Voicelessness and Emotional Survival Message Board
Voicelessness and Emotional Survival => Voicelessness and Emotional Survival Message Board => Topic started by: no1where on February 03, 2005, 03:18:35 AM
-
In the course of the last twenty years, a lot of attention has been given to the idea of co-dependency, in fact, so much attention was given to this co-dependency theory that therapist eventually concluded that placing the abusee in the role of co-conspirator to her* own abuse was counterproductive in terms of theraputic value, thus, the brunt of the blame shifted back towards the perpetrator of the abuse.
Given the inherent nature of the malignant narcissist, i.e.: a propensity to seek external rationalization for the misdeeds they commit, this shift in blame back to the abuser is wholly appropriate in terms of theraputic value.
I qualify that last statement with "in terms of theraputic value" because, as I noted, the theraputic rationale is sound; however, given my recent (mercifully brief) bout with Mr. NWonderful, and my subsequent research, it became clear to me that there is indeed a co-dependent component, and that, indeed, through her own complacence and aquiesence, the abusee is partially to blame for her own predicament.
This, of course, in no way is justification for the N's abuse, but it is indicative of how and why this behavior is perpetuated through the generations. There is one vast difference between history and its modern anticendents: given the social limitations placed upon the options of women in historical times, our feminine forebears possessed more logically legitimate reasons for tolerating abusive situations than do the women of the modern age.
Given this considerably greater cultural latitude, what then possesses these women to suffer years of degredation, humiliation, violence and suffering in the name of some twisted form of unrequited love?
My friend posits that women who are attracted to abusive men, quite simply, like abuse. They like to be spanked, violated, bruised, to sting. My friend believes this behavior stems from a pathologically maladaptive interpretation of affection (perhaps rooted in early trauma), and/or a neurogenetic tolerance to pain, such as female redheads have been proven to exhibit.
I dunno about all that, all I know is that I went on high alert the first time this new N guy was pointlessly mean to me. I didn't give the loser time to rough me up with those big old hands of his, I tossed his ass to the curb for unprovokedly calling me a cu%$ Shoo, I got tired of his Mr Pounty-Face infantile dooky slinging fast.
This rejection of abuse at least demonstrates that individuals who have been previously abused do not necessarily seek to relive old abuse patterns through new abusive partners.
So, where's Waldo? Eh? Why, given the exact same life circumstances, do some individuals ignore/embrace the escating abuses and others reject it? Is it a matter of education? I'm a drop-out. Can't be that. Self esteem? I've got pretty flaky self-esteem myself . . . can't be that. It's not that I'm not lonely. I missed the heck out of him today, frankly. But, noooo, I learned when I was a kid that I didn't like people who were bigger than me picking on me. So.
What_is_it? It. It. What is that mysterious variance of temperment or situation or ethos that makes some people compulsively repeat lifelong abusive relationship patterns, while others do not?
Is the outcome symptomatic of the abusees particular personality disorder? Some abused women* turn into co-dependents, some abused women* are BPD, some of them are multiples, others are schizoid; heck, some abused women* have sworn off men* altogether.
Or maybe my buddy is correct in his analysis, some people're just into masochism.
Heck if I know, but if I could figger it out, mayhap save a young'un from travelin' that dark n highway. Ayup.
*Arbitrary gender designation.
-
Why, given the exact same life circumstances, do some individuals ignore/embrace the escating abuses and others reject it?
Hiya, I guess this is your main Q hey? I put up with escalating abuse from a bloke for 6 months. Then I woke up one day and thought, "enough is enough". It was that clear and simple. I'd been mind-f*cked enough and some survival mechanism kicked in. I realised that if I stayed any longer, it would more difficult to get out because I was disintegrating inside. Falling apart.
That survival mechanism also shouted in my head, it's NOT LOVE. You don't love him and he doesn't love you.
Why do women stay? What do they always say - oh but he LOVES ME really. And then they break enough bones for the woman to realise this 'love' is going to kill her. Some women are so badly damaged by childhood that of course they stay, whatever, and die (or murder). But just because someone is staying now, doesn't mean they won't leave at some future point. It just has to get to their particular wake up point.
