-dovey newly married stage. He was getting everything he wanted - lots of sex and fun. She was a reflection of him, and being so beautiful, that made him happy.
Happy people don't abuse, but abusive people have a harder time being happy. They expect others to play the roles they need, as if they're the directors of their own lives, and any break from that script can initiate the abuse. But it's not always apparent in the courtship phase because they're generally happy then. Their motivation to abuse is low, and, in fact, they usually think, "I've finally found the one I don't need to abuse!"
Abusers don't want to believe it's about them. They tend to view their abuse as partner-specific. And new partners are usually seen as "perfect", undeserving of abuse, at least for a period of time.
lovelysoul at July 12, 2010 5:33 AM
>>This is another level of your bank robbery stunt, where "complicit" becomes "involved".... And when that doesn't sell too well either, then merely "present." You don't seem to want to acknowledge that our interest in the personal struggles of faraway souls has limits.
Right, the bank robbery "stunt".
This appears to be gnawing at you, Crid!
Yes, I used "involved" instead of "complicit" - or something. You're right. I failed to scrupulously amplify the specific points you were making about...BANK ROBBERY.
Maybe this was because YOU suddenly introduced the subject of BANK ROBBERY into a thread about why the victims of DV are well advised to talk about their experiences with fellow-victims?
That is, this discussion kicked off, at least, with the information that hearing about the "mundane" (your opinion) struggles of other souls in crisis seems to be more beneficial than one might suppose in terms of stiffening the sinews of those who need to get the fuck out of their DV situations - according to a member of the LAPD. (See the top of the thread).
But airing this sort of intimate drama just works your last nerve.
Yeah, we get that, Crid.
And that wasn't what you wanted to discuss.
Instead it was all 'no, no, everyone - let's talk about bank robbery instead - hey, anyone here seen Butch Cassidy & etc?'
(I accept that's a very free translation of your precious words...)
You also say (again):
>>I think abusers do kinda announce those things... Maybe not with declarative statements and published affirmations of intent, but with glances and tones of voice and other enthusiasms... SOMETHING. Otherwise, how would so many women avoid them?
Jesus wept, Crid.
Here you go again - the self-appointed actuary of all human relationships.
And in the Risk Factor column for Unions Likely Resulting In Domestic Violence, we find Crid-the-ever-so-helpful actuary identifying the following Danger Signs:
1. Glances.
2. Tone of Voice.
3. Enthusiasms ("other").
4. "SOMETHING".
5. Dog whistle stuff (nature unspecified).
So useful to know, Crid!
I raise a glass of my national beverage to everything I've learned about DV from your twenty eight sucky & atrociously self-regarding comments in this thread.
Also, though Amy (and kishke, I think) correctly pointed out that you are very far from a "troll" here - I have to say that on the evidence of this discussion, it was a fair accusation.
Jody Tresidder at July 12, 2010 6:58 AM
In addition, I apologize (to lovelysoul) if I mangled who actually said what to whom in my 1.49 pm comment.
Any mistakes I made were pretty rich - since I was on the warpath about misquoting!
Jody Tresidder at July 12, 2010 7:15 AM
No apology necessary, Jody. You're great.
lovelysoul at July 12, 2010 7:32 AM
> You may not have said that literally
On Planet Cartoon, you can make people say whatever you want. Then you can get angry, and it's hours of self-righteous fun.
> Someone had the surperior judgment to
> avoid the problem.
Are you saying they didn't?
> Do you have no interest in them,
Well, no fascination...
> other than saying you wish they'd "act"
> like the women who aren't abused?
If their error is volitional, how much interest will you demand of us? (Also, why the quotation marks around "act"?) Their solution is at hand. They know it, other women know it, and even I know it. Yes, I wish drunk drivers would "act" like sober ones, too.
> I think that's just another way of rephrasing
> your main message (see above)...that others
> avoided it, so why can't they?
You're correct.
> Every comment of yours is unhelpful.
I'm not here for your individual cuddle needs, so "helpfulness" doesn't really describe the scope of my intention. (The rest of humanity is here for that, either.)
After all the time I've spent on here, this is the first moment when I've consciously realized that although Amy Alkon is a girly-girl thinker with many of the contemporary lefty obsessions, she's NOT a therapy-bot. Neither is she hospitable to types who want to sit on the couch crying with a tub of Haagen-Daaz types. Many, many times in her blog posts, she says that people ought to be stronger. That's her advice. This is not to deflect any offense you've taken from me towards our hostess— Indeed, I'll proudly demand that she keep her hands off my loot. It's just to point out that if all you want out of others is 'You poor, poor dear', you've probably logged onto the wrong corner of the internet.
I think my comments are plenty helpful indeed.
> You have no real desire to understand
> how anyone got into an abusive
> relationship
Right. I don't have time for individual stories.
> although knowing that is the key
> to helping others NOT get into one.
Says who?
> so perhaps you could listen and understand
> that many abusers DON'T always act mean
> with "glances and tones of voice and
> other enthusiasms".
And yet century after century, in culture after culture, women across time and space are able to protect themselves from these bad fates. This ain't just luck.
> My friend's husband...
This is gonna get anecdotal again, isn't it?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 12, 2010 7:34 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/07/06/phyllis_chesler.html#comment-1731894">comment from Crid [CridComment at gmail]After all the time I've spent on here, this is the first moment when I've consciously realized that although Amy Alkon is a girly-girl thinker with many of the contemporary lefty obsessions, she's NOT a therapy-bot. Neither is she hospitable to types who want to sit on the couch crying with a tub of Haagen-Daaz types. Many, many times in her blog posts, she says that people ought to be stronger. That's her advice.
Correct.
I didn't walk into adulthood some sterling example of emotional and psychological health.
In my 20s, I looked at myself, and said, "You're fucked up. Go fix yourself." And I did. I didn't cast blame -- I took responsibility. If there were people in my life who shouldn't have been, it was because I let them in. Complaining that Mommy didn't give me enough titty or whatever it is people use to excuse their behavior isn't helpful. It only prolongs one's self-destructiveness.
Amy Alkon at July 12, 2010 7:52 AM
> this appears to be gnawing at you
It's an integrity thang.
> identifying the following Danger Signs
Again, were you coming here for that? I think there are things to say about this that aren't about particular cases, just like with every other topic we cover here. And when a big theme of such an issue gets so badly mangled, I nonetheless fear for the individual outcomes.
> That is, this discussion kicked off,
> at least, with
Yes, and then it moved on. I think what we got here is a really low-voltage but high-purity demonstration of how political correctness works... You got this specialty-interest subgroup who says there's only one set of solemn, precious words that can be used when discussing a topic, one perspective to be considered. ("Gay marriage has been BANNED! School vouchers are CRIMINAL! Abortion is a SACRAMENT!") But I don't like those words or the thoughts they express, so here we are—
If you think this can happen to anyone, you're tragically mistaken.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 12, 2010 8:04 AM
"And yet century after century, in culture after culture, women across time and space are able to protect themselves from these bad fates. This ain't just luck."
Some did, some didn't. For most of history, you wouldn't have known about it, which I'm sure would suit you just fine. As long as the neighbor next door looked ok and "acted" happy, you'd be content to assume she wasn't being abused.
And you can't assume that those who aren't abused necessarily showed superior judgement. They may simply have been lucky enough to date a non-abusive guy and fall in love. There's no proof that they possess any particularly brilliant radar. The percentage of abusers out there is naturally lower than that of non-abusers, so the odds are simply in favor of anyone ending up in a non-abusive relationship.
"although knowing that is the key
> to helping others NOT get into one.
Says who?"
The whole point of this thread does. Perhaps there are times when personal narratives should not be shared, and support and/or help offered, but THIS thread was specifically about that. It's not like we highjacked an unrelated thread to start "crying with a tub of Haagen Daz", (which isn't what we're doing anyway).
The real frustration is that there is nothing in what we are saying to each other that inherently conflicts with your message that people should be stronger.
I didn't tell Jen, "Oh, you poor dear, I feel so sorry for you." I told her she should get out, even though it would be tough. The same message I told my friend the past few weeks.
I'm not interested in throwing a pity party. My approach is far softer than yours, but it's the same message: become stronger and build a better life.
And, towards that end, there is no point in deriding them for being weak in the first place. That is past. If you really wanted people to be stronger, you shouldn't do that because it has the reverse effect.
Acting like there's some special breed of people out there with such superior judgement that they couldn't have possibly found themselves in a similar circumstances is just saying: You're stupid.
They can stay with their abusers and hear that. If you have no desire to be helpful, at least do no harm.
lovelysoul at July 12, 2010 8:21 AM
Long, dull thread, but we've found out what it takes for some people to disavow feminine intuition, and that may come in handy one day.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 12, 2010 8:23 AM
> Some did, some didn't.
Let's learn from the ones who did, OK?
"Acting" is a big word with you.
> As long as the neighbor next door looked
> ok and "acted" happy
You cheat the meaning. I want the women who don't protect themselves to behave as do the women who do: I want them to protect themselves, too.
> there is nothing in what we are saying to
> each other that inherently conflicts with your
> message that people should be stronger.
I think saying this could happen to anyone conflicts.
> Acting like there's some special breed of people
> out there with such superior judgement that
No, they're not special. You're "acting like" avoiding this is a comic-book super power. You keep using the word "superior".... Are you that fearful of being denigrated?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 12, 2010 8:29 AM
> Some did, some didn't.
Crid: Let's learn from the ones who did [avoid abusive unions], OK?>/i>
Crid,
Here we have YOUR blind spot!
For example, AA doesn't work (if we can leave aside for the moment the debate about whether it's the best program for recovery?) by encouraging people with alcohol problems to come to meetings to listen hard to folk who have never had problems with alcohol.
Right?
In fact - and you've talked about your knowledge of AA here, based on the experience of people you know - one of the main ideas behind the AA program is learning from others who have been in the same boat.
Right?
So why do you get all contemptuous at the notion that the "best way to get victims to leave their abuser is to send them to group sessions with other victims. They hear what others are going through, or have gone through, and their defenses are down, and they can admit there's a problem."
(Once again, this quote is from the top of the thread and it introduces a very broad area for discussion.)
What makes you think it's helpful for abuse victims to learn from people who have never been in their position?
How do these meetings proceed?
"Hi, my name is Mary (or Mark) and I've never been in an abusive relationship!"
Everyone else: "Hi Mary [or Mark]!"
"Hi, my name is Stan (or Sally) and I've been in an abusive relationship."
Everyone else: "What - are you fucking stupid or something? Who wants to listen to your personal story! Talk about mundane..."
What am I missing here, Crid?
Jody Tresidder at July 12, 2010 9:25 AM
"And yet century after century, in culture after culture, women across time and space are able to protect themselves from these bad fates. This ain't just luck."
Oh boy.
Lovelysoul already highlighted this splendidly fatuous comment of yours, Crid.
It's the ultimate, faux-grandiloquent, boilerplate troll!
Jody Tresidder at July 12, 2010 9:49 AM
I believe she acted in loving, compassionate manner
Yes, she did, to the man who was viciously abusing her, which is why her actions were wildly inappropriate, and why I contend she was complicit in the abuse.
[Your point is taken, Jody, that you're not certain about chronology, but going by what you remember ...]
(Sorry for the long delay in responding; I was away a few days w/o web access.)
And, today, we are business partners and friends, oddly enough. I really would not change one thing about my life.
Do you include in this the period of abuse? B/c if you do, I don't see how you can credibly refer to it as abuse at all. And if it wasn't abuse, well, then, what really can your experience teach anyone about the subject?
I must say, I don't believe it's possible for anyone who suffered true abuse at the hands of another to remain that person's friend. Something in this scenario smells.
kishke at July 12, 2010 10:27 AM
"Some did, some didn't.
Let's learn from the ones who did, OK?"
Again, you're assuming they have some particular knowledge or insight to share of how they did it. As if every woman who happened to marry a non-abuser has special experience avoiding abusers.
The odds are simply in her favor. A woman could pick ANY guy and chances are good he won't be an abuser.
Like Jody says, what is she going to share? "Hi, I'm Janice, and I married my childhood sweetheart. He's never beaten me."
Of course, if Janice actually encountered an abuser in her life and managed to escape from him, before marrying her childhood sweetheart, she might have something valuable to share. But, otherwise, her narrative is not constructive to anyone wanting to learn how to avoid or escape from an abusive situation.
Those of us who have encountered abusive men, gotten to know them up close and personal, have much more wisdom to offer.
You wouldn't try to learn about sailing from someone who'd never been on a boat. You wouldn't try to learn about a particular species or creature from someone who'd only seen them on TV, not in the wild.
Well, some of us have been in the wild and lived to report back. It's rather silly to focus solely on whether we should've gone there or not. We did, and so we've seen the dangers up close...but also the way out.
Hopefully, nobody reading this ever gets lost in the wild, but, just in case, what harm does it do to inform them of what we learned? They might ultimately find it helpful for themselves or a friend.
lovelysoul at July 12, 2010 10:41 AM
>>[Your point is taken, Jody, that you're not certain about chronology, but going by what you remember ...]
kishke,
It's possible you are absolutely right about the wife's "complicity".
I have been raking my memory to see if there's pertinent stuff I could possibly add, because there's also some things lovelysoul said that have struck me as very likely too.
Problem is, I think I'm in danger - almost - of falsely back-filling in details to try to force a narrative that makes sense.
(I don't want to quote Donald Rumsfeld - but the only thing that does make sense are the "unknown unknowns", I think!)
Jody Tresidder at July 12, 2010 10:55 AM
"Those of us who have encountered abusive men, gotten to know them up close and personal, have much more wisdom to offer."
Why is it that your posts leave me feeling as if I just got off the Mad Hatter's Tea Cup ride at Disneyland?
LS, were you or were you NOT "abused"? At this point, I am seeing very little relevance from your own personal experiences on this subject.
Feebie at July 12, 2010 10:56 AM
"Do you include in this the period of abuse? B/c if you do, I don't see how you can credibly refer to it as abuse at all. And if it wasn't abuse, well, then, what really can your experience teach anyone about the subject?"
I wasn't beaten, or verbally abused, and I've said that. My ex was sexually manipulative and serially unfaithful.
Infidelity is a strange sort of emotional abuse because when you don't know about it, is it really abuse? It's kind of like "If a tree falls in a forest and no one's there..."
However, I consider it a form of emotional abuse, but it's not as direct as the other kind, and, in many ways, it's easier to forgive.
Yet, what I feel is that a man who repeatedly cheats, knowing he's putting his wife and family at risk, is the same self-absorbed and manipulative TYPE of personality who abuses in other ways. The cheater/"sex addict" has just chosen a different style.
