Gale Warnings

Radio Silence and Psychological Allergies

2011-06-15T20:45:00.007-04:00

Currently dealing with some unbloggable challenges (can't anonymize them sufficiently midstream, unfortunately).

Am hoping to be past the worst of them in another month or so. Had no idea I hadn't posted in so long.

The enforced silence is frustrating, because the things I'm dealing with fall squarely within the context of this blog. I guess I'm getting another lab practical - or, more aptly, going for my black belt.

When it's over and I can post about it, I will. Whatever the outcome.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Meanwhile, a different kind of story about the effect of abuse on groups:

A while back, I realized that all work and no play make Stormchild an extremely dull crone, and I decided that a bit of volunteer work would do very well as "play". Found a nonprofit that could use me at odd times, and they were tickled pink to have me as a resource.

Didn't work as advertised. Found myself being not only challenged, but challenged in very hostile and aggressive ways, whenever I suggested anything whatsoever. This was a fascinatingly uniform response - all levels of the outfit exhibited it. It was also a fascinating double-bind, in that these people would first approach me for suggestions or assistance, which is what they'd brought me in to do... then nitpick and invalidate whatever I said, sometimes not even waiting till I'd finished saying it.

Fortunately I wasn't spending much time at this, but unfortunately that meant it took a few weekends for me to accumulate enough experience to see the pattern. After about twenty hours total, I'd sampled this behavior from most of the staff and was drafting my resignation (wondering idly who would blue-pencil it or suggest an alternate layout) when one of the most senior staff members glided up to my desk and Asked My Advice On Something.

I decided it was time to put my resignation into effect, so I looked him in the eye and said: "I'm sorry, Phil, nothing personal, but it's become obvious to me that there's no advice I can give you - or anyone here - on this or any subject - that is going to be taken at all, let alone taken in the spirit in which it is offered. In the three months I've been coming in, every suggestion I've made has been shot down in flames, without even the pretense of serious consideration. I'm wasting my time and yours - not just you individually, your whole outfit. You need a [my pet interest] advisor whose advice you want to take, and it's high time I let you get back to searching for one. It's been interesting, but I'm not doing you guys any good."

He blinked, stared, and slowly sat down. "Say again?"

I said again, with embellishments.

"We've been doing that to you? Seriously?"

I told him it would be impossible for them to have done it any more seriously, believe me.

Long pause. Looking over my shoulder into the middle distance. Throat clearing.

"Well, I hadn't realized we were coming across like that, but now that you say it, I should have. And I think we should have come clean about this a while ago.

We were desperate for someone who could give us advice on [my pet interest] because none of us has ever done [my pet interest]. Not one of us, ever. It's a huge hole, smack in the middle of our operation. We've realized that without a good understanding of [my pet interest] we're up the creek in some major ways.

Thing is, it's been killing us to admit it, and obviously, we've been taking it out on you."

Yeah, I said, you have, but I certainly wouldn't have guessed that was the cause. And this is when The Lesson arrived. Her name was Sheila, and she had been one of the nonprofit's founders, along with Phil and one other senior staffer.

Sheila, it turned out, didn't know squat about [my pet interest] either - but ah, she thought she did. And she talked about [my pet interest] nonstop... in the halls, in the lunchroom, in the restroom, in her office, in their offices, and probably in her sleep. But based on what was quoted to me, it was all smoke and word salad... and since she never stopped talking, nobody ever had a chance to ask her any questions. And since there was no substance to what she said, nobody learned anything from her, either; how could they?

At least, they didn't learn anything from her about [my pet interest]. But oh my, they learned to hate hearing someone talk about [my pet interest]. They learned to hate it so much that after Sheila finally ran out of smoke and mirrors and decamped, they couldn't unlearn it long enough to actually listen to a different person who did know something. Even though they desperately needed to listen and learn, and I desperately wanted to teach and explain.

That's one I'd never seen before.

And no, I didn't take Phil's word for it. I came back, the next weekend I was scheduled to be there, and I asked Dana, and Sal, and Buddy, and Dwayne. One at a time.

Same story, different epithets.

And a really interesting thing happened. As each one of them - including Phil - told me about Sheila, and her neverending barrage of word salad (my term; their terms were far less family friendly) - I could see them relaxing, and for the first time I realized how tense they had been around me. Almost clenched with tension, and I'd never realized it.

Then it struck me that they had all, almost certainly, been afraid of Sheila, and therefore they'd been afraid of me!

Afraid that, if I did in fact know anything about [my pet interest], I'd be contemptuous of them for not knowing about it; and afraid, at the same time, that I didn't really know anything more than Sheila did;

Because they knew nothing, except that she had known nothing; so how were they to judge if I really knew anything?