It's all shades of grey/gray. No two people have exactly the same experiences in life, even twins. Even if we have similar experiences happen to us, we interpret those experiences in different ways.
We're all different :D Ain't that a good thing! Portia
-
Hi.
My friend posits that women who are attracted to abusive men, quite simply, like abuse.
I’d ask him what he means by like. If he means it’s all they know, okay. If he means ‘enjoy’ like kids enjoy ice-cream, I’d start running now.
My friend believes this behavior stems from a pathologically maladaptive interpretation of affection (perhaps rooted in early trauma),
I think the reason we get confused about what affection is, is only because of our childhood. Where else would we get these ideas from? Is your friend using the words like ‘pathologically maladaptive’ or are you? I ask because I don’t like the sound of your friend so far. If those are his words, I’d say he’s trying to sound superior with little understanding of what he’s talking about. If those are your words, try putting these ideas into common words. Using terms like those can sometimes obscure the meanings. The more complex the language, the easier it can be to obfuscate! Or conceal, confuse, complicate….
and/or a neurogenetic tolerance to pain, such as female redheads have been proven to exhibit.
This sounds like a good excuse for those who wish to hurt women, because ‘they don’t feel the pain so much’. I wonder what the objective behind the redhead experiment was? What were they looking to prove or disprove? The objective usually determines the outcome of such tests.
It has been proven that certain races are inferior to others in terms of intelligence. Of course, it depends what you mean by intelligence and how you measure it! I’d take such proven things with a good pinch of salt.
Does your friend generally like having his views questioned? Does he change his views when he has more information? Just a pointer for you perhaps.
-
I find your friend's posit neither overly complex nor obfuscating - just a tad simplistic. As Guest pointed out, defining "like" is pertinent.
When I read your friend's words, I think of "like" to mean "made comfortable". Not comfortable in the sense of "feels good", but in the sense of familiarity.
This holds up if one subscribes to the idea that people re-create the past in order to work out the meaning of it for themselves, either physically or emotionally (or both). Ditto if one believes, as I do, that abusive people are not attracted to us, but rather we are attracted to them and seek them out/make ourselves available, consciously or not. If one has grown up in an environment of physical/emotional abuse, one becomes adept at reading even the most subtle signals of a potentilal abuser, even if we don't know that we are reading.
Masochism is a slightly different animal, but sometimes related. I have met a few otherwise intelligent, bright and successful wonmen who are actually physically/sexually masochistic in their leanings, but who, instead of calling a spade a spade and seeking a relationship specifically based on physical/sexual masochism, cloak that desire by seeking men who are just mean and dangerous in the secret hope that they'll come through with the goods without a specific request from the abusee/masochist. They rationalize these choices in numerous ways (but he loves me! but he is sometimes so good! He's exciting and never dull!). They often do have emotional issues tied up in those hidden desires, but they shield themselves from this idea, as well as the sexual masochism aspect, because it makes them feel "icky" on both counts. They NEED to be the "innocent victim" so they can avoid the socially unacceptable truth about themselves.
Of course, this doesn't work, because the "meaness" of the targeted abuser is generalized rather than specific, thus there is no opportunity for the abusee/masochist to explore that aspect of h/er sexuality/related emotional landscape with freedom and safety. They remain dependent upon the whim of the abuser, rather than in control of/a full participant in their experience. These wo/men would be much happier people if they could overcome their dis-ease with their own feelings/preoccupations.
I went through a long period of somewhat veiled sexual masochism. I would be attracted to "dangerous" types, but like no1where, could not stick around long because their overall character was reprehensible and, well, mean and abusive. Then one day "I caled a spade a spade", found a great realtionship (relatively short term, a couple of months) based on the physical aspects, worked out my desire AND my emotional pain/fury/whatever for awhile, then promptly got over it. In the end I was satisfied, freed, and no longer interested, and had managed this under safe conditions with honesty to myself and partner of the moment. To this day, I remember it fondly bu thave no desire to explore there again. My work there is done.