So, I understand the abuser mentality, but I don't pretend to know what it's like to be hit and regularly demeaned.
I'm able to be friends with my ex because I don't care if he's faithful anymore. That conflict in our relationship is gone.
lovelysoul at July 12, 2010 10:57 AM
LS, you haven't answered my question. Again, do you include the period of your abuse in the part of your life about which you "would not change one thing?"
kishke at July 12, 2010 11:45 AM
LS, I think you are broadening the definition of domestic violence and abuse to a point where the term becomes meaningless. If a philandering husband makes one a victim of abuse, then the same could as easily be said about pretty much anything bad that one person might do to another. I'd say most people have, at some point in their lives, had a friend betray their friendship. That's pretty much what happened to you, only with a husband rather than a friend. I don't doubt it was painful to be cheated on, but that doesn't make you a victim of domestic violence or abuse. It just means you had a lousy marriage.
I suspect this is why you won't consider Crid's argument. If every injustice endured is abuse, then Crid is wrong, b/c we almost all have suffered injustice at some point, and obviously we are not all complicit in our mistreatment. But that's only true if we accept your over-broad definition of domestic violence, not if its definition is narrowed to actual, recognizable abuse.
kishke at July 12, 2010 12:09 PM
I'm able to be friends with my ex because I don't care if he's faithful anymore. That conflict in our relationship is gone.
I don't buy this. If his cheating was painful enough to qualify as abuse, then it should have been painful enough to preclude future friendship. Maybe the money was too good to walk away from.
kishke at July 12, 2010 12:12 PM
Kishke, it's a bit more complex than just cheating - there was sexual abuse - but I don't really want to get into that. This thread has already gone too long.
My ex was certainly volatile because he was bi-polar. He ranted and raved a lot, not usually at me, or about me, but I understand the tension and fear that exists in a home with DV. You never really know what they might do.
He tried to choke me when I told him I was leaving. I mean, that didn't happen every day, but I imagine it only needs to happen once to really qualify as DV. I'm not sure why I'm being asked to qualify it. For sure, his level of anger was escalating then, and had I not left, it may have gotten a lot more physical. That is the most dangerous time, and I certainly felt in danger.
The tensions are subdued now, which is why we are able to have a decent, cordial relationship. But I also have 230 pd fiance, who's a blackbelt, so he knows better than to touch me.
lovelysoul at July 12, 2010 12:23 PM
"I don't buy this. If his cheating was painful enough to qualify as abuse, then it should have been painful enough to preclude future friendship. Maybe the money was too good to walk away from."
That's really mean, kishke. He refused to give me a cash settlement, so we ended up splitting our properties and businesses. I HAVE to see him. He's my business partner and the father of my kids.
At first, I didn't want to see him, but, you know, bad memories fade. And we have 2 great kids. I'm a big enough person to let bygones be bygones.
lovelysoul at July 12, 2010 12:34 PM
I'm not questioning your suffering, nor do you owe me any explanations. I am, however, questioning whether your experience as you have described it truly qualifies you to offer advice on the topic.
kishke at July 12, 2010 12:37 PM
That's really mean, kishke.
I was afraid you'd take it that way, but that's not really the way it was meant. You wrote above that a large part of why you went into the marriage was that he was rich. I wondered whether some of that remained and was the reason you remained "friends."
kishke at July 12, 2010 12:42 PM
Let me add: My apologies if I offended.
kishke at July 12, 2010 12:44 PM
Ok, I understand what you meant. No, I don't need to be friendly with him for monetary reasons - other than just conducting business. I could be nasty towards him, but I don't see the point. Bitterness is a waste of time. Plus, I feel it's good for my kids to see that we can get along.
I don't know if I'm qualified to speak on DV. I don't know if there's a level of abuse, or type of abuse, that makes one qualified or not. I certainly identify with it.
Like I said, I think all abusers suffer from similar personality disorders. Bi-polar is a big one. I don't think someone has to necessarily be physically hit to suffer from the effects of that.
If someone punches a wall next to you, but not you, the message is still pretty clear. They're saying, "I'm out of control...you could be next!"
Believe me, I'm grateful I wasn't the wall, but I can imagine being the wall. Does that make sense?
lovelysoul at July 12, 2010 12:54 PM
> What am I missing here
You're presuming the rest of civilization is your therapy group: We're not. MOST WOMEN, most women don't stumble into and suffer in abusive romances.
> AA doesn't work (if we can leave aside
> for the moment the debate about
> whether it's the best program for
> recovery?) by encouraging people with
> alcohol problems to come to meetings
> to listen hard to folk who have never
> had problems with alcohol
The world is not an A.A. meeting. That's the thing about A.A.... They have meetings. While I've never heard of them turning anyone away, I've also never heard of someone just happening across one and sticking around to hang out and make new friends and talk sports: The gatherings are essentially private, and this is another reason to admire them. They know that by assembling in church basements on Tuesday nights and serving shitty coffee under cheap fluorescent lights, they're not taking anything from people who don't have the problem... There would be no point.
A.A. people specifically understand that alcohol doesn't trouble everyone : As they pursue their better health, they don't forbid those around them to enjoy alcohol responsibly. (This is the humility I tried to describe earlier as courage: They know the problem is their own, so they learn to mind their own beeswax.)
> What makes you think it's
> helpful for abuse victims to
> learn from people who have never
> been in their position?
You can't hear this: I want people not to become alcoholics, and I want women not to become "abuse victims". When someone has a choice, it's better that they model their behavior on those who protect their own interests.
> splendidly fatuous comment
We notice that you couldn't find the words to say why, and that "fatuous" isn't the same thing as "untrue".
> you're assuming they have some
> particular knowledge or insight
> to share of how they did it
They've got somethin' goin' on, and it behooves those without it figure out what.
> You wouldn't try to learn about
> sailing from someone who'd never
> been on a boat.
You're analogy is a cheat. I wouldn't take lessons from a sailor who was known for getting into trouble by ignoring the weather, especially if the room next door had instruction from a captain famous for safety.
> just in case, what harm does it
> do to inform them of what
> we learned?
Just in case, when it's already happened, and they're in the shit anyway? Fine. Like I said, you can talk to whoever you want. But (repetition 7,323) it's better not to face the problem, which is how most women handle it.
> I think you are broadening the
> definition of domestic violence
> and abuse to a point where the
> term becomes meaningless.
Interesting take. Maybe this is all for naught anyway.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 12, 2010 2:14 PM
If someone punches a wall next to you, but not you, the message is still pretty clear. They're saying, "I'm out of control...you could be next!"
Believe me, I'm grateful I wasn't the wall, but I can imagine being the wall. Does that make sense?
Yeah, but that doesn't make it abuse. It's just an indication that you married a nut and should be getting right to work on changing the locks.
kishke at July 12, 2010 3:01 PM
>>The world is not an A.A. meeting. That's the thing about A.A.... They have meetings.
And this, Crid, was an internet post about the sort of meetings people in abusive unions might find helpful!
Therefore, the comments were likely to cover some of the same sort of ground you would likely find in such meetings!
Including the personal narratives of people who have been in abusive relationships. Or who are trying to understand a little more about this particular topic.
And- clearly - the sort of stuff covered in this thread was OF LITTLE INTEREST OR VALUE to you - as you repeatedly said.
What is it now, Crid. Thirty + comments on a topic you find mundane?
No one FORCED you to attend this thread!!!
Attendance was VOLUNTARY.
There was even a sign at the top (in Amy's headline)- helpfully announcing the fucking topic - to give the unwary a heads-up over whether or not this might be a thread for them.
Just like the lobby signs for AA meetings, in halls which have several separate function rooms. Which allow those interested in attending the monthly book group to turn left at the door, rather than right (which is - ta-da! -where the AA meeting will be.)
All YOU had to do was leave the room ("oops, my mistake, I thought this was the discussion group about BANK ROBBERY, sorry!"- where you could pull a rude face outside - if it made you feel better.
But for some reason, you had to keep sticking your fucking oar in over and over and over, acting like a total oaf.
Jody Tresidder at July 12, 2010 4:41 PM
>>You can't hear this: I want people not to become alcoholics, and I want women not to become "abuse victims". When someone has a choice, it's better that they model their behavior on those who protect their own interests.
Oh I most certainly can hear that, Crid.
You've only said it umpteen times.
Thing is, often alcoholics and abuse victims are ALREADY surrounded by people who have made much better choices.
But it made no difference watching other people getting it right.
They still ended in shit creek.
That's where this thread started. And the discussion was lively, heated and becoming fascinating.
(Until you buggered it up).
Jody Tresidder at July 12, 2010 5:09 PM
> Thirty + comments on a topic you
> find mundane?
You're parsing too hard, and we're going in circles. (See above— How to treat women and what it means for women to be strong are big topics for all modern people.)
I'm OK with going in circles! Some guys like video games, some like fantasy baseball, I like hunting down corrupt comments. So this topic is for me just like the rest of them. It's not a waste of time to show that there are certain words that people can't seem to read. (For you especially... LS is just a cadet, but Jody, I know that when you're wrong about something, it's gonna be a big day of keyboard fun.) The words you can't see are this ISN'T something that could happen to anyone.
How many people are still reading? Six? Twenty? Two? As clear as I've been on this, as much as you describe my comments to LS as brutalizing in and of themselves, it's been interesting that no one else under any name (one we'd recognize or one we wouldn't) has come out to say that they agree with her that it could happen to anyone. For testing that forebearance alone, continuing this petty psychodrama has been worthwhile.
So here are some Rumsfeldian Unknowns, and some possible data points which I'm pulling out of my ass.
R.U. #1: How many people are still reading this?
I'd bet about six. It's an aging post on a moderately-traffic'd blog, and the fruit has been drying up for a couple days.
R.U. #2: How many of those people are women?
I'd say probably 4 or 5. It's a very girly blog.
R.U. #3: How many of those women think I'm being, like, a total dick towards LS?
That would be 4 or 5, too. I'd say 100% of the women reading this agree that I'm being a dick, and that it's perhaps ironically cruel, if only perhaps demonstrating the attraction to stubbornness that seems to have afflicted LS in other contexts of her life. All women reading this definitely concur: I'm a complete weaz/hole, a weasel and an asshole wrapped up in one computerized beast.
R.U. #4: How come those women don't therefore come out and say I'm wrong, when they can do so in PERFECT anonymity and without cost?
Several possibilities.
First, they think I'm right. They don't want to say so because I'm being a dick. But the ones who never had an abusive lover are comfortable in their intuition, and don't need to make comments to weasels on blogs in order to enjoy faith in their own powers.
Second, they think I'm right and am being a dick, but at some point in their lives they too found themselves getting sucked into something unpleasant with a guy who meant a lot to them at the time and maybe still does; yet as they pulled themselves out of that attraction, whether over hours or over months, they had the self-awareness and broad view of friend's lives to see that certain weakness in their own hearts had contributed to the crisis, weaknesses they've worked hard to never suffer from again... Even when that discipline has cost them romances of tremendous depth.
It's not that they don't see that I'm a weaz-hole, but there's no reason for them to spend a bunch of time typing shit, either. As you've demonstrated, Jody, in conversation with strangers, presence slips into involvement which slides into complicity. They don't want to have type up a bunch of shit, and then defend it for people who'll harp over language as closely as do you and I.
Third, they think I'm right and am being a dick, but they think you and LS are even worse.
Fourth, they think I'm wrong and am being a dick, but they just enjoy obsessive blog threads as spectator sport.
________________________
Or perhaps nobody's reading this at all.
But what I need to make clear is: I don't the abusive relationships are something that can or will happen to just anyone.
> alcoholics and abuse victims are
> ALREADY surrounded by people who
> have made much better choices.
So why did LS say it could happened to anybody? And is that what you're saying?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 12, 2010 6:21 PM
I'm still here, but I'm a guy, so I can't help you with #s 3 & 4.
kishke at July 12, 2010 6:44 PM
Actually, Crid, if you bothered to read clearly, I never said it could happen "to anyone". That is always, and in and every case, your own interpretation of my comments. Prove where I said that because I didn't. What I said was "Maybe it couldn't happen to anyone..." but so the fuck what? What were comments helping?
For the record, I don't think it can happen to women who are educated about bi-polar disorder, sociopathy, and/or narcissism. And I take every opportunity to educate them on these disorders.
I do think it can happen to women who only view abuse as getting their teeth knocked out, or who think a handsome man in a nice suit couldn't possibly be an abuser. I think it can happen, and still does...far too often. Not because they suffer from any particular weakness other than assuming nice people look "nice" and bad people look "bad".
This is the same "weakness" that Ted Bundy relied on, so it has a proven track record.
Yet, I'm sure you feel you would've spotted him straight away, such is the power of your intuition.
lovelysoul at July 12, 2010 7:32 PM
OK, you never said that. Sorry. But I think you see how it sure seemed like you said that a couple times. (Are direct quotes necessary again? No.)
Yeah, sure, Bundy! Listen, I moved to FL a few months before the execution went down. Some very soft, fluffy souls were saying 'Fry his ass!' He put a lot of fear into a lot of hearts.
> I'm sure you feel you would've spotted
> him straight away, such is the power
> of your intuition.
Mebbe. Lord knows I've turned away from attractive women who had weird energy. This is not like x-ray vision, and it doesn't make me feel "superior" to guys who married them, or became deeply involved and came to regret it. But it wasn't "lucky," either. We'll never know how many women dodged this guy.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 12, 2010 8:07 PM
Crid 2:14 pm You're presuming the rest of civilization is your therapy group: We're not. MOST WOMEN, most women don't stumble into and suffer in abusive romances.
YES YES YES.
It's called using your judgment. People should exercise better judgment more. They should exercise better judgment always.
LS 8:21 am And you can't assume that those who aren't abused necessarily showed superior judgement. They may simply have been lucky enough to date a non-abusive guy and fall in love. There's no proof that they possess any particularly brilliant radar.
Where do you get this bullshit??? Don't discredit women who exhibit emotional maturity and good judgment in choosing their partners...simply because you didn't.
LS 10:41 am A woman could pick ANY guy and chances are good he won't be an abuser.
I love this. As if a woman choosing a life partner is tantamount to her closing her eyes and going, eeny-meeny-miny-moe. Wow! had I known that, I could have just pointed at the hobo outside the 7-11 and hoped that he showered up nicely...
Rather than date for 18 years and insist that the man I marry exhibit integrity, kindness, and intelligence.
And not be an asshole.
And not cheat on me.
Jen Wading at July 12, 2010 9:07 PM
Crid 6:21 pm Third, they think I'm right and am being a dick, but they think you and LS are even worse.