If your head is spinning at this point, join the club. I had never realized that abuse could take this form, and have this effect. But Sheila was, in fact, abusive; she monopolized their attention, consumed their time, and gave nothing substantive back. The entire organization had become unable to learn about a topic they desperately needed to understand. It was as though they'd become psychologically allergic to it.

The story has a happy middle. I suggested three things: get a second volunteer advisor in who also knows about [my pet interest], let me assist in picking them, and compare our input. And God be thanked, THIS suggestion, they listened to.

Mike, luckily, has been doing [my pet interest] even longer than I have; even more luckily, he's retired; and that makes him available on weekdays. Best of all, they ask him, then they ask me; or they ask me, then they ask him; and they're getting the same, straightforward answers from both of us, independently.

Which they're now listening to. At this point, the nit-picking and invalidation is gone, and I think Mike's found a second career ;-).

And that's even better. Because glad as I am to have helped with all this, I'll be even more glad to get my weekends back.

Don't Make Me Come Down There!

2010-10-01T18:54:00.003-04:00

I do not like to "throw my weight around".

For one thing, I'm at an age now where my literal weight is a health consideration :-) ; I don't want to have enough to throw around with any significant impact. [So far so good, but it's an uphill battle.]

I don't like throwing it around figuratively either. Recently, I've been doing a lot of this, and repetition has not reduced my distaste for it.

I've found myself "leaning" on people in order to make them do their jobs - in situations where others were at serious risk of harm, because of these persons' inaction and indifference. I had to lean very hard, and it was pretty revolting, because this was a situation in which people could easily have been killed; that was obvious, yet nobody seemed to care. You'd think... but sadly, you'd be wrong. People were injured, several people in fact, and the indifference remained.

It's gone now, and so is the problem. But I feel as though I need a shower on the inside, because of the way I had to behave in order to get the issue taken seriously. Threat-making is not my style, even when the threat is legal, obvious, and entirely justifiable. Ugh. Brrrr....

Meanwhile, the Indifferent Ones are still very much with us.

I've also had to interpose myself between some contractors and a bullying manager. This story continues to unfold; I can't fully "anonymize" it until it's done, but suffice it to say: you haven't seen ugly until you've watched a bully switch sides, turn on one of their henchmen, and try to throw that person under the bus, instantly, to appease you, because they've suddenly realized you have more power than they thought.

I'm not sure what's ugliest about that: the instantaneous, cold-calculating betrayal of "their own", or the belief that I wouldn't see through it. Brrrrr, and ugh.

But this is where the rubber meets the road, in terms of dealing with abuse.

Somewhere back in these last 3 years of musings, I once made the comment that abuse must be constrained. That if unconstrained, it escalates, because abuse is a progressive disease, and to tolerate it is to reward it, as with any other progressive disease.

I was a bit too blithe about that, because I kind of forgot to add: guess who gets to constrain the abusers?

Who else? The people who recognize that abuse is going on. Who else can, or will?

And that means throwing your weight around, because abusers do not respect others' feelings or needs; they do not respect courtesy or civility; they respect power, and power only.

Ugh. Brrr. I need a bath.

To be continued....

Complexity vs. Complication

2010-05-18T21:01:00.004-04:00

This is a concept I've applied for years, occupationally and elsewhere, but I've never really seen it articulated. After explaining it to several junior colleagues and watching their "aha" reactions, I figured it was probably worth posting here.

My colleagues and I are 'problemsolvers'. That's not what we're called, and it's not what our organization thinks we are, but it's the main thing we do. We disentangle little forensic messes, solve small scientific mysteries, and pull people out of metaphorical quicksand; those of us who are good at it can see a mess approaching from a distance of months or years, and those of us who are really good can unravel said mess long before it becomes more than a furrow on anyone else's brow.

When you are a problemsolver by profession, you pretty much HAVE to be a "defensive pessimist". In the midst of corporate happyspeak and the Religion of Positive Thinking, you have to think critically, think independently, and consider What Can Possibly Go Wrong, because most of the time, with the world so real and all, Something Will.

You also have to be sufficiently realistic about human nature to accept that You Will Not Be Thanked For Noticing It, and You Will Rarely Be Acknowledged When Fixing It, but, once the dust settles, They Know What You Did For Them (if they are at all worth doing it for). And that has to be enough. If you're in it for the glory, you need to be elsewhere, because there is none, and never will be; but there can be immense, profound, and lasting satisfaction.

So how does this all relate to the issue of complexity vs. complication?

Easy.

That's the first test you apply when sizing up a problem, because it's the one characteristic that tells you the most about how solvable said problem is going to be.