I am also, however, green-eyed and slightly strawberry-tressed. Hmmm.
Most abusee-types are probably not sexually masochistic, however. I think it is a problem of intelligence - not in the intellectual acuity sense, but in the information sense (as in Central Intelligence Agency). If your entire early life experience informs you that relationships are inevitably abusive and/or that you cannot really know your intimates and must always guess what they really mean/are, then one is probably all the more susceptible to repating the pattern over and over.
Then, of course, ther are the the others, whose early experiences did not adequately inform them of potential danger and its related signals, who approach dynamic, exciting, mercurial abuser types with starry-eyed innocence, finding that they learn about said dangers only after they've been burned, sometimes badly.
In summary, I think there are many different ways of becoming enmeshed in an abusive realtionship. These are probably a good sample, but to be sure there are more, as each situation has its own nuance.
The key to staying out of these relationships is self-knowledge and self-awareness, by and large.
T
-
No they don't "like" abuse. There is an excellent book that explains what happens in abusive relationships. You will understand why some women stay as opposed to others. It's the last word on the subject as far as I'm concerned...
THE ILLUSION OF LOVE by David Celani
bunny
-
They did an experiment(I think in Japan) Where three bottles of rice were kept ---one that they prayed for and talked sweetly to every day, one that they abused every day, and one that they just ignored. At the end of the month, the one that was talked nice to and prayed for was healthy and white, the one that they abused was grey and unhealthy, but the one that they ignored was completely blackened and dead.
-
I find your friend's posit neither overly complex nor obfuscating
No surprise there--you sound precisely like the same person who wrote the original message. Maybe it is just a coincidence :wink: , but the writing style/feel and stiff word use is indentical.
For the record, I agree completely with the guest you are replying to.
I mean, to each their own, and you are welcome to your own writing style for sure, but I have to tell you that I suffered through the reading of your message. Not out of non-understanding, but other annoyances.
Couldn't figure out if you were borderline attempting to troll a little, either. Just by the way some things were said. But benefit of the doubt that you weren't, you did raise a good question [which has been addressed nicely by others].
-
Churchill would appreciate :D
the guest who was agreed with
-
I'm sorry that my writing styles offends you and causes you suffering, and that you find it stiff.
I don't believe that my style is identical to that of no1where; she seems to be much less guarded and careful about her content/approach, despite what you feel is "stiff" word use. I feel our personalities are quite different, although doubtless compatible is some ways...I happen to LIKE (as in ice cream) her writing style and don't find it a bit stiff. And I LIKE the fact that she is unafraid to pose some challenging questions.
I always write assuming that people will understand what I'm saying, although I don't generally imagine that they will be annoyed by the writing itself. Perhaps the content, but not the writing. However, I have found that on this message board, albeit nowhere else, that has been true in a few cases. I can't imagine what the difference is, can you? Could it be the general low self-esteem or general high level of anger that some posters exhibit due their unfortunate experiences? I dunno, but I feel pretty certain that most people find it a waste of their personal time to lodge complaints about style if they are not especially interested in having a dialogue with me, as is implicit in your post.
I am not a troll, nor am I the same person as no1where. I have established an identity here, for better or worse.
I agree with you when you say "to each his own", and although I find arbitrarily critical posts such as yours highly annoying, you certainly have every right to make them. Lucky for me, I don't feel that I'm suffering when I read them.
On the upside, you found somewhere a good question in the midst of your terrible suffering, so I suppose it is not a complete loss for you. I would hate to think that my post was merely a drain on your resources.
T
-
Some women stay because they do not want these monsters to have the children have to go alone every other weekend to a monsters house without protection.I know I stayed for that reason alone.
-
That's a tough place to be - I'm sorry you feel so trapped.
The reasons for getting into such a relationship in the first place are myriad and complex - all the more so for staying there even after you know it's all wrong.
I hope you find a way to break free without further harm to yourself or your children.
T
-
I "put up with" some bad treatment when I was married. I don't think that I am particularly masochistic or codependent.