Yes, you are 100% right.
As for the dick part...wish I had one so I could slap LS with it a few times myself.
Jen Wading at July 12, 2010 9:10 PM
Still here, and laughing myself silly off of that last comment.
Feebie at July 12, 2010 9:35 PM
Doing that would be really rude.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 12, 2010 9:56 PM
"A woman could pick ANY guy and chances are good he won't be an abuser."
I meant it's just the odds, JenW. It doesn't mean she's particular wise. Some are, but as a statistical group, that can't be proven.
The numbers being what they are, plenty of women have never encountered, much less dated, anyone as manipulative as a narccissist or a sociopath, so their smugness at avoiding them is unwarranted.
The majority of women didn't encounter Bundy, for instance. They might've said, "I know how to avoid a serial killer - obviously, I'm still alive! hahaha!"
They might've said that right up until the handsome, nice-seeming guy on crutches asked them to help take his books to the car.
At that point in time, nobody had heard of that particular trick. It was only through education and a better understanding of that type of predator that women became safer. That's all I'm trying to share.
I know you just want to shut your ears and immaturely say, "nah,nah,nah" or make juvenile dick-slapping comments because of some strange hostility you developed at me in a thread AGES ago, which was over absolutely NOTHING! Yet, you obviously lurk around waiting to come on and sling little hostile comments at me...like changing my name to 'lovelyhole'.
Nobody does that here, at least those of us over 12. And, even though I've completely ignored you, for months, you still do it.
You come off so immature, thin-skinned, and angry. You're actually the perfect target for a predator. They could get you through your skin so easily. After all, if you're so hungry for MY attention, it's scary how needy you must be.
lovelysoul at July 13, 2010 5:53 AM
"Doing that would be really rude."
Thanks, Crid.
See, JenW, Crid doesn't like me either - he really doesn't like me. He rarely respects my views, and he'll argue brilliantly against my comments...thread after thread. And he does the same with Jody.
Yet, the most personal thing he'll ever say is: "I don't like you." He doesn't act like a 3 yr old.
That's maturity. Try to develop some.
lovelysoul at July 13, 2010 6:05 AM
>>So why did LS say it could happen to anybody?
And is that what you're saying?
Listen to me carefully, Crid.
I don't know.
I am not remotely an expert in DV.
I have never studied the subject, I have no qualifications in this area and I've never talked at any length to someone who is an expert in DV.
However, I might have learned more about the subject here - but you turned it all into a vanity thread about you.
>>As for the dick part...wish I had one so I could slap LS with it a few times myself.
Posted by: Jen Wading
Good gracious, Jen Wading!
You might want to talk to someone about these humorous fantasies of yours.
I'm all for mordant humor but I'd definitely inch away from you if I heard a woman make that crack in a bar.
Also, lovelysoul?
I may not agree with everything you say about every subject (I think I just disagreed with you strongly in the ejaculate thread).
BUT, you fight for your views like an amazon. You have amazing patience - and some very, very sharp notions.
I love it:)
Jody Tresidder at July 13, 2010 6:42 AM
This has been one interesting read.
~~~
but there's no reason for them to spend a bunch of time typing shit, either.
+1
~~~
There's no proof that they possess any particularly brilliant radar.
Where do you get this bullshit??? Don't discredit women who exhibit emotional maturity and good judgment in choosing their partners...simply because you didn't.
+1
~~~
Good gracious,
Golly Gee Willikers!
MeganNJ at July 13, 2010 8:10 AM
"Don't discredit women who exhibit emotional maturity and good judgment in choosing their partners"
Look, I'm not trying to discredit any woman who has actually encountered an abusive type and her intuition, maturity, and judgment caused her to reject him. That's wonderful. I'm just saying that, statistically speaking, as a group, women who don't end up with abusers are by far the higher percentage of the population, whether they rejected one or not...or even ever met one.
A woman who marries her childhood sweetheart, straight out of high school, and hasn't really dated anyone else, or ever encountered an abuser, isn't especially qualified to avoid one. She may or not be, but her abilities in this regard haven't been tested. This isn't proof that all women not in abusive relationships have superior judgment. The odds are simply in their favor.
Statisically, even if she married the first man who asked her - even in she married a guy she only knew for 2 weeks (which is reckless, but for every warning you give there's somebody who knows somebody who married that fast it lasted), the likelihood is that she still won't become a DV victim.
Maybe you guys don't understand statistics.
lovelysoul at July 13, 2010 8:57 AM
> Listen to me carefully
Always.
> I don't know.
Don't be so humble, you're not that great.
> However, I might have learned more about the
> subject here - but you turned it all into a
> vanity thread about you.
My vanity's that powerful a force? I've been distracting America that greatly from the things that have
> actually
> been
> said
in these threads?
People who want to talk about abuse will talk about abuse. We're on the World Wide Web. Most every novel insight on this topic or any other is yours for a cut-&-paste. If no one else added comments worth reading, whatever my intrusions, it's because the ideas were becoming sickly and unprincipled, even to women who have strong feelings about the topic... And I bet there are a lot of them here. Sensible women aren't shushed and intimidated. It's not possible for American women to be silenced on something like this if they think the people who could hear their thoughts are worth talking to. That's the point.
> Maybe you guys don't understand
> statistics.
Maybe we don't! Tell us everything you know about the scientific method. Give us ANY insight about statistics. If necessary, I'll buy Amy a special disk drive just for this project. Go ahead... Begin.
Sharp notions! Amazon! Amazon!
Crid at July 13, 2010 9:41 AM
>>My vanity's that powerful a force?
I rather think it is, Crid.
Your vanity is, however, frequently leavened by wit, great timing, some first rate provocative writing and a keen nose for self-serving waffle (from other commenters).
But not in this thread.
Jody Tresidder at July 13, 2010 10:06 AM
You come off so immature, thin-skinned, and angry. You're actually the perfect target for a predator. They could get you through your skin so easily.
Nice try. You love to resort to these tactics with me. Doesn't work, lovelyhole.
That's maturity. Try to develop some.
I save that for the things that matter to me - like how I pick my friends - who wouldn't sleep with my exes, btw - or how I pick my partner.
You just don't matter that much for me to exhibit maturity towards you on this blog. I've read enough of your comments to recognize what a whack job you are.
I'm just saying that, statistically speaking, as a group...
What statistics? Oh, like the ones you make up in your head?
Maybe you guys don't understand statistics.
Still waiting for your imaginary statistics...
It doesn't mean she's particular wise. Some are, but as a statistical group, that can't be proven.
Riiight. This all points back to the statistics that we can't understand? Referencing the statistical group that can't be proven? Jody did you not enough credit. An intellectual Amazon you are, indeed.
Jen Wading at July 13, 2010 10:12 AM
"Fourth, they think I'm wrong and am being a dick, but they just enjoy obsessive blog threads as spectator sport."
Guilty as charged. World Cup is now over and this sure beats watching reruns of Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman.
The 34 percent of Americans don't know when to stop eating and you are asking them pick the right person to spend the rest of their lives happily ever after at their first try.
That is not a reasonable demand for the country known for the second chance.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/14/health/14obese.html
Chang at July 13, 2010 10:25 AM
"Nice try. You love to resort to these tactics with me. Doesn't work, lovelyhole."
I don't resort to any tactics with you. I've tried for months to ignore your hostile remarks. I don't even know why you're so hateful to me. Even if you think I'm a "whackjob", it doesn't justify such immature personal attacks. I don't consider some people on this blog entirely sane either, but I don't make hostile comments towards them out of the blue.
Long ago, we had a discussion about childbirth, and I said something about your family members probably not telling you how painful it was, so as not to scare you (since you haven't yet experienced it), and you responded with some weirdly defensive attitude, like "You don't know my family...how dare you!..." A totally disproportionate response to what was said.
At least I think that's your problem. The point is that Crid and I - and others here - have had far more contentious debates with less lasting personal hostility.
I apologize for offending you so badly in that debate. Please accept my apology. Debate me on the issues, but stop making this personal.
lovelysoul at July 13, 2010 10:52 AM
Ladies, I only said "rude", not "inappropriate".
> I rather think it is
Jody, don't CLUCK. If you don't want to read the comments, don't... But never cluck.
Amazon! Amazonian notions of amazing sharp patience!
__________________
> This isn't proof that all women not in
> abusive relationships have superior
> judgment. The odds are simply in
> their favor.
Preposterous... You're sandbagging. You use the word "all", as if that were the claim. I'll certainly concede that some teentsy-slender sliver of feminine souls are just lucky at love. Some people buy winning lottery tickets, too, but it has very little to do with the way the economy spreads wealth in our world... Just as luck has little to do with how people who pair well make their selections.
Jen regards your scenario like this:
> As if a woman choosing a life partner
> is tantamount to her closing her eyes
> and going, eeny-meeny-miny-moe.
Women explore options. The meet a few guys and see what they think and what they feel. This is NOT the Middle East, which is the big reason I resent you being so oblivious to what happens here. Women here explore options because they CAN.
I try to imagine what it would be like trying to convince a woman raised in primitive Islam to join the modern world. Having delicate little broken hearts interrupting the conversation with things like 'Ya just never know! It could happen to anyone!' is antithetical to modernity. You CAN know. Women CAN protect themselves. And most do.
Now, perhaps you or someone you know didn't move as thoughtfully as was necessary...
> stop making this personal.
...You leave us no choice. Your personal experience is all you're bringing us. When you say abusers 'don't announce themselves' or 'I don't know how you say it's true' that most women protect themselves, you're not making a reasonable case. I mean--
> (which is reckless, but for every warning
> you give there's somebody who knows
> somebody who married that fast it
> lasted
Is that a statistic?
No. Listen, being naive is not excusable, not for women and not for men. The freedom of women in our culture has responsibilities, independent ones that can't be passed off to other people. Women embrace them not as a chore or as an unavoidable risk, but because picking good partners helps give their lives meaning. It's one of the things women in the Middle East ought to envy about our lives, something that doesn't seem to be getting across through popular culture.
> A woman who marries her childhood
> sweetheart, straight out of high school,
> and hasn't really dated anyone else, or
> ever encountered an abuser, isn't
> especially qualified to avoid one
I think that's completely backwards. It's women born and raised in loving homes, by thoughtful mothers and fathers who connect deeply, who don't have this problem. They know what they're looking for.
Crid at July 13, 2010 12:26 PM
I don't even know why you're so hateful to me
Because you're smug, sanctimonious, hypocritical and a narcissistic to top it off. You have an amazing ability to take a topic (any topic!) and make it All About You. What's more, you love to add a veneer of how-can-anyone-judge-it's-nobody's-fault-life-is-a-mystery spins onto your comments to try to pass yourself off as a "lovely" "soul".
And you're anything but.
I apologize for offending you so badly in that debate. Please accept my apology.
Wish I could accept your apology but for two reasons:
1. I hold grudges.
2. Regardless of any apology, you simply repeat the same patronizing-but-padded-with-seemingly-nonjudgmental-goodwill over and over. Time and time again. So unless you cease your MO (which I find doubtful) or you change (also doubtful), apologies of your sort are kinda moot and kinda meaningless.
...stop making this personal.
Hard to do when all you bring are personal anecdotes for topics you respond to. Other posters have brought this up to you repeatedly. You perpetually choose to willfully ignore them.
Make a deal with you. Do your utmost to keep all your Lifetime Channel stories out of the threads. I'll do my best to stop attacking you.
While you're at it, look into getting some couch time so you can sort all your mental drama out on the sidelines, rather than on a blog that isn't a forum for your issues. I'm not interested.
But keep volunteering information about your life's hijinks and I'll keep pointing out how fucked up you are.
(By the way, love how you unabashedly posted off-topic on the misogynist thread about your dalliances with S&M. No remorse, no apology, no shame. You just felt that it was a perfectly ok to take an otherwise humorous thread and detour it into ME ME ME territory.)
That is why I find you so hateful.
Jen Wading at July 13, 2010 12:36 PM
> Make a deal with you. Do your utmost to keep
> all your Lifetime Channel stories out of the threads.
This new kid on the mound's got a motherfucker fastball.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 13, 2010 12:52 PM
>>You CAN know. Women CAN protect themselves. And most do.
I get that you feel that way, Crid.
This thread, however, was on the topic of those who did not.
>>(By the way, love how you unabashedly posted off-topic on the misogynist thread about your dalliances with S&M. No remorse, no apology, no shame. You just felt that it was a perfectly ok to take an otherwise humorous thread and detour it into ME ME ME territory.)
Jen Wading,
You sound like a very rude prude!
And deliberately nurturing grudges against strangers on the internet is a dreadful waste of energy.
If a person pisses you off, they'll probably do it again and you can then specifically let rip, without appearing to be a few sandwiches short of a picnic yourself.
Jody Tresidder at July 13, 2010 1:03 PM
I think you're the hateful one, Jen. You're full of hate, and it's quite sad. What possible difference does it matter if I ask someone like Gspotted a question regarding her line of work? We didn't take over the whole blog with it, and you're certainly free not to read our interchange if it "offends" you so deeply.
I think you're easily offended. I may be one of the worst, but plenty of others, besides me, share personal stories here. Crid, of course, does not, as he has a extreme distaste for them, but others don't mind them at all, and in fact, find some value in them.
Honestly, there is no one here, including you, that I "hate". First of all, it's important to remember that this is just an anonymous blog, and the images we conjur up of who we're talking to, and what kind of people they may be, based on the limited information they share, is quite possibly wrong. We don't KNOW each other well enough to HATE. For you to have that strong of an emotion towards someone you know only from blog posts - 99% of which have never been directed at you - is really out of whack.
I think you hate me because I offended you once....in some brief comments, on a long ago thread. And, I'm guessing, based on the "I hold grudges" part, that this is common for you, which is a VERY narcissistic trait. Narcissists can't take any criticism, not even the slightest. They have actually been known to kill people over the tiniest of insults. So, whether you realize it or not, YOU are the one behaving like a narcissist.
I've had plenty of "couch time", but I recommend you get some. Start by telling them how much hate you feel - and grudges you hold - for strangers on a blog.
lovelysoul at July 13, 2010 1:17 PM
> This thread, however, was on the topic of
> those who did not.
First of all, Amy doesn't constrain topics, which is why this is my bloggy home. Second, says who?— Given Robert's first reply, I'd have said it was all about the Second Amendment. Third, consideration of what "those who did not" should have done is precisely on topic.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 13, 2010 1:18 PM
You sound like a very rude prude!
Wait, aren't you the broad who would inch away from me at the bar for my dick-slapping comment?
huh.
Go figure that one out...
I have no problems discussing S&M, if that were the topic. But it wasn't. That was my point.