If it's complex, there's probably a lot going on, and lots of bits that connect to other bits. Cause and effect stuff, and lots and lots of details, and all the details are going to be relevant.

But:

The details can be sorted out into a sensible conceptual framework. And the cause and effect can be worked out by someone who is good at pattern recognition - intuitive - AND, most importantly, once you "get it", with something complex, it tends to stay "got". And once you've "got" the complexity, the solution to your problem is usually close at hand.

Whereas:

If it's complicated, there's always a lot going on, and lots of bits that might or might not connect to other bits, or seem to connect sometimes but not at other times. There seems to be cause and effect, but it's hard to be sure which is which; and there are certainly lots of details, but they're hard to pin down, and they don't always stay pinned.

and:

nothing stays put. As soon as you think you have the details sorted out, someone challenges the basic assumption on which the whole system rests; or someone else issues a new Standard Operating Procedure that completely contradicts the one that was in effect before.

Complexity, in other words, is a problem of connectivity. System interrelations. Once you figure out what systems are involved, and how they are relating, you've usually got a permanent handle on the problem.

Complication, however, usually arises from the exact opposite. Disconnection. Systems that clash rather than relate. Rogue factors - such as "politics", which is just a polite term for human cussedness: things ranging from self-indulgence and laziness through abuse of power all the way to major dysfunction.

If your problem is complex, odds are you'll be able to solve it, once you've grasped the situation that is giving rise to it.

But if your problem is complicated, odds are you won't ever solve it. It almost inevitably has its source in a person or a group; and there's likely to be little or no real interest in solving whatever underlying problems produce it. The reason this is so can be summed up by Stormchild's Paradox:

Decent people and organizations behave decently; thus, it is rarely if ever necessary to compel them to do so.

In other words, if you have to ask a person or organization to behave decently, you're defeated before you begin.

Learning to distinguish complexity from complication, and developing containment strategies for complication where possible, is the Professional Problemsolver's Holy Grail.

No No Makitstop Makitstop No No Auugghhh

2010-02-15T15:35:00.006-05:00

It's snowing, here in Mid-Atlantic Sprawl.
Again.
The drifts from last week's blizzards have the traffic at a crawl.
And then?
Schools close, mass transit folds, but we'll be told to brave the squall.

If this were Buffalo, one would not mind;
For there
Winter, though harsh, is sober, and predictably inclined.
We bear
The "flakes of wrath". If Winter comes, can Spring be far behind?

Yes, Mr. Shelley. Yes it can. Yes.

Auugghhhh!

*

Bleak Midwinter and Then Some

2010-02-10T22:41:00.002-05:00

"Snow had fallen, snow on snow,
Snow on snow
In the bleak midwinter
Long ago."

If I had known what the past ten days would be like, here in the Mid-Atlantic, I would never have posted that hymn...

We have received, where I live, approximately five feet of snow, dropped on us like sandbags, in two storms three days apart. I've lived in New England and Upstate New York, where this is nearly-normal behavior; here in the Mid-Atlantic, this is a 200 year snow. Maybe longer. This is the most snow we've seen since recordkeeping began, in some locales.

Folks around here do not, trust me, deal well with frozen precipitation. Some seem hell-bent on proving that denial kills - they'll go barreling down the slush-covered Interstate at 90 mph, devil take the hindmost. Others hug the shoulder, flashers on, when large, soft flakes are falling at a rate of one every 30 minutes or so. Reality, as the late lamented George Carlin liked to say, is somewhere in between.

But I have to say, I've seen real heroism in the past six days. And although this has to be anonymous, doggone it, I want to say thanks.

Thanks to the brave, inexhaustible souls who plowed... and plowed... and plowed... the parking lot in my apartment complex, Friday into Saturday. And to the even braver souls who were out there in the thick of it, at six a.m. Saturday morning, with snow shovels.

And God bless the crew who were doing the same thing across the street, in the little shopping center whose proximity makes this apartment complex such a terrific place to be. All night Friday I looked out the window and saw truck headlights, plow blades, heard the heavy equipment rumbling and the back-up alarms peeping, as the snow lashed down and sideways.

This is NOT Buffalo, this is just a little shy of Washington, DC. And these guys were going like pros, like they'd done this all their lives.

Heroes.

Because on Saturday afternoon, my elderly neighbor, the one who walks with a cane, discovered that he needed a refill on a prescription that he'd thought was well stocked... and it wasn't one he could afford to skip. So, being the kind who takes care of himself, come what may, off he went to the drugstore across the street.

Which was open.

And he went on foot. [By the time I knew about it, he was already coming back, dern his sneaky hide.]