Reasons why it took a while to see what was happening:
1. The changes for the worst were gradual. At first incidents would only happen a few times a year. Then everything would be OK. This makes it easier to believe that you must have misunderstood, and anyway everyone has bad days.
2. His bad moods and behavior seemed linked to external circumstances - his job, where we lived, etc. Stressful situations at work or elsewhere can bring out the worst in anyone. So it is easy to believe that once his job settles down, once we move to a better house, etc., he will be happier and treat me better. It was only after those things happened and things did not improve - quite the opposite - that I began to realize that something was reallly wrong. Since he could no longer blame the job or the house for his unhappiness, he turned it all on me.
3. I, like many other people, did not want to fail at my marriage. Even though I really feel that I had to leave, I still struggle with this.
4. I loved him and I wanted to believe the best of him. I wanted to help him and protect him. This was the real source of all my "mistakes" and why I "put up with" bad treatment. It is why I tried to keep reaching him even when I knew he was lying to me. I wanted to give him a chance to turn around. I wanted to forgive him. I don't think this was co-dependent or pathological.
I did leave, finally, when it became clear to me that he was bent on continuing his destructive actions. I did not have to deal with many of the complicating factors that so many others have to face - children, money, etc. I can't imagine how much more difficult it must be then.
When I look back, I can see that there were red flags that I perhaps missed or ignored. But at the same time, many things did not surface until we had been married several years. So I don't think it is just a matter of my blindness and poor judgement. I am not even sure that it was a mistake to marry him. Something changed in him - traits that initially were minor became magnified.
My feelings about it are very complicated. In one sense, I am grateful to have escaped, and am getting on with my life quite successfully. At the same time I am devastated - at my failure to keep it together, at the sheer depth of his lies and deceit, and by the loss of my husband - someone who I now feel that I never knew, despite all we shared.
Thanks for letting me share.
-
I feel pretty certain that most people find it a waste of their personal time to lodge complaints about style if they are not especially interested in having a dialogue with me, as is implicit in your post.
You're wrong on that one, in my humble opinion of course. Sometimes it's just dam cathartic to tell someone bluntly [but politely enough], what you are thinking. And sometimes it even helps the person on the receiving end do some introspection.
so I suppose it is not a complete loss for you. I would hate to think that my post was merely a drain on your resources.
Not to worry--only about 40% at the time, and I've fully recovered now. I admit I do have to learn how not to let certain things bother me so much, but we all have our achilles heel(s), don't we. I'm enjoying reading through the interesting responses as least, so you are very right. Not a complete loss at all.
-
Sometimes it's just dam cathartic to tell someone bluntly [but politely enough], what you are thinking. And sometimes it even helps the person on the receiving end do some introspection.
And sometimes, your words are harmful, all to purge your own selfish, cathartic need without concern for that consequence.
Those who harmed me used blunt, polite, (which was confusing), communication. How about you?
-
And sometimes, your words are harmful, all to purge your own selfish, cathartic need without concern for that consequence.
Those who harmed me used blunt, polite, (which was confusing), communication. How about you?
Now, now-- deeeeep breath in, hold for 10----- annnnd release---
That is -- "sometimes peoples words are-- " I am not one of the ones that harmed you so don't project the wrath of the painful others onto me. I do feel sad if I stirred that somehow in you. There are lots of things that can trigger our sensitivities in life and it can't be helped, but I personally would not like to view myself as the brunt of such a thing.
I can't pick out anything I said that could be near harsh enough to "emotionally hurt or scar you". If you have an oversensitivity then best look at the etiology of that and not displace on a peripheral object of propinquity [yowza :shock: -- your writing style might be catchy!]
And yes, it was more of a vent message than a diagloge message, which can very normally happen on such message boards, though can also at times be evoked by certain "catalysts". But truth be told, I was actually being more on the thoughtful and selfless side in my reply. I very kindly left out a portion of my thoughts, and what I said out loud.
Anyway, I had no inkling that you'd give me the power to upset you so much. I don't really want it so please take it back and accept my genuine apology if it will help.