Oh, pardon me, I forgot! You're the one who is so skilled at recognizing "very, very sharp notions."
Jen Wading at July 13, 2010 1:18 PM
Gspotted happened to say in one of her posts that she was a "professional domme". It's not every day you hear that...or meet one of those! And, Crid's right, Amy doesn't constrain topics. That topic is about bodily fuids and feminism. Gspotted brought S&M in (as it related to bodily fluids and fetishes). I didn't.
lovelysoul at July 13, 2010 1:36 PM
Can't really say I hate you, LS. Don't know you at all.
So you're right, perhaps hateful was too strong a word.
Is contemptible better? how about vexing? exasperating? irksome? Let me know which descriptor you prefer.
Gspotted brought S&M in (as it related to bodily fluids and fetishes). I didn't.
OK. Noted. But why did it have to go back to you and your ex-husband???
I'll be happily reading a thread and POP! there you are again inserting some unrelated blip about Your Life.
Sure, I am absolutely free to skim over your journal postings. In the same vein, you can give a skip to my little jabs at you.
Works both ways, now, doesn't it?
Jen Wading at July 13, 2010 1:58 PM
>>Wait, aren't you the broad who would inch away from me at the bar for my dick-slapping comment?
huh.
Go figure that one out...
I meant the combination of loudmouth rudeness with your subsequent hoity-toity shudders is very..unappealing, Jen Wading.
>>First of all, Amy doesn't constrain topics, which is why this is my bloggy home. Second, says who?— Given Robert's first reply, I'd have said it was all about the Second Amendment. Third, consideration of what "those who did not" should have done is precisely on topic.
Crid,
Firstly, as I pointed out earlier - YOU were the one grandly lecturing people about what "our topic" was, then you had to eat crow when you were proved totally in the wrong.
Secondly, Robert (and many others) didn't repeatedly bombard the thread with the same gobshite comment over and over. That was your MO. It was as if you were transfixed, nay, hypnotized by your own smartypants words.
Third, you had nothing to offer those who had ever found themselves in such dire straits, save for the observation that they shouldn't have found themselves in such dire straits in the first place.
And you've said it another 5962 times since (I've counted very quickly - so do double check if you like).
Jody Tresidder at July 13, 2010 2:08 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/07/06/phyllis_chesler.html#comment-1732347">comment from Crid [CridComment at gmail]Amy doesn't constrain topics,
That's the way, uh-huh, uh-huh...
(It's free-range, chickens!)
Amy Alkon at July 13, 2010 2:20 PM
>>Sure, I am absolutely free to skim over your journal postings. In the same vein, you can give a skip to my little jabs at you.
Works both ways, now, doesn't it?
Jen Wading,
I am obviously braver than I thought - because I've actually shifted almost next to your bar stool (but I've kept one between us, with my bag on top.)
That's not a very fair deal you just offered.
To be reasonable, if you can manage it, you either need to skip all comments from LS - and skip the gratuitous grudge-marinated insults.
OR...READ her comments and let fly with all your best jabs in response to whatever irks you about that comment.
But you can't really do the insult thing randomly. (Honestly, what's the point?)
Jody Tresidder at July 13, 2010 2:27 PM
"Third, you had nothing to offer those who had ever found themselves in such dire straits, save for the observation that they shouldn't have found themselves in such dire straits in the first place'
Getting back to the topic, that's what's irksome. It's not even that your point is invalid, which it isn't, but that you repeat it so often in the same thread.
There were people here who had already made a bad choice, and we were discussing (or trying to discuss) what they might do about it NOW and in the future. But you, Crid, are addressing it as if you're speaking to a group of young people embarking on the search for a partner for the very first time.
And that is valuable. It's just not terribly relevant to most of the women here who are well beyond that point. Either they're already in an abusive relationship, or they've reached middle age having successfully avoided one, or they had one, and got out of it.
All 3 of those viewpoints, complete with personal details, are valid on this thread. It's not like we hijacked a thread on the Obama health care plan to discuss DV.
And, Jen, I appreciate your (sort of) peace offering (and you have a great vocabulary). I realize I do tend to ramble on with too many personal anecdotes, and I'll work on that. But I'm not sorry for asking the dominatrix that question, as it was relevant to my life, and how many dominatrixes (dominatri?) are you likely to come across...at least one who admits it so openly?
lovelysoul at July 13, 2010 2:58 PM
Well golly, all you had to do was concede the point, just once. But you just sit there, squirming....
Crid [cridcomment at gmail] at July 13, 2010 3:01 PM
I thought I had conceded when I said, "Maybe it doesn't happen to everyone, so what?" But, you're right, that's not a very satisfying concession. Sorry.
Where I disagree with you, and with Feebie, is in the belief that certain factors are always protective - such as coming from a good home.
I came from a good home, yet it still happened, and I think the reason was partly BECAUSE I'd been raised with such wholesome, traditional, Mayberry-style values. I left home, and went to NYC, to hang out in the village with the cool artists, who didn't have boundaries...because that was so different from how I was raised. It was that sort of a rebellion against boundaries that led me into the relationship.
lovelysoul at July 13, 2010 3:17 PM
>>Well golly, all you had to do was concede the point, just once. But you just sit there, squirming....
Well not quite, Crid.
It had to be conceded precisely to your satisfaction.
Such vanity.
Jody Tresidder at July 13, 2010 3:23 PM
I came from a good home, yet it still happened,
Well, not really. I mean, something happened, but not something that can fairly be described as domestic violence or abuse. Look, husbands generally don't cheat in order to hurt their wives. They cheat because they want the sex. In other words, it's not about the guy's wife; it's about his own pleasures. You evidently decided that your husband's motive in cheating was to hurt you, and voila! - we have domestic violence. Sure, the guy's a jerk, and it's great you dumped him, but cheating doesn't equal domestic violence. I say you took behavior that was not about you at all and made it all about you.
And, as I've said, if there was no DV, your experience says nothing to actual victims, so why go on and on about it?
kishke at July 13, 2010 3:53 PM
> is in the belief that certain factors
> are always protective
Straw man: You're overstating the argument. I didn't say anything was "always protective". Nobody said anything was "always protective". I'm saying most women protect themselves, and they have things to teach those who never learned to.
Any other anonymous voices wanna be heard from the gallery on this one? Because I have zero personal experience. When a professional (graduate-level, degree'd) therapist is dealing with a woman who's proven susceptible to abuse, what gets said?
Does the therapist say abusers don't announce themselves?
Does the therapist say that statistically, everyone's at risk?
Does the therapist even say certain things will always protect you?
Or does the therapist say "You're making bad choices?"
_______________________
> Well not quite
So it's not that I'm wrong. Worst case, you say
> Listen to me carefully...
> I don't know.
And it's not the topical drift that bugs you. It's just that these aren't the words that you came here to read. And I'm all like, if you know what other people are supposed to be saying, why do they need to say it?
You gotta understand, Jody, when a man's as good-looking and alluring as I am, vanity is a very small price to pay. Sure, it's a burden, but sometimes we just have to be grateful to play the cards we're dealt.
Crid at July 13, 2010 4:59 PM
>>You gotta understand, Jody, when a man's as good-looking and alluring as I am, vanity is a very small price to pay. Sure, it's a burden, but sometimes we just have to be grateful to play the cards we're dealt.
Pass the sick bag Alice:)
Jody Tresidder at July 13, 2010 5:10 PM
"And, as I've said, if there was no DV, your experience says nothing to actual victims, so why go on and on about it?"
You're ignoring where I said "sexual abuse" and those here who've heard my story know about the S&M and rape fetish.
No, infidelity alone is not abuse, but serial infidelity, such as was engaged in by Tiger Woods, or Jesse Jame, for instance, could be classified as such, in my view. Especially when they are getting plenty of sex - even "special" sex - as was true in my case.
lovelysoul at July 13, 2010 5:25 PM
No, infidelity alone is not abuse, but serial infidelity, such as was engaged in by Tiger Woods, or Jesse Jame, for instance, could be classified as such, in my view.
Nonsense. Serial or not, the intent is not to hurt the spouse, but to indulge their pleasures. That's not abuse.
You're ignoring where I said "sexual abuse"
That's right, I am, b/c I don't know what that entails. Nothing else about what you've said happened to you sounds to me like abuse or violence, and I suspect the same would be true of this. So your husband talked you into doing stuff you normally wouldn't have done. Big deal.
kishke at July 13, 2010 6:55 PM
You're just ignorant, kishke. Emotional abuse is anything that causes significant emotional trauma. A serial cheater, who gets caught, promises never to do it again, then repeatedly breaks that promise - or brings his mistresses to the family home (as Tiger Woods did), or maybe even flaunts them in front of the spouse and kids - is causing emotional pain to his spouse and his family. He (and you) may think it's not "as bad" as hitting her (and his kids), but the emotional trauma can be the same.
Serial cheaters are almost always extreme narcissists, who put their own needs ahead of anyone else's. They inflict emotional pain with their actions, then continue to do so, even knowing they're inflicting pain. That is emotional abuse.
It's very different from someone who might just have sex on a whim, to indulge in a momentary pleasure, then feel guilty about it afterwards.
You believe abuse is only physical hitting, or direct verbal assault, but that's false. For instance, I read the other day about a mother who invited her 12 yr old daughter to sit down for dinner, then smirked throughout the entire meal. Afterwards, the daughter realized her pet rabbit was missing, and the mother calmly said, "You just ate him."
Even though she didn't call her daughter names, or verbally assault her, that is still emotional abuse. She willfully and knowingly caused emotional trauma to someone, which is abusive.
lovelysoul at July 13, 2010 8:16 PM
I agree. If your husband tricks you into eating your pet rabbit (or anyone's pet rabbit), it's abuse. But philandering? No. Not that it doesn't cause you pain. Sure it does, and he's an awful husband. But it's not his purpose to cause pain, he's just chasing his good times, not giving you a thought, and that makes all the difference in whether he can be labeled an abuser. (No doubt you realize that in the urban myth you cite the mother's intent and purpose was to cause pain.)
kishke at July 13, 2010 8:43 PM
Yes, and it can also be the same with a serial cheater, if he's intentionally trying to make his partner jealous or insecure, for instance.
But you're incorrect that there has to be the intent to inflict emotional pain. An alcoholic, or someone with bi-polar disorder, who can have wild, erratic mood swings...saying one thing one minute and another thing the next...or approving of something that is done one day and not the next...or threatening suicide...or punching a hole in the wall out of frustration...doesn't necessarily "mean" to cause fear, anxiety, and emotional trauma, but they do. Anyone enduring all that is still experiencing a form of emotional abuse, even though it may not be the abuser's direct intent.
Living with that kind of behavior is an emotional roller coaster for anyone around that person, especially if they refuse to get help.
lovelysoul at July 13, 2010 9:06 PM
I just had a woman get so drunk at my resort the other day in front or her 4 yr old daughter that the child was bawling her eyes out, trying to help her mom stand up. Now, I know she loves her daughter...and, after all, she was just "chasing a good time" (like the cheater)...and it wasn't her intent to emotionally scar her child. But if the impact of an irresponsible or selfish behavior is such that it causes extreme emotional trauma, intentional or not, it's still emotional abuse.
lovelysoul at July 13, 2010 9:14 PM
(...watching LS finger paint with poo-poo)
LS - there is a difference between sadistic and abusive behavior between a parent and a child vs. adultery between one adult to another. The difference is the child is not at will to leave their situation.
Are you seriously comparing your situation to that of these children?
(Fun fact: narcissists often love to play the victim, and shirk responsibility...)
Feebie at July 13, 2010 9:50 PM
It's just ignorance on both your parts. Even a person who is being beaten can LEAVE, but that's not what quantifies what they're experiencing as abuse or not.
Lying, denying, intimidating, dominating, and manipulating behavior all falls under emotional and psychological abuse. Anyone living with someone exhibiting those behaviors and being subjected to them repeatedly is being emotionally and psychologically abused.
It depends on the level of manipulation and deceit involved. No, a person having one affair is not likely an emotional abuser, but someone repeatedly, carelessly having affairs despite the impact this has on his/her partner, is an emotional abuser. The cheating is usually accompanied by other traits of an abuser, such as "gaslighting" ("I don't know what you're talking about! I'm not sleeping with that woman. I wasn’t there. That wasn't me. You must be crazy!") designed to cause the victim to doubt themselves.
Here's Wikepidia on emotional abuse:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_abuse
lovelysoul at July 14, 2010 5:49 AM
"Male and female perpetrators of emotional and physical abuse exhibit high rates of personality disorders. Rates of personality disorder in the general population are roughly 15%-20%, while roughly 80% of abusive men in court-ordered treatment programmes have personality disorders."
This is my main point here. Not to negate other protective factors, but if women (and men) were better educated on personality disorders, it would serve as another protector - probably the best one.
Currently, we depend on intuition or "radar" alone....just a strange "feeling" something is wrong but not knowing exactly what. That's good, and works a lot of the time, but actually being educated enough on the traits of someone with a personality disorder to know precisely what the "what" is would be even better.
lovelysoul at July 14, 2010 6:03 AM
Denying affairs is not designed to cause the "victim" to doubt themselves; it's designed to get the cheater out of trouble. You seem to think that anything and everything that causes pain to another falls into the category of abuse. As I said above, that broadens the category so much as to make it meaningless. So far as I'm concerned, in calling yourself a victim of domestic violence, you're pretending to be something you're not.
kishke at July 14, 2010 6:06 AM
Here's how it works, or did in my case. I'd suspect an affair, and the response would be, "She's just a friend. Can't I have female friends? Why are you so insecure and paranoid?" And I protest that it didn't feel right - didn't look right or seem appropriate. And he'd twist it back on me saying something like, "That's because you were raised in a backwards small-town. Men are allowed to have female friends. There's nothing wrong with it. We're just having lunch (or dinner or shopping). Stop being paranoid!"
When I was younger, I'd start believing he must be right. Nothing was going on but "friendship" and I was the one with the "problem" of suspicion. I even ENTERTAINED a lot of his mistresses in our home because he wanted us to be "friends" (I think he got some sick enjoyment out of seeing his wife and girlfriends together). I even became friends with some of them, only to later find out they were indeed fucking him.
This IS meant to diminish the victim. To keep them off balance, always questioning themself. It's meant to break down their core values and boundaries. The behavior is mentally cruel, and that's what differentiates it.
lovelysoul at July 14, 2010 6:22 AM
No, it's not. It's meant to keep the cheater in the clear.
kishke at July 14, 2010 8:10 AM
Well, as I've said, I've had therapy. At least 3 therapists have called it emotional abuse - and him an abuser - so you're not as qualified as they are.