And he did not as much as slip, because those guys, the ones with the plows, the ones with the shovels, the ones going peep peep rumble rumble all night long, had completely cleared the way.

He strolled along through aisles of snow up to his waist, and didn't as much as get his galoshes wet. It was like the Parting of the Red Sea.

Heroes.

I wish I could put their names on display here. I'd post them in crimson and gold.

Unteachable

2010-01-30T00:29:00.009-05:00

CZBZ has added a link to John McManamy's blog on her blog page, and my first read there stopped me dead in my tracks.

Mr. McManamy is a journalist, and bipolar.

The post linked above includes a description of his experience, as an invited speaker to a grand rounds session of practicing psychiatrists in Princeton, NJ ...

... where he spoke from the authority of his experience, and the experience of his authority - as a journalist, a science writer, and a person with bipolar disorder.

At the end of his talk, there was a mass stampede to the exits. As one, the MDs fled.

Mr. McManamy took the position that this might not have happened if he, the speaker, had an advanced degree. With that membership card, he believes, some minimal courtesy and acknowledgement would have been extended to him.

I am going to respectfully disagree, because I have such a degree; and I worked in a field closely allied with mental health for some 25 years; and I have seen similar stampedes, smaller in scale, on several occasions. Caused a few of them, in fact.

Please read Mr. McManamy's post, then consider the nature of his crime.

What Mr. McManamy actually did, whether he realized it or not at the time, was tell these people to DO THEIR JOB.

To engage with patients. To care; to consider that it is not enough to send someone away with a prescription in their hand.

To act as though people matter, even "damaged" ones, even psychologically or neurobehaviorally "damaged" ones.

To act as though their patients exist and have lives outside the office, outside the treatment facility; and that these lives, and the quality of these lives, are important.

And of course, he compounded this offense a thousandfold by being himself a psychiatric patient. By having the temerity to speak truth to power, from an unassailable position of intelligence, insight and experience.

So his audience did what respected established professionals often do when they are encouraged to behave in a genuinely professional, respectworthy manner: they ran away.

How dare he.

God bless him.

And God help the people being "treated" there.

In The Bleak Midwinter

2010-01-01T17:02:00.001-05:00

In the bleak midwinter
Frosty wind made moan,
Earth stood hard as iron,
Water like a stone;
Snow had fallen, snow on snow,
Snow on snow,
In the bleak midwinter,
Long ago.

Our God, heaven cannot hold him,
Nor earth sustain;
Heaven and earth shall flee away
When he comes to reign;
In the bleak midwinter
A stable place sufficed
The Lord God incarnate,
Jesus Christ.

Enough for him, whom Cherubim
Worship night and day
A breast full of milk
And a manger full of hay.
Enough for him, whom angels
Fall down before,
The ox and ass and camel
which adore.

Angels and archangels
May have gathered there,
Cherubim and seraphim
Thronged the air;
But his mother only,
In her maiden bliss,
Worshipped the Beloved
With a kiss.