-
So bunny. I'm curious about this Celani book: http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=62-023110037x-2 Is one of his theories that the women themselves may have personality disorders? And if so, which one(s)? Also, is the book more in laypeople terms or for practitioners? Thanks.
Best,
bludie
-
I had no inkling that you'd give me the power to upset you so much.
I am not a bit upset. I was stating my opinion and using an example from my past experience, as an example, and asking you if you can relate?
Reading a whole lotta stuff that ain't here, you are. I don't believe I am projecting a thing. I am making a point though, aren't I?
Can you relate to my point?
-
Book, The Illusion of Love is not about "labeling" men or women with disorders (although that's on the Powell's website). I would broadly say that the men *and* women he describe have BPD. This is about how some women stay in dangerous or really bad situations and repeatedly return to the abuser. Even women in the hospital with serious injuries would return to the abuser. It's not a mystery after reading this. You could get the book from the library to see if you like it. It's very interesting. And it's for lay readers.
bunny
-
One more thing.
There is an excerpt from "The Illusion of Love" on amazon and some reviews. It's also available used.
bunny
-
[yowza -- your writing style might be catchy!]
You weren't responding to me on that one - thank you, Guest whoever you are, for seeing the same truth at the core of this that I do.
For the record, having established an identity, I always claim ownership of my statements by SIGNING OFF:
T
Meanwhile, I think it most kind to let this thread be about the concepts originally presented, and also about other posters who have shared their personal stories of getting into/remaining in abusive situations. Perhaps you wiould be considerate enough of those others, if not me, to agree.
-
I am not a bit upset. I was stating my opinion and using an example from my past experience, as an example, and asking you if you can relate?
Reading a whole lotta stuff that ain't here, you are. I don't believe I am projecting a thing. I am making a point though, aren't I?
Can you relate to my point?
No I can't relate. I'm confused as all heck. You did use the word "your words are harmful, all to purge your own selfish, cathartic need without concern for that consequence---" when you could have used " sometimes people's words, other's words-- etc.
You also assumed a very negative motive and behavior to me via your personal wording, and name called to boot :cry: Wouldn't it make sense for me to view it as a projection?
You know, when people project it is really hard for them to see it themselves. They'll fight tooth 'n nail on it I tell ya---
It may not be the one you think you are making, but you are definitely making a point with me.
So, yes, I changed my initial answer and agree with that part now. I relate to a point you are making with me.
I certainly don't mean to imply anything about you. What' the point anyway, sooner or later we all ourselves, reveal exactly who we really are and where we are "at" within for all to behold.
I'm on an empty tummy right now so gotta run for the moment. I'm dreaming so much of chicken wings [another achilles heel!] but my healthy eating person of annoyance on my shoulder will have my butt in there chopping cucumbers and tomatos for a salad :x
Have a good evening.
-
Meanwhile, I think it most kind to let this thread be about the concepts originally presented, and also about other posters who have shared their personal stories of getting into/remaining in abusive situations. Perhaps you wiould be considerate enough of those others, if not me, to agree.
Oops-- Just read this one as I posted mine a second ago, and decided to respond before signing off for dinner.
Yes, if the dialogue is actually bothersome to anyone [which you have stated it might be to you], I'd be very glad to drop it right now. It wasn't directly related to the issue at hand, I know.
And I respect your kind and diplomatic expression, T.
-
This is confusing. I see what you mean.
You did use the word "your words are harmful, all to purge your own selfish, cathartic need without concern for that consequence---" when you could have used " sometimes people's words, other's words-- etc.
You're right! I was adding to your statement. Ok..I'll reword it now, as you suggest.
"Sometimes people's words are harmful etc...."
My point is...having a voice does not give us free reign to say whatever we want to whomever we wish whenever the urge hits, even if we do so politely, if.......what we say causes harm or has clear potential to do so.
My opinion. Blunt and is clear and may be necessary sometimes. Polite and kind is clear and is often the most useful. Catch more flies with honey plan. My opinion again.
You also assumed a very negative motive and behavior to me via your personal wording, and name called to boot Wouldn't it make sense for me to view it as a projection?