You seem to have your own investment in believing that cheating isn't emotionally abusive.
lovelysoul at July 14, 2010 8:39 AM
You seem to have your own investment in believing that cheating isn't emotionally abusive.
I assume that was meant as a not-very-subtle hint that I cheat on my wife and need to justify it. Interesting, isn't it, how quickly you turn to personal attacks when it's your ox getting gored. Jen Wading, are you getting this?
Actually, your therapists have a far-greater investment in having you believe that cheating is abuse - it keeps you paying their bills. In fact, their opinion proves nothing with regard to this discussion. They are focused on your point of view; you've been hurt, you feel like you've been abused, they need to treat your feelings. That still doesn't mean that you're a victim of abuse, and certainly not of domestic violence, and it doesn't make your husband an abuser. It merely makes you a person whose sensitivities have been bruised by a dishonest husband. (Although one with whom you maintain a frienship and close relationship to this day! God grant that all abusers be so benign!)
kishke at July 14, 2010 8:56 AM
Well, it was joint counseling, not just individual. Though he's had TONS of individual counseling too, all in an effort to help him not be an abuser, so I guess all the trained professionals we've encountered have been wrong and you're right.
If you have no personal investment in this, I don’t know why you're so eager to insist that cheating - and all the emotional fallout from it, not just for the spouse, but for the kids - is not emotionally and psychologically abusive.
You don't seem to get that the cheating was not the only abuse involved. It was just a part of an entire abusive pattern. I've agreed with you that the average guy (or woman) cheating isn't an abuser. It has to be part of larger pattern of selfish, manipulative, deceitful behavior. But when it is a part of that pattern, it IS considered abuse.
lovelysoul at July 14, 2010 9:17 AM
Yes, yes, so you went to marriage counseling. Powerful evidence of abuse. And maybe his "TONS" of counseling is to keep him from cheating. Whatever. Point is, it's clearly important to you that you be able to define yourself as not merely a spurned wife, but as a victim of domestic violence. Knock yourself out, but I don't buy it.
I don’t know why you're so eager
Eager? Who's eager? I thought we were having a conversation.
kishke at July 14, 2010 9:33 AM
My ex was diagnosed, at various times, as bi polar and with narcissistic personality disorder. Excessive cheating is just a part of his dysfunctional, pyschologically abusive behavior.
You just don't know what you're talking about, yet it's apparently so important to you to tell me that I know nothing about DV, even though you're not a professional, have never treated me or my ex, and don't have the full picture. That's pretty arrogant.
lovelysoul at July 14, 2010 9:54 AM
"Well, as I've said, I've had therapy. At least 3 therapists have called it emotional abuse - and him an abuser - so you're not as qualified as they are."
you paid too much if that is ALL you got out of your sessions, clearly, they didn't show you where your part lies. Ineffective therapy, IMHO.
Feebie at July 14, 2010 10:12 AM
LS, I have to tell you - you have some mutherfuckin' nerve comparing your experiences with those of DV victims as well as abused children when you have lead such (according to you) a charmed life. Then going on and on about how therapy doesn't work. Fucked up advice I would say - especially when there are those WITHOUT your charmed experience in life that really do have issues that require professional help. Do all? NO. Hell no. But they aren't the ones we are talking about - now are they (you don't hear any of this -do you? Because it;s just ALL ABOUT YOU!). If the DV victim continually engages in these sick behaviors (which of course doesn't apply to YOU) than they need help and would do far better off not talking to your ignorant and self-appointed-victim-du-jour-ass.
Jeezus you piss me off! It is incredibly insulting listening to all your bullshit and watch you maneuvering out of your own self-serving arguments. IF THAT isn't manipulative I don't know what the fuck is.
Look in the mirror and take a seat, Lady!
(And everything that Kishke said, just about covers it).
Feebie at July 14, 2010 10:23 AM
What Feebie said. In spades.
kishke at July 14, 2010 10:38 AM
(...watching LS finger paint with poo-poo)
I missed this before. Very good!
kishke at July 14, 2010 11:13 AM
Amazon!... AMAZON!
* * *
*
!
Notional sharpness! Patience! Amazon!
—
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 14, 2010 12:14 PM
From wiki - for that gallant trio, Crid, Feebie & Kishke:
"Amazons also figure in the accounts of both Christopher Columbus and Walter Raleigh.[29] Famous medieval traveller John Mandeville mentions them in his book:
"Beside the land of Chaldea is the land of Amazonia, that is the land of Feminye. And in that real is all woman and no man; not as some may say, that men may not live there, but for because that the women will not suffer no men amongst them to be their sovereigns."
Jody Tresidder at July 14, 2010 12:46 PM
Applicable how? This person is crazed: Every claim to insight, or relevant experience, or factual detail ("statistics"!) or even disputation vanishes at first challenge behind a fog of self-pity at her treatment by a man... He's sovereign in her soul and apparently will be until the day she dies, time she'll spend masking adult misjudgment as the abject terror of a child. This is your warrior?
Jeez, I'm sorry her life hasn't been an bowl of berries 'n cream. I wish mine had been better, and there are a couple of other people visiting this blog who didn't get a really good hand dealt to them. But no creature with enough sentience to blink their eyes can pretend all the evil in the world is out there while their own hearts are pure. And Jody, no one who takes these issues as seriously as you two appear to want to take them should be so resistant to answering points in a discussion.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 14, 2010 1:11 PM
Meanwhile, be sharp with patient notions, you river-dweller you!
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 14, 2010 1:13 PM
Ya, LS is a real fucking trailblazer, Jody.
Takes such an immense amount of courage to point fingers in every other direction but your own - throw up your hands - and blame everything on the "big bad scary man".
(Someone should hand her a little handkerchief she can toss on the ground to make her dramatic interpretation complete...)
Feebie at July 14, 2010 1:21 PM
I was thinking more like that old James Brown cape thing...
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 14, 2010 1:28 PM
Really, really funny stuff Crid.
Feebie at July 14, 2010 1:29 PM
That James Brown moment was featured in The Commitments. "The Irish are the blacks of Europe; Dubliners are the blacks of Ireland. I'm black and I'm proud."
Yes, Jody, I know what Amazons are. It's the "sharp notions" I've got trouble with.
kishke at July 14, 2010 1:45 PM
>>Really, really funny stuff Crid.
Fuck, it was too.
Jody Tresidder at July 14, 2010 1:52 PM
A few things.
1. everything is abusive to some one, I think France just passed a law against emotional harrasment
2. some cheaters cheat because they like to cheat, for some its not just about sex, its about getting away with it
3. crid your 'if only you'd been (smart/mature/able to see into the future enough) you would have avoid that (situation/relationship/totally random bullet falling out of the sky) is a little inflexable.
I agree with you that many problems in life can be avoided. But not most and certainly not all - in most cases prolems cant be avoided, only mitigated and hopefully corrected.
While you may never have said the exact words, the words you do write and the tone behind them imply that there is no reason or excuse under any circumstances to ever be less than perfect and everyone is responible for what happens to them, no matter what it is. No matter how random or forseeable it may or may not be.
lujlp at July 14, 2010 2:10 PM
"1. everything is abusive to some one, I think France just passed a law against emotional harrasment"
The French would probably surrender to a troop of boy scouts...but, whatever.
Feebie at July 14, 2010 2:19 PM
>>The French would probably surrender to a troop of boy scouts...but, whatever.
The French did not exactly come out of WW2 unscathed, Feebie.
Jody Tresidder at July 14, 2010 2:28 PM
Neither did we, Jody.
Feebie at July 14, 2010 3:00 PM
I know, Feebie. Truly, I do.
Jody Tresidder at July 14, 2010 3:08 PM
French military deaths were 217,600. Some percentage of those, I assume, were Vichy deaths at Allied hands.
UK military deaths were 382,700; US military deaths were 416,800. Russian military deaths were between 8.5 & 10.5 million.
kishke at July 14, 2010 3:22 PM
> a little inflexable.
Is "flexibility" our goal?
Crid [cridcomment at gmail] at July 14, 2010 3:23 PM
Or from the other side, what's more flexible than letting individuals handle their own responsibilities?
Crid [cridcomment at gmail] at July 14, 2010 3:24 PM
You can all beat me up mentally. I guess I'm used to it, but, as such, I see clearly what's going on. Gaslighting.
Time and again, this genious kishke, ignoring that I said "normal" cheating was NOT abuse, tries to make it seem like I'm some crybaby over "nothing", even though I detailed why the emotional abuse in my case - such as having to entertain my ex's mistresses in my home - was much worse than that.
Wow, that's like a tactic right up there with the ex. It's called MINIMIZING. The way it's done is to say whatever you went through is not nearly as bad as "x y z", so therefore you have no reason to feel that you're experienced anything painful.
Whether you guys see it or not, that's emotional abuse at work. What he's saying, and you are joining in as chorus, is "You weren't kicked, punched, or hit" so you didn't suffer any REAL abuse.
This is exactly what emotional abusers do! They say, "At least I didn't hit you!" Oh, so, then, all is well! How dare I complain? Go ahead and cheat on me then...why not bring her over for dinner tonight? I'll make lasagna. As long as you're not HITTING me...then I'm not experiencing anything close to abuse.
Please. As much as some of you hate me you have to be intellectually honest. I never said cheating alone was abuse. I'm not trying to elicit pity. But what has been said is simply untrue, and I can't let it stand.
Emotional abuse is not defined only by hurling insults. It includes a whole host of scenarios - many very specific to the relationship - in which a partner consciously or sub-consciously inflicts emotional pain.
No one knows you like your intimate partner, so no one knows your weaknesses as well as they do. Something that seems innocent on the surface - or to outsiders - may, in fact, be emotionally abusive because your partner knows exactly where those weak points are, and how to exploit them.
lovelysoul at July 14, 2010 4:46 PM
I realize I do tend to ramble on with too many personal anecdotes, and I'll work on that.
Well, so much for that effort...
Jen Wading at July 14, 2010 5:21 PM
Well, see how well you do Jen, when you're being personally attacked. Kind of hard to avoid.
If you read through, I was talking about emotional abuse, not in a personal way, but kishke kept accusing me of not knowing what I was talking about. How could I defend that without getting personal?
lovelysoul at July 14, 2010 5:50 PM
Wow, that's like a tactic right up there with the ex. ... Whether you guys see it or not, that's emotional abuse at work.
Ah, so now we are all abusing you, by disputing your characterization of your experiences as domestic violence. Where will it end?
kishke at July 14, 2010 5:54 PM
"LS, I have to tell you - you have some mutherfuckin' nerve comparing your experiences with those of DV victims as well as abused children when you have lead such (according to you) a charmed life."
Great gaslighting again. I never compared myself to abused children. I shared a story about an amotionally abused child only to demonstrate to you that abuse doesn't always have to be INTENTIONAL because you were maintaining that it had to be or it wasn't abuse. I was merely trying to address your idiocy.
As far as a "charmed life", I certainly never said that either. I'm happy with where I've ended up, and the children I've raised, and the successful business I've built, so, I said I would do it all the same again, but I meant that in the sense that all the difficulty and pain I went through to get here has been worth it, not that the road was "charmed," by any means.
And I do think therapy is limited. They're great at diagnosing a disorder. They just suck at fixing it...probably because most of them aren't fixable. But they won't tell you that, of course, because they're getting paid to "try". I regret the many years I believed those disorders could be fixed or cured and everything would be fine. It was a waste of time and a substantial amount of money.
None of them failed to hold me accountable, nor do I, for getting involved with him. The redeeming factor was my age, though - 19. No therapist has ever been as nasty about that as I've been treated here. In the final analysis, it was clear that I would not have made that choice if I'd been older. Every therapist we went to saw that, so I don't feel I need explain to you or anyone else my accountability.
Actually, our last therapist is now a good friend of mine, and she confided that he even successfully manipulated her, even though she's an expert in domestic abuse, particularly in treating abusers. She's seen it all, yet he had her conflicted and confused. And she was in her 40s, a trained psychologist, so I don't think anyone who's met him has trouble understanding what easy prey I was at 19.
That's the message I'm trying to share. There are manipulators out there THAT GOOD. They even manipulate their therapists, so what chance does an untrained, or uninformed, person have?
lovelysoul at July 14, 2010 5:58 PM
And to answer that - they have a chance if they're informed. But we don't inform our sons and daughters. We send them out into the world hoping their magical "radar" will be enough. Smugly believing that abuse only happens to "those people". It's wrong.
lovelysoul at July 14, 2010 6:05 PM
>>French military deaths were 217,600. Some percentage of those, I assume, were Vichy deaths at Allied hands.
UK military deaths were 382,700; US military deaths were 416,800. Russian military deaths were between 8.5 & 10.5 million.
Kishke.
No snark at all..but happy Bastille day!
(It's still July 14 in the USA).
Jody Tresidder at July 14, 2010 6:51 PM
Thanks, Madame Defarge. (Sitting there knitting impassively while we squabble.)
Isn't it something the way the Russians misplaced a couple of million dead soldiers?
kishke at July 14, 2010 7:06 PM
"Great gaslighting again. I never compared myself to abused children."
Great cognitive dissonance, LS. Shit, ya know - I don't have the energy to re-paste but it's all up there in black and white above (and I'd recommend taking a tylenol before the re-read...)
"As far as a "charmed life", I certainly never said that either."
You said your parents were wonderful to you growing up and aside from the whole cheating thing you and your ex are buddies now (and wouldn't change it...)and own, like, a huge successful business together and stuff...what am I missing?
"And I do think therapy is limited. They're great at diagnosing a disorder. They just suck at fixing it...probably because most of them aren't fixable... It was a waste of time and a substantial amount of money."
Therapy is limited for those who do not choose to do the work on themselves and/or don't take the time or effort to choose a really good therapist- who has specialized in their problem. (Some people don't even need a therapist, some do.) Your husband sounded like he didn't really want to change - it sounds like YOU wanted to change HIM. That's a rather large rat hole to get stuck down.
The therapist I got saw both of my dear friends who are/were in my exact same circumstance. She works on a referral basis ONLY. They went to her for 8 years (between the two of them), and one day she basically said "You don't need to come anymore...".
During our first visit she spent the session laying out the rules...1) "You don't do the work I give you, I won't see you anymore - it would be a waste of your money and my time" and 2) I know what I am doing, I've had experience with your situation in my own life and over 30 years in my practice. 3) You will probably get very angry with me from time to time because I don't spend a tremendous amount of time re-hashing the past (only rehashing that goes on is to figure out how it directly impacts you NOW)"
I knew she was my gal! And for the record, she has got an incredible bullshit detector.