What can I give him,
Poor as I am?
If I were a shepherd
I would bring a lamb,
If I were a wise man
I would do my part,
Yet what I can I give Him —
Give my heart.

~~~ Christina Rossetti

Merry Christmas; Forgive Me for A Bit Of Self-Indulgence!

2009-12-26T13:28:00.014-05:00

After recently escaping a near 24/7 life-devouring job (that I was enticed into as a "promotion" - hah), I've been decompressing for a couple of months now; but it looks as though I'm still prone to nitrogen narcosis. Here's the proof.

This is one of the most amusing series of caricatures I have seen in a long time. Not merely for the illustrations - although Honoré Daumier's little sarcastic sculptures will forever hold first place for me in that regard - but for the characterizations, and the subject.

It's a Field Guide to Message Board Trolls and Other Wildlife, by a fellow named Mike Reed, and oh, dear Lord, it's all true. As soon as I figure out which one of these is me, I'm going to add a link to the site in my sidebar. Meanwhile, forgive me for this slightly snarky self-indulgence. God knows, I've earned it.

Enjoy.

Edit in: OK, I confess, I was a kind of hybrid between Eagle Scout and Diplomat, myself, back in the day. Female version. Leaning more to Diplomat than Eagle Scout, with predictable results... but when cornered by Howlers or Cyber Sisters, I tended to morph into Archivist.

Thank goodness not all cyberspace denizens are as dysfunctional as Mr. Reed's portrayals. But plenty of them are, and it's extremely useful to have an accurate, comprehensive Field Guide in these casees. So go see his site, go, go. I've added both it and his serious professional site to the sidebar...

...and anyone who enjoyed the Daumier sculptures linked above, please check out Mr. Reed's serious work.

You will NOT be disappointed; I was entranced.

Merry Christmas, yet again.

Ch-ch-ch-changes

2009-09-15T23:10:00.003-04:00

I have not been blogging much recently...

because multiple simultaneous good things have been happening to me in 3D,

and I'm surprised [my usual luck is anything but good, and distressingly reliable in that respect],

and, truth to tell, a bit embarrassed [wonderful. The economy is in the toilet, droves of people are suffering, so now... I get a major break. Several major breaks. Oh, lovely].

I've got a bit of sorting out to do. Schedule changes [major]. Lifestyle changes [likewise]. Other stuff [personal].

God willing, I'll be back in a few weeks, maybe sooner.

To be continued...

Hate is a Drug

2009-09-06T20:40:00.006-04:00

I've been watching the recent degeneration of public discourse in the US, for which the healthcare debate is merely a convenient pretext ...

... I've been seeing and hearing more and more intelligent, sensible conservatives baffled, frustrated, increasingly angered by the screaming, the tantrum-throwing, the name-caling, the irrationality that is currently disguised as "conservative" opinion on a number of topics,

leaving them feeling totally excluded from their own ideology [or those who claim to espouse it] and their own preferred political party, on healthcare, national security, the economy, and various other issues ...

... and, since it is very true that the personal is political and the political is personal, I've been strongly, repeatedly reminded of various instances of mob savagery I've seen in cyberspace, in workplaces, in families.

Because mob savagery is what this is, but that isn't all it is.

This is what happens when hatred is deliberately encouraged and inflamed, as a form of cheap relief for feelings of powerlessness, and [not coincidentally], as a diversionary tactic.

Hate is a drug.

Hate

is

a

drug.

It is intoxicating, and addictive, and damaging to its abusers and to everyone with whom they come into contact.

It is utterly deceptive, and it requires increasing degrees of self-deception to maintain the addiction in the face of its effects.

It is ultimately fatal.

Do we, as a society, really wish to be addicted to hatred? Do we really wish to have our society dominated, our national character predominantly influenced, by those who are?

Consider this well:

Hate is the abusers' drug of choice, and it is also the drug that abusers push onto their enablers and sycophants. The crucial qualifying exam for gang membership is, after all, one's willingness to act out the hatred of one's gang bosses, instantly, without question or pause, without thought.

And this is true whether the gang in question is led by a brash teenaged she-brat in middle school [let's ignore Suzy; she's not cute and her mother dresses her funny, let's mock her and pick at her and taunt her until she cries]

or a psychopathic street criminal in baggy pants and tee shirt [let's shoot those ----s, they're on our turf disrespecting our rule]

or a brazen-voiced hatemonger on FM radio [Iet's sabotage anything our President tries to do to improve our current situation; he's Not One Of Us].

Hate is an incredibly blinding, incapacitating emotion. It completely disables critical thought. And detachment. And awareness. It makes us complicit in our own destruction, while we flail madly at smoke and mirrors.

I can't count the number of workplaces I've seen in which upper management deliberately played "the staff" against itself, encouraging rivalry, feeding competitiveness, rewarding petty malice, mocking any collegiality and cooperative spirit. It's no coincidence that in these workplaces salaries were low and morale was lower. Of course they were; as long as the peasants could be kept at one another's throats, they were no threat to their slumlords.

Once more, with feeling:

As long as the peasants can be kept at one another's throats, they are no threat to their slumlords.

Suggested countermeasure:

Just Say No To Thugs.

Two "L"s are Missing

2009-08-21T22:01:00.005-04:00

A few days ago I was riding public transportation and saw a woman, about my age, wearing a very nostalgia-making necklace:

It said

Live
Laugh
Love

with diamonds on it.

It was a very pretty thing.