Yes. I understand now, that you meant to say "people's" and in that case, so did I. I didn't assume you had a negative motive but rather a focus on self, without concern for another, although now I mean "people" could have that without concern for other "people". On the other hand, didn't you make the initial statement in a personal sense, in regard to your own personal idea and feelings?
Are we having fun yet??
I did actually feel bad afterwards for using the word "selfish" because I knew I was doing exactly as I was trying point out as being not the thing to do (being blunt and doing it as an example but at the same time....I knew it might produce the same outcome, which it seems it did, cause you harm, hurt your personal feelings, which I did not mean to do, and which I am sorry for--I'm sorry for calling you a name).
You know, when people project it is really hard for them to see it themselves. They'll fight tooth 'n nail on it I tell ya---
Agreed.
I relate to a point you are making with me.
I can relate to your relating to "a point" but not the one I was making.
Ok then. Have it your way.
Enjoy those wings (or alphalpha sprouts). Whichever voice gets to be boss.
I'm trying to make healthy food choices and doing a fair job lately.
So I can definately relate.
-
I just wanted to acknowledge your reply, guest. Thank you, and I appreciate your apology.
Out of respect regarding what I said in my message above yours about ending our side-track in discussion from the original topic, I won't say any more on the subject between us.
It was interesting while it lasted though! And I was actually beginning to "have fun", as you say :), though I can also see why it might be best to heed the suggestion to end it.
i'm a bit awkward at knowing what to say in endings--- Er--we'll always have Paris? heh :shock:
-
Ouch, my head hurts. Um, what would we like this thread to be about, anyway? I'm going with the bit about women and abuse.
No1where: I have a friend who is certain (and this is not the first place I have heard it) that women like men with a little bit of "bad"....that the really nice guys are a bore. She totally "got" why I married my exN husbands, and doesn't get why I love my nice guy. Oh, by the way, she has some pretty major head issues...men/realtionships in general being some of many.
In my own case, it took me years to figure out. And in many years more, I may come to some other conclusions. But here are a few:
I had a pretty good childhood, with parents who were majorly in love and respectful of each other, so I didn't "learn" to accept abuse. Instead, I had no clue what that was, but really thought I could fix someone's problems.
Despite my pretty good childhood, I had lingering esteem issues, more tied to the Catholic church (ok, so my parents did do that to me!) than anything....as a "sinner", part of me sought out validation for my negative self concept and rejected true loving behavoir in exchange for "dicey".
When I realized I could love and forgive myself completely
(took some real core belief changing), I could not accept less from a partner.
So when people say: women like abuse, maybe they mean women who don't like themselves like abuse.
Could that be it?
-
You're welcome.
So did you have the wings or tomatoes and cucs (and I hope, at least, alphapha sprouts)?
Looking forward to Paris.
Yes, out of respect. Good idea. Back to the original topic.
-
So when people say: women like abuse, maybe they mean women who don't like themselves like abuse.
Could that be it?
More likely, women who don't like themselves think they deserve abuse.
-
Tomatos and cuc's-- No alfalfa in the house or would've. But I sprinkled flax seeds, and that should count for a lot.
:)
-
Ok-it’s me, above guest, posting on the topic :wink:
So when people say: women like abuse, maybe they mean women who don't like themselves like abuse. Could that be it?
I’d say “women who don’t like themselves” can have several deeper issues that tend to leave them more vulnerable to putting up with it.
For example, abandonment issues, “emotional dance” issues that they learned from childhood that are so familiar to where it is all they know how to play out, or they are trying to fix a childhood pain/right a childhood wrong aspect of a relationship with a parent. Trying to fill a desperate inner need--but just in the wrong way.
But I think as eluded to, the crux is self esteem. No one with a healthy and strong self esteem would put up with abuse.
The sad thing is that it can take so little to damage the self esteem of a child and so long to build it up again once it’s happened. :(
-
The sad thing is that it can take so little to damage the self esteem of a child and so long to build it up again once it’s happened.