"Actually, our last therapist is now a good friend of mine, and she confided that he even successfully manipulated her, even though she's an expert in domestic abuse, particularly in treating abusers."
You guys are friends, she confided in you she didn't do her job and he manipulated her too. Did you ask for your money back?
"There are manipulators out there THAT GOOD. They even manipulate their therapists, so what chance does an untrained, or uninformed, person have?"
Not the good therapists they won't...and not the people who have cleaned up their own baggage, or never had that excessive baggage to begin with.
LS. For the last time, THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN TO JUST ANYONE.
Feebie at July 14, 2010 10:44 PM
Lou, the more I think about your comment, the more grotesque it seems... I thought about the best way to deal approach this, and I'm stumped. So let's just start at the top.
> your 'if only you'd been
> (smart/mature/able to see
"Your"? You think this is my idea for how the world ought to work? Do you think anyone is asking me how human relations ought to happen? Trust me, this is not so. If they did, our planet would be a completely different enterprise... You wouldn't recognize it. (For starters, you personally would be required to use spellcheck.) No, I'm not offering a design specification, I'm submitting observations.
Let's say you want a world where people pair off as best as possible. You basically have two schemes to work with.
In the first scheme someone tells you who to marry, and you do it and shut the fuck up. The person who tells you who to marry is usually a bitter old man in the family or nearby community, someone who's trying arrange things for other people's fulfillment, including his own, and not just for you. This is how things are done in many corners of the world.
The second scheme is where the people who get married choose each other. I greatly prefer this scheme. The downside is that you have to be a responsible person –or a sensationally, almost impossibly lucky one– in order for it to work well. Luck really can't be relied upon. But this scheme's been working out very well for many people for a few centuries now, including for the best people, which is no coincidence. And you don't need superman powers to do it. Specifically:
> your 'if only you'd been
> (smart/mature/able to see
> into the future enough)
NOBODY is expected to do anything magical, and you're a fool for pretending they are, or a rat bastard for implying that they are. Success at this isn't about being intellectual, or old, or especially strong. It requires sincerity and courage, but these resources are available to anyone.
> you would have avoid that (situation/
> relationship/totally random bullet
> falling out of the sky)
Just don't know what to make of this, but that you have an awful lot in common with LS, and probably a few others here. How are the closest relationships in your life like random bullets falling out of the sky? I mean, YOU CHOSE those people, right? Spouses, at least? This is what one of the commenters was talking about earlier: She dated her husband. Got to know him a little. It's not like vast regions of his soul were going to be unknown. People choose their friends with effort and time and feelings and experience. Each of those things comes from within. And we're talking about the central chosen relationship of a lifetime. Blaming others is ridiculous... Unless you want a fat old man in the village to make the decision for you.
Lou, maybe you think your life is something that's being DONE to you. Done to you by OTHER PEOPLE. I think that's pathetic beyond words. It's pathetic when people think their lives are bad because government didn't make them rich, and it's pathetic when they don't find love because all the meanies in society kept it away from them. Pathetic.
Listen, if you come from a troubled background, I feel bad for you. And I'll give you ONE DAY free and clear to complain. (Maybe a year, if you're still a teenager.) But on that second day, if you're still complaining and not achieving meaningful correction, then you're complicit in your own sorrow.
> a little inflexable.
We covered this, right? What would "flexibility" be like in this context? We're talking about human nature, and how romantic/emotional predators select the kindred (weak) spirits with whom to build their lives of wretchedness. Who exactly is supposed to be "flexible"? Or are you just asking me to be flexible and not talk so much about how the world works?
'Cause that's what you mean, try to remember that you don't have to read the comments.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 15, 2010 2:32 AM
Oh, and one more thing, Lou...
I never fuckin' SAID that. I never SAID what you accuse me of saying, and your characterization is offensive. Even if, as noted just above, it tells more about your life than mine, it's important to remember... I NEVER SAID anything about seeing into the future. This is what CB did in the other thread too. It's freaky behavior on your part.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 15, 2010 2:37 AM
"Great cognitive dissonance, LS. Shit, ya know - I don't have the energy to re-paste but it's all up there in black and white above."
No it's not. It's me responding to two jerks pretending not to know what "emotional abuse" is.
You and kishke, decided to come on here and charge that I wasn't "abused enough" to comment...that I was "pretending to be someone I wasn't". Like anyone would pretend to be an abuse victim...like my comments were illegitimate.
At first, I thought you were just ignorant, so I patiently tried to explain it, using multiple examples, even posting links, which you ignored.
Then, I realized that you were both just playing mind games, being willfully obtuse, to try to fuck with me.
I don't need to qualify my abuse to you assholes. My comments are valid and my insight has already been helpful to the other DV victims here (read the whole thread). To charge that I wasn't legitimately abused was just your way of trying to devalue and diminish me. So is your mocking of my life.
It's good you've had a therapist, but I strongly disagree that she helped. Maybe she didn't let you play mind games with her in sessions, but you still haven't changed.
lovelysoul at July 15, 2010 6:35 AM
You know crid, for a guy who insists on the proper use of quotation marks and quotes you conviently seem to forget to apply such rules to your self.
First I never said you "SAID" anything.
I said the tone and wording of your posts implied an inflexible attitude that everyone was responsible for everyhting that hapened to them no matter what is was.
Sometimes shit happens that you had noidea was coming. I agree everyone is responsible in how they deal with it. And I agree in many instances such shitty situatons could have been avoided. But some cant be.
Now, just to be clear, I never said you said every bad thing in life could be avoided 'if only you had -' and therefore its your fault it happened to you, now get over it.
But that is how you come across
lujlp at July 15, 2010 6:47 AM
"NOBODY is expected to do anything magical, and you're a fool for pretending they are, or a rat bastard for implying that they are. Success at this isn't about being intellectual, or old, or especially strong. It requires sincerity and courage, but these resources are available to anyone."
And you know this how, exactly? It's really getting old with you telling people how easy it is to pick a mate, when you yourself chickened out of the whole deal! You were probably scared shitless you'd make mistake yourself, then couldn't smugly judge others.
All you have is anecdoctal evidence from some of (supposedly) happy friends (who probably fight like cats and dogs when you're not around). There's no evidence that these unions are really healthy. Longevity doesn't necessarily denote health.
Besides, looking at divorce stats, as well as DV stats, there is an alarming percentage of people getting this wrong, despite your apple pie and Mayberry proclamations of how simple it should be.
Now, maybe they ALL come from bad homes, which doesn't seem statistically possible, or maybe - just maybe - there's some degree of luck/unluck involved.
lovelysoul at July 15, 2010 6:59 AM
You and kishke, decided to come on here and charge that I wasn't "abused enough" to comment...
Yeah, after giving the matter much thought, that's what I "decided." It was a huge decision, huge, but it just had to be done.
Listen, dummy, it's not all about you. No one's out to get you. I don't spend my life thinking about your pathologies. These are off-the-cuff comments on a blog. My sense is that your claims of being a DV victim are bogus, so I said so.
Like anyone would pretend to be an abuse victim...
Well, sure, some people would. People who like drama, people who need attention, people who like to instruct others, people who enjoy playing the victim.
kishke at July 15, 2010 8:31 AM
"No it's not. It's me responding to two jerks pretending not to know what "emotional abuse" is."
"At first, I thought you were just ignorant, so I patiently tried to explain it, using multiple examples, even posting links, which you ignored."
You do not know who I am or what I know about emotional abuse. I lived through things that would make your hair fall out. You are the last person I am going to worry about being called ignorant in this arena (or decisive) on account that you are the type of person who can be easily ignored from past experiences.
As far as the rest of your post, you are completely delusional. No one is out to get you - you just don't like the fact we are holding you accountable for your (self proclaimed) victimhood status. So quit pissing on our legs and telling us it's raining...capice?
Feebie at July 15, 2010 9:39 AM
Correction: I meant to say divisive, not decisive above.
Feebie at July 15, 2010 9:42 AM
Besides, looking at divorce stats, as well as DV stats, there is an alarming percentage of people getting this wrong...
Well, why are they getting it wrong? My first instinct would be because they chose the wrong fucking partner in the first place. We live in a society where men and women are free to choose their respective marital partners - what other valid reason could there possibly be for people gettin' it wrong? Don't tell me it's because of climate changes!
Perhaps you get so attached to shit-thinking because it sucks to recognize that there exists better individuals than you: people who exercise their powers of judgment, observation, and experience to avoid costly mistakes that color their lives.
Because if there exists people actively making informed, smart, astute choices, then that would leave you lumped in that other pile: the pile of people who make dumb choices.
But when life just happens and decisions are beyond your control and women can settle down with any guy randomly, then that means people like you get to be absolved of any responsibility for your own terribly shitty decisions.
(Clue: being 19, knocked up and marrying a rich guy because you need a baby daddy would be one prime example of making a shitty decision.)
Jen Wading at July 15, 2010 9:53 AM
Yeah, and people who love playing mind games just "decide" who is legitimate and who is bogus. You determine who's "abused enough" according to your rules because you're such an expert.
Listen, you manipulative prick, I'm on to you. Everything you've said has been designed to demean me or create doubts. Your "sounds like you wanted to change HIM" is a perfect example. You're trying to make me sound like some unreasonable bitch of a wife for expecting FIDELITY in a marriage. That's a beautiful tactic.
I tried to be nice to you when I thought you were just plain ignorant, but I'm not taking your mindfucking shit anymore. You don't like what I've said about psychological abuse because that's your particular forte.
lovelysoul at July 15, 2010 10:00 AM
From the "shit-thinking" article:
"Once upon a time it was considered morally desirable to be a person who took responsibility for your own actions."
Ha! Love it.
(...cue up the wind-tunnel-sound-bite for LS ...)
Feebie at July 15, 2010 10:02 AM
"Because if there exists people actively making informed, smart, astute choices, then that would leave you lumped in that other pile: the pile of people who make dumb choices"
I'm not disputing that I made a dumb choice at 19 years old. How many times do I have to say that? How many 19 years olds out there are making brilliant choices? Not many.
Obviously, I'm not the model to follow. Nobody should marry until they're considerably older than I was.
But, even then, there are variables and circumstances beyond a person's control. What pisses me off, and obviously others too, is this holier than thou, "we wouldn't make that same mistake" attitude. Maybe you wouldn't - but you'd probably make different ones - because choosing a partner is not such an "easy" task.
The ironic thing is that Crid's been divorced (I believe). So what happened? Did he make an irresponsible choice of partner? Were there variables and circumstances beyond his control? How could he possibly have chosen wrong when it's "so easy"?
It's rich for him to sit there criticizing those who've struck out in the game of love, when he has too...and now he won't even get up to bat! He plays it safe because, deep down, he knows there is a certain risk and degree of luck in choosing a life-long partner.
lovelysoul at July 15, 2010 10:17 AM
"You determine who's "abused enough" according to your rules because you're such an expert."
Having direct personal experience with something does not make me an expert, you however, seem to have a different opinion about your abilities.
"Everything you've said has been designed to demean me or create doubts. Your "sounds like you wanted to change HIM" is a perfect example. You're trying to make me sound like some unreasonable bitch of a wife for expecting FIDELITY in a marriage. That's a beautiful tactic."
Look, LS, it's right there...personal responsibility. (I would HOPE what I said would create doubts for you however, it wasn't DESIGNED to be that at all - but you demean yourself, sister, I had nothing to do with that).
Two things I find very helpful to me in my own process of "growing up"... 1) you cannot change someone else, 2) have the balls to focus on yourself. If I am not doing either of those things I am probably being a controlling and manipulative bitch...so coming from someone who has said on just about every post how she is going to edumacate the unwashed masses here and goes monkey-mother-ape-shit when they don't hold her same view point...just who is the manipulator here, eh?
You do think what you want about me, LS and good luck in life.
Feebie at July 15, 2010 10:23 AM
I'm not disputing that I made a dumb choice at 19 years old. How many times do I have to say that?
As many times as you also say things like:
"I came from a good home, yet it still happened."
"It was that sort of a rebellion against boundaries that led me into the relationship."
See your pattern?
Jen Wading at July 15, 2010 10:31 AM
Where's your personal responsibility, Feebie? Where do you get off telling people you don't know about their marriages or analyzing their responsibilities...or claiming that their experiences are "bogus"...or they weren't abused?
Grown up people don't do that. You just wanted to fuck with me. And I called you on it. I stopped groveling to explain myself and took back my power. Look in the mirror yourself.
lovelysoul at July 15, 2010 10:32 AM
Well, Jen it's true - I came from a good home, and yet I still made a dumb choice. That's not denying responsibility. That was making the point that coming from a good home is not necessarily protective, especially at 19. You can come from a good home and still be naive.
You just want to bust my balls too. I know you get some thrill out of it because of your need for vengeance over the time in the past I hurt your fragile little ego. You hold grudges - got that.
lovelysoul at July 15, 2010 10:37 AM
Good Lord, LS. You were the one putting your durrteee-lawwndree out there for everyone in their Uncle to view in horror.
You used your personal (irrelevant) anecdote not to tell everyone about your (sorta) experience with abuse and then talk about a solution...you just keep trying every avenue possible to paint yourself as a poor unsuspecting victim who was cheated on by her husband with absolutely ZERO say in the matter. YOU WANT ATTENTION AND PITTY DAMMIT AND FUCK ALL OF US WHO WONT GIVE IT TO YOU!
Would you rather I have called you stupid? (I don't think you are stupid, by the way) I don't think it's stupidity - I think it was an irresponsible choice that you continued to turn a blind eye too regardless of the consequences to yourself and your children. A choice which you have tried to make appear (like spraying Shalamar on a steaming pile of shit) as if it was completely beyond your control and anyone else would have made the same error. You do it to be the center of attention and to deflect all responsibility for yourself and your actions. "Come, save me O' knights of shining armor"!
My life is RIDDLED with mistakes. THEY ARE ALL OVER THE PLACE. It's pretty pathetic at times, actually. The difference between you and me is that I am willing to take some outside perspective on things and work on myself so I can have a life free of the toxic victim-hood type thinking. I do my absolute best to hold myself accountable, be responsible for my own behaviors and actions and use what little boundary system I have managed to patch together not to dump my garbage off on other people's doorsteps = especially those who I don't know or who don't fucking care about what goes on in my own little personal life.
Feebie at July 15, 2010 10:48 AM
You just want to bust my balls too.
Guilty!
Can't help it...insufferable assholes just rub me the wrong way.