I remembered when those necklaces first became popular... and wondered if this woman was wearing a long-prized sentimental treasure, or a recent 'retro' purchase.

Then I remembered how ambivalent my younger self would feel when I saw women wearing this statement - and how puzzled I was by that ambivalence.

What's not to like about living life to the fullest with humor and caring? Why did I have that little 'check' in my response, when enthusiastic agreement would have been the natural reaction?

I never did figure it out, back then, but musing on it all these years later, something occurred to me.

There ought to be a fourth and fifth "L" there.

It ought to say:

Live
Laugh
Love
LOOK
LEARN.

... because without those last two, the other three can be dangerously deceptive.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Edit in:

I just realized...

This is the 200th post I've published on Gale Warnings.

Its three-year anniversary was August 2.

SiteMeter tells me that a fair number of folks come here as a result of searches on specific issues, issues that are usually painful to confront and deal with.

SiteMeter also tells me that folks come here from places as far-flung as Finland and the Canary Islands, South Africa and New Zealand, Thailand and Japan; and all over North and South America, from Venezuela to Maine to Washington State to Saskatchewan to Alaska. Some folks stop in once; some 'check in' from time to time; some are 'regulars'.

Welcome, and peace to you, each and every one. I hope that what I share on my journey will give you validation and support in your own.

Thanatoeconomics

2009-08-02T14:22:00.005-04:00

Approximately 12 years ago, having recently passed the age of 40, I was thinking about my "life experiences" and about the changes I'd observed in U.S. society since my childhood.

Among the things I'd observed were that:

- it usually requires at least one traffic death to get a new stoplight installed at a dangerous intersection or crossing

- food banks and 'charity clinics' tend to be open, at least in my area, during 'upscale retail' shopping hours only [viz., M - F 10 - 4] while the people who need these places most are generally locked into 7 - 4, 8 - 5, or 9 - 6 subsistence jobs with no paid leave, and lack personal transportation to reach these places quickly even if they were free to make the attempt

- although our society claims to deplore domestic violence, it is virtually impossible for a battered woman to obtain a protection order on any weekend or holiday, because the family court system is closed at those times. However, these are precisely the times when domestic violence is most likely to break out, and women are most likely to be in need of protection orders

- many 'social services' in my area that I had begun to investigate first hand [as someone dealing with multiple simultaneously terminally ill loved ones] operated under 'restrictions' that effectively disqualified me, my loved ones, and others like us, from being able to use them. For instance, hospice, respite, and elder transport care available on a county by county basis only, when my loved ones were dying in one county, and I was living in the next one over.

- while insurance and healthcare costs were skyrocketing, more and more people seemed to be losing coverage for paradoxical reasons - such as actually filing a claim on their policy if, say, a tree fell on their house, or their 11-year-old was diagnosed with leukemia

- and good luck to you if you experience a natural disaster, love your pets, and refuse to abandon them. Years before Hurricane Katrina, a local ice storm knocked out power to the entire two-city metropolitan area in which I live; people metro-wide were risking hypothermia and house fires, because 'official shelters' and 'warming centers' refused to allow them to bring their animals, insisting that they abandon their pets to freeze alone in the dark, if they wanted care for themselves.

Meanwhile, I'd been observing for years that every time a corporation threw employees to the sharks [aka, had layoffs], its stock, obscenely, increased in value [an observation that resulted in my decision not to own stocks in any firm, ever, that did not grant all employees profit-sharing, and did not make layoffs the option of last resort. No, I don't own much stock.]

When I put these things - and more - together, I reached two very harrowing conclusions:

[1] we live in a society that is shockingly abusive and even more shockingly unaware of the fact

[2] and to all appearances, our economy places money and its accumulation so far above basic citizen welfare that it essentially rests on a foundation of human sacrifice.

Lest you think I am being unduly harsh, ask yourself what it takes to get your school district or county to install a traffic light or pedestrian crossing signals. Virtually always, someone must be either killed or injured, right?

And if you were to discover, tomorrow morning, that an identity thief had stolen every penny of your life savings and cleaned out every other account you have on record, then you got pink-slipped in the office five minutes after your doctor told you that it looks like your child has leukemia, who do you think would pay for your mortgage, your health insurance, your child's medical bills? Do you think you'd have a house in three months' time? Would your child survive? Really?

If you're a regular churchgoer, who's the most recent person in your congregation to lose his or her job, and do they still attend? If they do, are they being welcomed and supported, or avoided? Have they been told that they're suffering these things because they're somehow defective - somehow wrong, bad, sinful?

I could not un-see what I was seeing. The evidence was all around me, and it was all-pervasive. I coined the term, "Thanatoeconomics" to describe it.

An economic system that depends on death.

Literally or figuratively.

I will be posting more on this at Potemkin's Office. It's the real purpose for which that blog was originally created.