Isn't this the bottom line? And once that child grows into an adult, with poor self esteem, if they end up involved in an abusive relationship, is it so surprising?
So the beginning of the cure then, might be to improve the self esteem? (cure being--the person gets what is needed to help them leave the abusive relationship).
GFN
-
They did an experiment(I think in Japan) Where three bottles of rice were kept ---one that they prayed for and talked sweetly to every day, one that they abused every day, and one that they just ignored. At the end of the month, the one that was talked nice to and prayed for was healthy and white, the one that they abused was grey and unhealthy, but the one that they ignored was completely blackened and dead.
Just wanted to say Bloopsy, this really stuck in my head and thank you. Reminds me of the babies in the Romanian 'dying rooms' who were never touched etc. Ignoring is the cruelest thing, even though I feel that torture is the cruelest - it really is ignoring, certainly for babies.
Thanks for the rice Bloopsy, P
-
Actually there are women in severely abusive relationships who are quite successful, whose self-esteem in many areas is high. For instance, Dr. Susan Forward (psychologist) has written books about abusive relationships and had an excellent radio show that I listened to. She advised a lot of abused women on her show. She was extremely calm, knowledgeable, confident. During this time, I later found out in her book, she was in an abusive marriage. So it's not as simple as self-esteem although that's definitely a factor. The book I mentioned explains it.
bunny
-
Bunny:
Haven't read the book so forgive, but it's got to be low in the internal emotional area, or set of beliefs related to romantic relationships.
It just doesn't compute intuitively or practically that someone with a very high sense of self value and worth in that area would allow themselves to be treated so horrifically on a continuous basis.
I think our sense of self esteem/worth and confidence differ in areas. That these qualities are not equal across the "emotional board".
So for example, in the area of employment, which can be related to a different set of inner beliefs for some, it could be on the higher end, while related to our more personal, individual selves and romantic relationships it can be very poor.
Sometimes where self esteem/value/worth is very low in one area, individuals can feel compelled to over-compensate or "over achieve" in other areas where they do feel stronger, such as career. So, no surprise there can be very successful business people who are being abused privately.
I see that you did say "esteem ok in many areas", not in all areas. Agreed. Though my guess only, is that if it is low enough to allow for ongoing harsh daily abuse for years, then it is lower in general across the board, than higher.
When it gets higher across the board, these women have the opportunity to gain the momentum they need to boost the overall esteem enough to affect the lowest areas, and begin to think about leaving the abusive relationships.The abusers seem to somehow know this and try to isolate their partners.Any input from family, friends, any new experiences, work promotions, new school studies, are a huge threat to the abuser because they figure it might change their partner's perceptions and they might begin to become stronger {more esteem} in other areas, which will cause them to be stronger in the area of the relationship, and not put up with the crap anymore.
So if we are specifically talking about staying in abusive relationships I think low self esteem, sense of value, self worth in the area of relationships only is a very key factor.
I define self esteem/worth/value as a quality of the core self and even global beliefs we have about the circumstances at hand, that came out of prior learning and life experiences.
MVP
-
I am reading "The Road Less Travelled" by M. Scott Peck right now. I just read the section last night that delas with masichism in relationships. I think I am starting to understand wht that term means in this situation.
I don't like the way my wife treates me. I have told her many times. I have told her many times that I would not put up with her verbal and emotional abuse. Yet, here I am still married to her after all these years.
Masochism in this situation doesn't mean I lLIKE the situation, but there must be something I get from this situation that I believe I need. If there weren't something important about the situation, I would just leave. Iv'e done that before with other people in other situations. Why not here and now with her?
I'm not sure exactly what need I have to be met in this, but I grew up thinking that the world is clueless and just doesn't care or value caring, since that's how my parents came across to me. I don't know if staying in the situation is to show that people really are like that so I'm justified somehow in my feelings or beliefs? If so, why can't I just accept that those are my feelings and beliefs? This, despite that fact that I consciously believe that people are basically good and caring, but some have problems that keep them from being open, aware, or connecting. Am I trying to "fix" the world by trying to fix my wife before I am able to fully emotionally trust and move on? Neither of these quite fit, but the answer feels like it is in this general area for me.