Jen Wading at July 15, 2010 10:49 AM
If you put all your personal life out there for everyone to see, you have no call to be surprised if people comment on it, and no call to be offended if their take on it doesn't agree with yours.
kishke at July 15, 2010 10:51 AM
I wasn't dumping garbage on anybody's doorstep. It's a shame that this thread got hijacked by a bunch of creeps because, BEFORE THAT, there was actually some very constructive dialogue going on with me, Kristen, Jody, and one DV victim, Jen, who might've been helped out of bad situation. But she's clearly disappeared after this got taken over by you guys and your personal need to play mind games.
Crid in his never-ending grumby snobbery, and then you, kishke, and this insufferably horrible bitch JenW, who's still fighting some past grievance because her ego is about as strong as a thread.
If I hadn't had to stop and play defense against all your ridiculous charges and personal attacks, I might've been able to do some good.
Instead, this all became about your need to crucify me for a) not proving I was abused. b)Not taking enough responsibility for the abuse....that I apparently didn't suffer. c) Living a "charmed life" for which I'm not taking enough responsibility for either.
Which is it, assholes? And do any of you give a shit that in all your gunning for me, some DV victims here weren't able to get the support they needed?
lovelysoul at July 15, 2010 11:05 AM
"Oh....the hooorrrooorrrr"
Feebie at July 15, 2010 11:12 AM
LS. Look up: Delusions of Grandeur
Whether these folks get better or not, I can tell you with absolute certainty, has NOTHING to do with you or any of us for that matter. WE just don't got that kinda fucking power over people....
(pattern? anyone, anyone?)
Feebie at July 15, 2010 11:14 AM
I think a rainbow just fell out of the sky and landed on two frolicking kittens.
Jen Wading at July 15, 2010 11:17 AM
That's because you're a prick, who probably never helps anyone. But the whole point of this thread is that DV victims can support and help each other, and this DOES make a difference. But you all stormed the meeting and had the audacity to challenge "how abused" we (particularly me) were. That naturally scares victims off because few will have the strngth to "qualify" their abuse to a bunch of unsympathetic jerks.
No wonder Jen left. So, any good that could've come out of this was ruined.
lovelysoul at July 15, 2010 11:22 AM
(Jen W is a fucking scream!)
A unicorn went down...I repeat, the unicorn just went down....
Feebie at July 15, 2010 11:25 AM
A unicorn just went up your ass.
Funny, hahaha...like fucking grade school. Go ahead form your own little "mean girls" clique. JenW can be the leader. You're all REAL smart. C'mon....give it to me. You know it makes you feel soooo good and powerful.
lovelysoul at July 15, 2010 11:29 AM
> I said the tone and wording of your posts
> implied an inflexible attitude that everyone
> was responsible for everyhting that hapened
> to them no matter what is was.
Aw, c'mon Lou, you never said "implied". I think we've gotta glimpse into your soul, and it's almost Lovely in its desire to be soothed, and hugged, and not held accountable. You say to me Sometimes bad things happen, as if that were ever in doubt... And as if in a free society, you wanted something ELSE to happen besides dusting yourself off, learning from your errors, and moving forward. Y'know, like an adult.
> Now, just to be clear,
You should start being clear much, much earlier in the day.
> I never said you said every bad thing in life
> could be avoided 'if only you had -'
Yeah, you did. You said:
> 3. crid your 'if only you'd been (smart/mature/
> able to see into the future enough) you would
> have avoid that (situation/relationship/totally
> random bullet falling out of the sky) is
> a little inflexable.
So for all the spittle and bluster and screeching the comes shooting out of you from every orifice when someone talks about believing in God, you apparently want to live in a world where people pat you on the head and say Everything's going to be OK, little Louie! We love you for just being you, no matter how naive you are, so you shouldn't have to think too much about the people you bring into your life, because everything's flexible, so when things go wrong, it will never be your fault.
> But that is how you come across
Y'know, I am such a meanie! Because predators and their weak, promiscuously-needy victims reach out into the world to find each other, and I don't mind saying so.
Gosh, it's almost like I want it to be that way! But actually, I'm just reporting. OK, fella?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 15, 2010 11:29 AM
...had the audacity to challenge "how abused"...
The only person who got challenged was YOU.
(Because posters saw that you're full of monkeyshit.)
And the only person who ruined it was you.
(Because you kept insisting on posting your monekyshit.)
Jen Wading at July 15, 2010 11:31 AM
"That's because you're a prick, who probably never helps anyone. "
Not true.
"But the whole point of this thread is that DV victims can support and help each other, and this DOES make a difference."
Sure it does, you just ain't a DV victim.
"That naturally scares victims off because few will have the strngth to "qualify" their abuse to a bunch of unsympathetic jerks."
That is not what scared them off (pssst. it's a stale thread). Something tells me those who are real victims of domestic violence are scared of bigger things than someone not believing multiple bruises, broken bones and police reports. However, it seems there "tolerance" to unsympathetic jerks may have landed them in their position to begin with, I nary say we factor into it at all.
Feebie at July 15, 2010 11:31 AM
"Sure it does, you just ain't a DV victim."
Diminish and demean. Lie. Have you absolutely no conscience?
I could just say "You're not a man" and keep repeating it. Doesn't make it true, but it's a great little mindfuck game to play. PROVE you're man. And I could get you rolling with that for awhile, as you did me. But it's a manipulation, one used by every control freak and psychological abuser out there. Put the other person on the defensive about something obvious, yet impossible to prove. Pretend you don't understand basics. Pretend, no matter what evidence they provide, it's not "good enough".
Keep it rolling. Get others to join in on the mental abuse. Humiliate and ridicule. Feel in power, revel in the upper hand. Wash, rinse, and repeat.
It's all about power, ego gratification, and stupid middle-school bullying tactics, not being constructive.
lovelysoul at July 15, 2010 11:43 AM
"Something tells me those who are real victims of domestic violence are scared of bigger things than someone not believing multiple bruises, broken bones and police reports."
That shows how little you know about DV, as not being believed is a primary fear, especially of those who are married to prominent or successful abusers, who don't "look" the part.
And you all proved that you won't believe. You not only dismissed the entire notion of psychological abuse, but you were cheating apologists. Serial cheating can't possibly be mentally abusive...says YOU (no reputable therapist would say so).
I'm sure the other DV victims read what grilling you were putting me through and left, as they should have, because what you're doing is, in fact, abusive. Demeaning and diminishing.
lovelysoul at July 15, 2010 11:52 AM
>>Because predators and their weak, promiscuously-needy victims reach out into the world to find each other, and I don't mind saying so.
Really, Crid.
I don't know if you're just posing here - but those are the words of a total wanker.
LS offers a great deal more detail about her past personal life here than most - all we ever hear from you is the vanilla version of a child-free divorce from some gal you married much too young, somewhere around the time of the Mayflower, which apparently gives you the right to the world's most microscopic mea culpa.
>>If you put all your personal life out there for everyone to see, you have no call to be surprised if people comment on it, and no call to be offended if their take on it doesn't agree with yours.
kishke,
That's a pretty outrageous understatement.
But you know that.
(Also, good for lujlp for speaking up plainly. He made a lot of sense.)
Jody Tresidder at July 15, 2010 12:16 PM
Demeaning and diminishing.
Couple things:
1. I'm not your fucking therapist. I'll demean and diminish as much as I want.
Why?
2. Because I've no responsibility to lend any credence to what some poster going by a "lovelysoul" moniker posts on an anonymous internet forum.
What you write about your experiences may be true.
Or it might be just a bunch of lies you make up to win anonymous arguments.
I've no way of proving that it's either true or false. Neither do you. That's why skeptical pricks like me aren't so crazy about all those little anecdotal nuggets you love to pepper your postings with.
Jen Wading at July 15, 2010 12:22 PM
> LS offers a great deal more detail about
> her past personal life here than most
Nobody asked for her to. M'kay? Nobody cares. This is not a drama queen's confessional web site. It's plenty feminine, sure.... It's hosted by an advice columnist, fer Chrissake... But it's not a home for soap opera fanatics, people who want to conflate grand emotions into shitstorms of poochy-faced tenderness and understanding.
You, Jody, have frequently shown a fondness for that kind of girly emotional pornography. You enjoy expressions of pain so much that you'll forget to turn off the suffering. But the rest of us, who feel no voltage from these exposures, aren't inclined to give any credit for them... Especially when they've been so heavily processed and edited, leading towards wholly inappropriate conclusions and lessons.
This is not my function in your life. My intimate history is personal business, of no concern to you, and it's profoundly STUPID for you to think that someone has to tell you their private stories before the caliber of their perceptions can be judged. Especially when, as is the case with this woman who presents her heart on her sleeve (unbidden), you prove unable to make a sensible appraisal thereafter. You just want to look in people's underwear... It's not like you know what you're seeing.
Where possible, I've ignored LS petty tales of heartbreak and pain... Her ideas are readily challenged without considering them. When you take them into account, her arguments are further diminished, and I don't know why she shares them. Maybe she likes it when people look into her underwear.
You two could be friends.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 15, 2010 12:48 PM
"What you write about your experiences may be true.
Or it might be just a bunch of lies you make up to win anonymous arguments."
You're right, you can't know, so some benefit of the doubt is in order. I don't know that your name is Jen Wading. That's just what you say it is. But I'm not going to challenge you on that because it's stupid and needlessly provocative, and unless you're going to post a photo of your driver's license, it's impossible to prove. I don't know why you would lie about it, nor would I lie about these things just to "win" an argument.
My personal history seems to only rile people like you up, not win arguments. Either you think I'm too much of a "victim", or I'm too well-off and happy. So, most of what I post is the result of being challenged about my personal life. I was happy to talk only about emotional abuse in a subjective sense, but there's no way to do that when I'm constantly asked to qualify my personal experience with abuse.
You can't have it both ways - attack me for not personally knowing enough about DV to offer advice, then complain when I post personal anecdotes to disprove what you're claiming.
lovelysoul at July 15, 2010 12:55 PM
If you put all your personal life out there for everyone to see, you have no call to be surprised if people comment on it, and no call to be offended if their take on it doesn't agree with yours.
kishke,
That's a pretty outrageous understatement.
But you know that.
No, I don't. That's precisely what happened. I disagreed that what LS experienced falls into the category of DV. I therefore argued that she doesn't have much to say to actual victims. All the subsequent drama is hers.
kishke at July 15, 2010 12:57 PM
Alright, Kishke, why don't you explain why it's not abuse. Why don't you have a debate on facts, rather than personal attacks.
Here is a description I found that describes very accurately what I went through living with a narcissist, even to the part about not ever wanting a divorce, and becoming a "weeping idiot" whenever the spouse threatens to leave (only, in my case, he was also suicidal, multiple times).
It's long, but perhaps you can explain why a spouse living through this should not feel emotionally or psychologically abused:
Serial Cheaters - Narcissists
A typical reason for infidelity is that one spouse may be a narcissist who often becomes a serial cheater. The narcissist is most likely to have many affairs and will pursue anyone they can manipulate with their boundless words and actions.
Narcissists are self-absorbed and tend to be highly charming. They have a constant need for admiration. They view all events in terms of how the events impact them and them alone. They are master manipulators and feel an "emotional high" with each new conquest. Their behavior is often impulsive which can appear exciting. These individuals lack compassion unless it helps them achieve their goals. They are unwilling to see or consider anything from another person's viewpoint. They will continue the emotional control with a target until the relationship becomes too burdensome. They utilize no moral boundaries in their pursuit of admiration and physical activity from the opposite sex; frequently offering marriage, promises, baptism, children, etc. Literally - whatever the target "needs to hear" in order to close the deal is what the narcissist will say and do. Their targets are usually married which heightens the feeling of conquest. They frequently have several affairs going on at once with no regard to the damage caused by their reckless pursuit of self-gratification. Narcissists develop specialized talents such as crying on cue, "elegantly" deceiving without stumble, saying just the right things at just the right time, etc. all designed to aid in attaining their goal.
Their behavior is more than a lack of self-esteem. It goes to the very core of the individual's personality and is a pervasive aspect of their lifestyle. This character flaw prevents them from keeping marriage vows and in the vast majority of cases narcissists will forever cheat on their spouse(s). It is interesting to note that narcissists rarely divorce and will fight tooth and nail to remain married. This is believed to go along with the "need to be accepted by all" mentality that narcissists possess. As strong as their need is to conquer outside their marriage; they turn into weeping idiots if/when their spouse even suggests divorce.
lovelysoul at July 15, 2010 1:09 PM
"Diminish and demean. Lie. Have you absolutely no conscience?"
Have you absolutely no shame?
"I could just say "You're not a man" and keep repeating it."
One, this is retarded. Two, this would be very simple given the fact I don't have the extra equipment necessary to fulfill this requirement. It's kinda an empirical fact unless I am arguing with a crazy person. If you were to ask me to prove it, I'd probably hand you a dollar figuring you were some homeless vagrant in need of some extra spirits to consume thus quiting down your ailing mind. This is a waste of time. Okay? It's your perspective that is off (miserably) LS.
"Keep it rolling. Get others to join in on the mental abuse. Humiliate and ridicule. Feel in power, revel in the upper hand. Wash, rinse, and repeat....It's all about power, ego gratification, and stupid middle-school bullying tactics, not being constructive."
Self-pity and more victim talk (does it ever get tiring?). Me? Power? You are the one that thinks we have all the power in the world to deter a DV on a week old obscure blog thread from seeking help for themselves.
As far as ego gratification - here is how I know when I am operating entirely on ego - I am afraid of being wrong. Considering your behavior, and your postings, this is the last thing I am afraid of at this very moment - Also, I am not making myself responsible for you wackiness - nor some random DV victims recovery process. So, I'd say I'm pretty comfortable that I am not the one being overly ego-centric at the moment.
"That shows how little you know about DV, as not being believed is a primary fear, especially of those who are married to prominent or successful abusers, who don't "look" the part."
Don't. Even. Go. There. Again, I have direct experience with physical, verbal, emotional, intellectual and spiritual abuse since I came into this world and at least 18 years thereafter. Yet, this has never been my primary fear.
My primary fear has always been that I was unworthy of love because of the way I was treated - and didn't deserve anything better than what I had experienced as "normal" growing up. THAT was my primary fear. Never once did I ever fear that people wouldn't believe me about it. Never once. I was afraid they would, and wouldn't do anything about it (because I thought it was normal) OR they would take me away from my family (which is how these things work when you are little).
This further expounds on my theory that from your limited, sheltered perspective you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
And by the way, you smuggly pointing the finger at everyone here and accusing them of being abusers further diminishes YOUR credibility at distinguishing who and what constitutes abuse.
Feebie at July 15, 2010 1:10 PM
"Here is a description I found that describes very accurately what I went through living with a narcissist"
Well, welcome to our own personal vaudeville on this thread, cupcake.