Meanwhile, for further thoughts on this topic, please see TH in SoC's blog The Well Run Dry in which he discusses issues that relate directly to thanatoeconomics, and I finally get over my reluctance to share my thoughts on this subject, and post a comment in which I use the term. TH has already done a lot of thinking on the topic, and also finds the term "Thanatoeconomics" entirely suited to what he sees. Seeing the term in actual use, clearly respected and taken seriously, brought tears to my eyes.

TH is a brilliant writer, researcher, and expository journalist. And, as an engineer, he has plenty of scientific street cred.

He most definitely does the subject justice --

-- and justice, with mercy, are what we all so desperately, desperately need.

Goodbye Old Friendship

2009-08-01T09:13:00.013-04:00

"Time it was,
And what a time it was...
A time of innocence,
A time of confidences.
Long ago it must be,
I have a photograph...
Preserve your memories;
They're all that's left you."

[Simon & Garfunkel, "Bookends"]

In the comments to my previous post, I mentioned that I had few clear memories of interacting with Old Buddy From College [OBFC]. It's obvious, I hope, that the meanness he displayed when we met up again after 30 years surprised and disappointed me, especially because we met up again only because he sought me out.

This post will focus on two topics: [1] being sought out merely to be abused, and [2] remembrance.

First, [1]. This sort of thing is shocking and disappointing [a recurring theme] to decent people, because it's not something a decent person does. If one goes to the trouble to locate an old school friend, and takes the time to meet them - - and they are willing to take the time to meet - - then [in a decent culture] one is obligated to behave politely and civilly, even if the outcome of the meeting is disappointing.

In this case, it's hard to make even that excuse for OBFC, since his abusiveness began within minutes of our being seated at the restaurant table. There had barely been a meeting; there was definitely no time for any final outcome, disappointing or otherwise, to be established. [For those who will here insist that he was reacting to my 'older' appearance, I have to say that any surprises on that score should have been positive. We all age. If we're fortunate, we get to age gracefully. He may, however, have been reacting to my bearing and confidence; see below.]

Don't be deceived about this. When someone seeks you out, whether socially or occupationally, shows an avid interest in you, and then immediately begins to behave abusively, you have been targeted by an abuser, and you will be wise to reframe the events in that context.

You weren't approached by an old friend seeking to re-establish contact, or by a colleague on another team looking for a terrific team member. You were approached because a predator was hungry, and possibly desperate [OBFC must have been desperate, given that he reached across 30 years in his search for a target]. You were approached because you have, or had, [or because the predator perceives you as having] Target Features.

Tim Field, Kathy Krajco, and Anna Valerious have all expounded on Target Features [though not under that name]. Social abusers prefer to target those who are competent and kind, responsible; those who have a tendency to put others' welfare first; workplace abusers usually target the brightest, most competent, most creative, most conscientious people within their reach in any workplace.

And it's not at all uncommon for either a social abuser or a workplace abuser to identify a likely Target at a distance, and make overtures to that Target to bring them within striking distance of the abuser. In fact, 'courting' a Target is an extremely effective way of disarming them, so that they aren't likely to be thinking critically when the abuse begins, and thus are less likely to recognize what is going on.

Yes, this seems too bizarre to be real. But it happens. It happens so often in workplaces that in many developed nations, there are now laws on the books to protect people from workplace abuse; and we in the US, as a society, are just beginning to realize how often it happens socially. In addition to the three giants cited above, I strongly recommend reading George Simon, Ph.D. CZBZ [n-continuum.blogspot.com] has a direct link to a site where you can read his blogs.

So that addresses [1] - but let me add the whipped cream: why was this guy so intensely nasty? I suspect, but of course I cannot prove, that he was expecting a very different Stormchild, characterologically, from the grown woman who strolled confidently up to him, shook his hand, told him he looked great and it was good to see him; who shortly thereafter informed him that she'd pay her own way this time, of course, especially since she'd recommended this restaurant and was a regular here; and in answer to his questions, quickly and cheerfully brought him up to date on her international travels, long term employer, and recent promotions.

After that, we opened our menus, and he muttered that priceless line about my 'squint'.

I'm not sure what he was expecting, but it seems obvious to me that whatever it was, I - as I am - wasn't it. And abusers punish those they cannot control... as well as punishing those they can. Don't they? Yes they do. He may have decided that I wasn't going to be much good as a Target, so he'd have to get as many 'licks' in as possible while he had the opportunity [and he wasted no time: see comments to last post for details].

No, it's not nice at all. But neither was his behavior, if you read the post below. And, in the context of frustrated predation, it makes perfect sense.

What about [2]? What happened to that Old Friendship that led to this New Fiasco?

Well, actually, not much. After writing the previous post, this question stuck with me, and I decided to do some personal archaeology. With the assistance of quietude and coffee, I was able to retrieve enough memories to reconstruct the salient features of that friendship.