I will tell you that I understand the "Battered Wife Syndrom." In the past I didn't understand that if someone is hitting you, why not just leave? It's very hard when it is you in the situation and it doesn't even make sense to yourself why you stay.
-
Longtire, I think you nailed it pretty eloquently, at least for some (and maybe most) cases.
Although I still think there are some "accidentals" (Mum's story is a good example), where there was an absence of information about or modeling of abuse to the point where the abusee is just simply unprepared to anticipate threat, I think most others are looking for something.
Back to re-creation theory:
In my own experience, I was not a little frightened by the prospect of having a child. Pretty scared of the potential to repeat the past. I did have a couple of good things going for me, though: having spent several years in the field of developmental disabilities (MR/ED/Autism) and effective, humanizing behavior management (this, I swear by as having made me a better parent than I would have been without it), a partner who WANTED (even initiated) to be a father, and fan-damn-tas-tic genetic potential between the two of us.
However, I was still a nervous wreck at the thought. I had always believed I would not have children, but I had to admit that I really did want to, were I to be honest about it. I talked to a therapist about this, though, and he said he thought it was a good idea, as it would give me a chance to re-create my past as it should have been, if I really wanted a child and was up to the task, as he thought I was. I decided to heed his words, and I'm very happy about it today.
In this case, it has really worked. My daughter and I are close like I have never been with my own mother, and she's confident, lovely, and getting on quite well despite the usual pitfalls of childhood.
This CONCSIOUS re-creation strategy worked (so far, so good, anyway).
I thknk we can get sucked into and remain longer than is healthy in situations where we are seeking to re-create and ultimately revise on some level, but are not yet conscious of what exactly it is we're trying to accomplish/learn/gain.
That's the hard part, I think.
If you brought that question to a therapist: "What could I possibly be trying to gain by staying?" you might get some good and useful help in reaching an answer. Or you may, now that the question has been raised within your own mind, be able to draw a solid conclusion on your own.
In any case, this question is an excellent one for any person who feels trapped or is a repeater to ask of themselves. Thanks for bringing it around.
T
-
MVP,
You make good points and I agree.
The only difference in what we're saying is that I am also talking about the attachment and traumatic bond between the woman and her abuser. That is slightly different from self-esteem and is a very powerful force keeping them together.
bunny
-
for al the replies. I liked the rice fable too. Some of those simple parables are the most powerful.
I write stiffly, eh? Is this a creative writing class or something? Sheesh, everybody's a critic. It's a damn good thing my <i>editors</i> like stiff. LMAO!!!!!!!!!! :roll:
Oh, and guest, you have a nice writing style too. Stiff. *wink wink*
Uh-huh-huh, Beavis said, "stiff." Uh-huh-huh.
-
Don't know about the rest of you but I'm getting ultra-confused by all the 'guest' posters. I know there have been problems signing in but you can still put your name at the top of any post?
Maybe I'm just thick - no, hang on - that's what my Mum thinks and it's not true!!!!!
-
I write stiffly, eh? Is this a creative writing class or something? Sheesh, everybody's a critic. It's a damn good thing my <i>editors</i> like stiff. LMAO!!!!!!!!!! Oh, and guest, you have a nice writing style too. Stiff. *wink wink* Uh-huh-huh, Beavis said, "stiff." Uh-huh-huh.
ok--I do apologise for that lol-- Yeah, I know I can pull out that writing style, too. I guess as the saying goes-- "it takes one to know o... :wink: And you're right, you probably do well in your field, and are laughing all the way to the bank!
MVP {I guess I will use that sig. from now on}
-
thanks, Serena for bringing that up. It would be nice to know which guest is writing....Oh, and my username is mum but I'm not your mum (I don't think!)
-
T testing, here...to see if it show up as username.
Nearly my thought, no1where (BTW - is that number one where or no one where?):
Uh-huh-huh, Beavis said, "intro to expository writing 101." Uh-huh-huh
T