Feebie at July 15, 2010 1:12 PM
>>Nobody asked for her to. M'kay? Nobody cares. This is not a drama queen's confessional web site. It's plenty feminine, sure.... It's hosted by an advice columnist, fer Chrissake... But it's not a home for soap opera fanatics, people who want to conflate grand emotions into shitstorms of poochy-faced tenderness and understanding.
May I remind you, Crid, the starting topic of this particular thread was the opinion of a police officer, with some relevant professional experience, about the positive value of the shared PERSONAL NARRATIVES of domestic abuse victims?
You mentioned way upthread - somewhere! - that it was your impression AA never throws out anyone who wants to join in a advertised open meetings.
Maybe you are right. I don't know if that's a rule.
But your behavior here has been like some bored, lonely wanker who has mistakenly wandered into an AA meeting looking for some entertainment, and has pleasured himself interrupting the proceedings saying: "Hey, guys - ever thought of just putting down the bottle huh?
"Nah, hear me out, okay. Like, maybe the problem is YOU not the bottle? Hey, ever thought of that - you drink only because you're so fuckin' needy & weak?"
Then you carry on - refusing to budge - tossing out insults & dimestore analysis & telling everyone "this so totally cracks my shit up!" - thinking you're just the only one with the balls to speak the hard truth...
Jody Tresidder at July 15, 2010 1:18 PM
Clearly, you have no interest in debating facts without personal insults. I'm sorry you had such a shitty childhood, but the kind of abuse you suffered isn't the only kind. Someone who was hit may not acknowledge emotional abuse as being "real abuse" (although they probably endured the same kind of emotional manipulation as well).
I'm not saying it's on the same level. In fact, I repeatedly declared that it was not. But all abuse does not have to be at the same degree to still be abuse. Diminishing others experiences because you had a "worse" experience is the wrong way to handle it.
lovelysoul at July 15, 2010 1:24 PM
"Clearly, you have no interest in debating facts without personal insults. "
Un-fucking-believable.
"...but the kind of abuse you suffered isn't the only kind. Someone who was hit may not acknowledge emotional abuse as being "real abuse" (although they probably endured the same kind of emotional manipulation as well)."
Are you kidding me with this? No shit, Sherlock.
"I'm not saying it's on the same level."
No, you pretty much are by thinking you have something special and precious to offer to those women who are ill enough to stay in a situation where they've endured a hundred times worse than you have (and participate in it through their own volition) and are hospitalized because of their refusal to accept their consequences and get help.
"Diminishing others experiences because you had a "worse" experience is the wrong way to handle it."
It's in the warped context you have tried to provide us with that the DV victim's experience somehow parallels that of your own life history. That being someone who didn't just have a kinda sorta shitty marriage but actually are so sick they can't even put together that their own actions (or lack there of) is KILLING THEM is where I am diminishing not only your credibility but your common decency and humility.
Feebie at July 15, 2010 1:36 PM
Why don't you have a debate on facts...
Anybody else see the irony of this or are the pixels just dancing a jig in front of my eyes?
Jen Wading at July 15, 2010 1:36 PM
> the opinion of a police officer, with some relevant
> professional experience, about the positive value
> of the shared PERSONAL NARRATIVES
Do you suppose the officer was going to insist that we share those narratives here, in these comments? That they were universally appropriate dialog for any context? Next time you're negotiating a mortgage in the bank, do you think I should be able to interrupt to start a NARRATIVE with a passerby clerk, and to Hell with your transaction?
I think LS is making a sales pitch for stupidity and irresponsibility. I have a competing product, competitively priced, that consumers need to consider.
> interrupting the proceedings saying: "Hey, guys
Again with the quotation marks. Again you're spinning off into a fantasy where I'm a real meanie, and you're working hard to convince yourself that it really happened. You have TRANSCRIPTS and everything! But this ain't an AA meeting, Jody. And still you won't answer the points.
> thinking you're just the only one with the balls
Yes, I am smarter and more perceptive than other people. I truly, truly believe that I'm right and you're wrong. Isn't that sumthin'?
Hey, Lou: What did you mean by "flexibility"? Who's supposed to be flexible?
Hey everybody who disagrees: What exactly do you want to have happen? If you're going to stumble through the world taking no notice of the weaknesses in your own heart which attract bad people to you, how much are other people supposed to care?... Especially people who've conquered their own demons, often at great personal cost?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 15, 2010 1:37 PM
By the way
> - refusing to budge -
Is "budging" like "flexibility"? Tell me more. Not about ME, and how offended you are here on this little blog, but about the "budging" you require when negotiating your relationships in the world. Do you say to your family and friends, 'Hey, peeps... Time to BUDGE, because I've got a thing for an abusive guy!'
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 15, 2010 1:40 PM
>>It's in the warped context you have tried to provide us with that the DV victim's experience somehow parallels that of your own life history. That being someone who didn't just have a kinda sorta shitty marriage but actually are so sick they can't even put together that their own actions (or lack there of) is KILLING THEM is where I am diminishing not only your credibility but your common decency and humility.
Feebie,
I disagree with this quite strongly.
Granted, there are now a ton of comments (& I've lost the will to scroll).
It is my impression that DV victims who are unable to quit a relationship heading for disaster may be handicapped, in part, by the gradual nature of the abuse. They get used to regarding crap treatment as normal. (Someone mentioned the frog in water slowly brought to the boil).
And several times LS has, I think, addressed some of the hallmarks of victim behavior - in response to an increasingly manipulative partner. Loss of normal confidence, not trusting instincts, clinging to absurd hopes etc. And those victim hallmarks were part of her own history (even though she wasn't punched into walls).
So I don't dismiss those insights as being objectively unhelpful to the potential "poster child" DV victim.
Jody Tresidder at July 15, 2010 1:55 PM
Febbie, what I said in the beginning of this thread, and throughout much of it, is that almost all physical abusers are also narcissists.
You're right, I don't know about being put in the hospital, or being beaten regularly, or any of that - nothing like what you (or your family) went through. But I suspect whoever abused you probably had exactly the same manipulative, self-absorbed, volatile personality disorder that I am experienced with.
This doesn't make me an expert on DV, but it also doesn't mean I don't have some insight to offer. If all abusers have the same disorder (or combination of disorders - I'd throw bi-polar in there too, though all bp sufferers aren't abusers), then it gives victims (and potential victims) some critical information.
I found it very helpful to know what I was dealing with, and many victims may not even be aware of these disorders and the very specific traits and responses they can expect.
Knowledge empowers victims. If you know, for instance, that your spouse is going to weep like an idiot, beg, and threaten suicide if you try to leave, then you can be prepared for that mentally. It won't come as shock, or throw you off, or cause you to back down out of guilt. You'll expect this as a typical response borne of the disorder, not their undying love for you.
lovelysoul at July 15, 2010 1:59 PM
>>Next time you're negotiating a mortgage in the bank, do you think I should be able to interrupt to start a NARRATIVE with a passerby clerk, and to Hell with your transaction?
What on earth IS it with you and BANKS in this domestic abuse thread, Crid?
First you wanted to debate BANK ROBBERIES - now you want to talk about applying to a BANK for a house loan?
We are not discussing banks.
Jody Tresidder at July 15, 2010 1:59 PM
> We are not discussing banks.
Any public setting.
When you're checking books out of the library, and you're digging through your purse for your library card, do you think I should be able to interrupt to start a PERSONAL NARRATIVE with a passerby and not worry that you might comment?
When you're buying food at the grocery store, and you're digging through your purse for your credit card, do you think I should be able to interrupt to start a PERSONAL NARRATIVE with a passerby and not worry that you might comment?
When you're bringing your car to the body shop get that dent knocked out of the fender, and you're talking to the mechanic about how much it will cost, do you think I should be able to interrupt to start a PERSONAL NARRATIVE with a passerby and not worry that you might comment?
It's important to be clear with you... SO THAT YOU'LL ANSWER THE POINT.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 15, 2010 2:12 PM
"It is my impression that DV victims who are unable to quit a relationship heading for disaster may be handicapped, in part, by the gradual nature of the abuse. They get used to regarding crap treatment as normal. (Someone mentioned the frog in water slowly brought to the boil)."
I like Jody, and I can see where you would disagree with this statement - however, those baby frogs - if they had responsible and loving mommy/daddy froggies coaching them are going to have all the knowledge they require not to end up that far down the road to hell. People who come from my background (I would actually expect that many from a lot worse unfortunately) have an IMMENSE tolerance for this crap treatment from being forced to live under delusion and/or denial for so long it became a force of habit and indistinguishable from normal human protective defenses.
Do I think a few people (no remarkable numbers mind you) might encounter an abuser by pure chance and tangle with them a bit - ya, probably, but the number is low - and even lower that they would have the tolerance necessary to endure it for too long. Secondly, I would say close to all of those would never repeat this same mistake again. But these are not who we are speaking about, at least I am not. I can see the difference. I just can.
"Knowledge empowers victims."
The only thing this requires of a person is that they know themselves and having a loving environment where this is continually validated. If they don't already have that on board then they are bound to fall into abusive patterns in life until one day they realize they don't have to do it anymore and seek the help they need to work on themselves.
Feebie at July 15, 2010 2:20 PM
Crid,
I've actually thought of something to say to you I THINK I've never said to you before. (Since you are the keeper of the crypt, feel free to check).
With that last comment - there can only be one interpretation.
Either you are bonkers - for making it.
Or I am bonkers - for not having a clue what to make of it.
Jody Tresidder at July 15, 2010 2:35 PM
Oh, Jody, you've come so far... Turned away from so many arguments, resisted SO much logic... Now's not the time to puss out.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 15, 2010 2:41 PM
Sometimes, loving little mommy and daddy froggies aren't enough, though it's a comforting thought.
I suspect, in the case of physical abuse, that is largely true. It would be very hard to go from a loving home, of no physical violence, to a home where you were hit without immediately knowing that what was happening wasn't right.
At the risk of getting too personal again - but perhaps it's relevant - my brother is mentally-retarded, and also mentally ill. So, though I had a loving mom and dad, our home was somewhat geared towards the needs of an emotionally ill person.
If there was a condition of my childhood that predisposed me to loving a mentally-ill person, and being more tolerant of abnormal behavior, it was that.
Still, as a young woman, I could not see that connection at all, as the two cases were so very different. One having the mental capacity of a 3rd grader, and the other possessing an IQ of 180.
Yet, as my husband's illness became more apparent, I didn't react as severely as others probably would have because it was "normal" for me to try to understand and tolerate his issues. That was what I thought loving someone was about, which was surely one factor that kept me in the marriage so long.
lovelysoul at July 15, 2010 2:42 PM
>>Oh, Jody, you've come so far... Turned away from so many arguments, resisted SO much logic... Now's not the time to puss out.
Pisseur de copie
(cf. Muriel Spark)
Jody Tresidder at July 15, 2010 2:44 PM
Then let me answer for you.
No, this thread is not a private therapy session, and the officer would not have suggested that it was. It's silly to imagine that American-style therapeutic homilies, no matter how gratifying to the dramatically-inclined, can answer the problems of the oppression of women in the Middle East; or that even when they're helpful in intimate Western settings, that these patterns can have no other discussion. It's silly to say that victims and abusers don't toil to find each other, and that everyone is equally at risk. It's foolish to suggest that people who see human nature for what it is ought to "budge" or be "flexible".
Anything else? Anything at all? No? 'K, thanks. It was a good one.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 15, 2010 3:03 PM
>>It's silly to say that victims and abusers don't toil to find each other...
Crid,
I'm letting you have the last word.
Specifically, your opinion that victims DO "toil" to find their abusers.
That final piece of crap should do nicely - the perfect topping to all the other shit you've heaped on this thread.
So, with apologies to your buddy Sinatra, here's one more for my (bruised) baby, and one more for the road...
Crid: "It's silly to say that victims and abusers don't toil to find each other..."
Jody Tresidder at July 15, 2010 3:54 PM
So that about wraps it up! Good night, ever'body! Thanks for coming, drive safely, and don't forget to tip that waitress!!
> I'm letting you have the last word
I thought you had already, several times in this thread.
The word's a little bit tart, but not overpowering. What's been going on in this thread –for hundreds of messages now– is not one of Lou's random fusillades from the heavens. Personalities like LS's aren't just unlucky. They march into the world with the will to make things happen, and they're never disappointed. They—
TOIL.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 15, 2010 5:13 PM
"It's silly to say that victims and abusers don't toil to find each other, and that everyone is equally at risk."
The problem is with your word "equal". I never said there was an "equal" chance. That was you - always you - misinterpreting what I'm saying.
But it's constructive to look at what might cause risk. I was talking tonight with my gf, with the abusive husband, and she also has a mentally ill sister. How that might've exposed us both to risk is something worth discussing, but you won't allow it. So sure are you that you've summed the whole situation up.
But good night, drive safe.
lovelysoul at July 15, 2010 7:53 PM
"I was talking tonight with my gf, with the abusive husband, and she also has a mentally ill sister. "
Disabled or mentally ill family members cause an above normal amount of stress on the family. Dis My experience shows me that the other children may (or may not) not be getting their needs met by the parents on account of all the time and energy required to focus on the one child. It also happens in families with a lot of children - one can only spread themselves so thin.
Even if none of this could be avoided, or wasn't purposeful the impact may be the same. I've seen it go both ways.
Feebie at July 16, 2010 9:36 AM
Crid you are being an obtuse asshole. I did use the word imply. After my sentence, which you posted without the qualifer left direct behind it(Whatever happened to quoteing correctly btw? Or is that just when people quote you?)
I clearly stated that you had never used those exact words - but that was the attitude you conveied.
But you knew that, didnt you? You are to fastidious an opponent to ever overlook what someone writes when you go back to copy and paste it.
As for those following you around lapping up all the shit your dropping on this thread
"While you may never have said the exact words, the words you do write and the tone behind them imply that there is no reason or excuse under any circumstances to ever be less than perfect and everyone is responible for what happens to them, no matter what it is. No matter how random or forseeable it may or may not be"
As you can clearly see I did indeed use the word "imply" and quite clearly stated you never said those words exactly but that was the sentiment comming thru on the words you did write
Your just being a jerk, pulling at random threads in an atempt to rattle me like you are trying to rattle LS.
I've stared death in the face too many time to be thrown off by the childish tactics of partial quotes, willful ignorance, and asking questions to which the answer was given before you asked it.
Blow it out your ass.
lujlp at July 16, 2010 12:54 PM
Well Jeez, looks like we're not going to be sharing a game of badminton at Amy's Annual Summer Beach Barbecue next month.
Crid [cridcomment at gmail] at July 16, 2010 7:12 PM
Leave a comment