In all honesty, it wasn't much of one. We probably associated with one another because we were in proximity, being resident students on the same campus; and because we were both studying science while practicing faith. We met in a faith-based setting.

Our social interactions, as I recall them now, were all pretty much alike. He was not mean, not then, not overtly. He was, however, obtuse - in retrospect - and - I'm sorry - I'd think of him as a bore now. I didn't have enough experience then to know what to call it. Basically, he liked to imitate his two favorite comedians - at length - at great length -- at extreme length --- sometimes for geological epochs -. And when this wasn't happening, our conversation consisted either of shop talk about our studies, or of me listening to him telling me how much he missed his old girlfriend from high school, who was a Paragon Beyond Compare In Every Possible Respect. He showed, as best as I can recall [and I have tried to recall anything that would refute this, and failed] no actual interest in Stormchild, as a person, as a human being, ever, at any time; but I was too young then to recognize this.

I should add that the one-on-one social occasions were mercifully infrequent. I saw OBFC weekly in the ecumenical faith setting, which was a group event. I probably had lunch or dinner with him, just the two of us, about once every six weeks, and since I had a lively social and study life at the time, this wasn't a huge drain on my resources.

I should also add that even then, I 'twigged' something. There was something just a little insistent, just a tad aggressive, about the way Old Girlfriend From High School was resurrected and brandished every time OBFC and I had a one-on-one conversation. I wasn't sure, then, whether he was using her as a shield or as a club; but I smelled a game, even then. And I was able to retrieve a few fragments of memory from one college summer, when OBFC and I got together for dinner with his folks [who were perfectly nice people] and he then stopped in for coffee [what else?] and ice cream, with mine, when he brought me home.

My mother was quite taken with him and my father thought he was a nice young man. I was asked, afterwards - without any pressure being brought to bear - why I didn't seem interested in dating him. I don't recall my answer verbatim, of course; but it ran very much along these lines:

"We're different in some ways that are very important to me and aren't likely to change [I would have meant politically and religiously; I was then and am now far more liberal in both of those areas than he was and is]. But even if that wasn't true, he's very hung up on his old girlfriend from high school. I hear about her every time we get together, and it's almost as though he's daring me to try to compete with her.

I can't compete with a perfect ghost that someone has half invented, and I don't want to. I want to date a guy who likes me and is interested in me, not someone who will be constantly comparing me to some fantasy lost love. That isn't a relationship, it's a contest, and it's one I'll never be able to win.

So why would I want to date him?"

.

It's not really difficult to imagine that this was a game, or a gambit. That I was being dared to enter a contest I would have been doomed to lose from the outset, a rigged game.

And, of course, a young man who would play that kind of game with a young woman - whether in a misguided attempt to make himself seem attractive by appealing to 'competitive instincts', or as a way to keep any female friend or girlfriend in a permanent 'one-down', 'not-as-good-as-my-Ex' position - is a young man well on his way to becoming exactly what OBFC seems to be today:

Abusive.

By the grace of God, I haven't heard from him again.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Edit in: On proofreading this account, I've been struck by something EXTREMELY significant.

I cannot recall - and again, I've tried - ANY occasion where OBFC discussed his Old High School Girlfriend in a group setting. AT ALL. I have tried to recall whether she was a topic of conversation during my meal with his parents - and that's something I think I would remember, since I can retrieve the fact that we had such a meal. He definitely never mentioned her to mine. And there were occasional 'let's all get a burger' outings where everyone in the faith-based group went out for a bite, and I can't recall her ever being mentioned then.

This definitely makes that aspect of our 'friendship' look even more like a game, and a calculated one at that. I mention it because, if anyone reading this is the same age now that I was then, and looking at a similar situation, it's a huge red flag and should be taken VERY seriously indeed.

On a related note, you may want to read The Last Psychiatrist's blog post about tactics used by the male lead character in "Twilight"... being a male himself, TLP is quite explicit about the gamesmanship. It's useful validation.]

Goodbye Old Friend

2009-07-24T20:10:00.005-04:00

Goodbye old friend
peace be with you
may it follow wherever
you want it to
if it becomes a burden
and you long for sin
rest assured I'll never
turn you in
Goodbye old friend
peace be with you

Goodbye old friend
you're too soon gone
but some roads are simply
too damn long
filled with potholes
and hairpin turns
and a pain that never
ever learns
Goodbye old friend
you're too soon gone
Goodbye old friend
you're too soon gone

if I can't follow
and you can't lead
they can cut you
but you'll never bleed
the pain is lifted
and carried away
where it waits for another
who'll have no say
goodbye old friend
goodbye old friend
goodbye old friend
goodbye old friend

Goodbye old friend
if living's a crime
then you kept the law busy
for a long long time
it's high time both of you
take your rest
if the Lord is out there
then be His guest
Goodbye old friend
this one last time
Goodbye old friend
this one last time

if I can't follow
and you can't lead
they can cut you
but you'll never bleed
the pain is lifted
and carried away
where it waits for another
who'll have no say
goodbye old friend
Goodbye old friend
goodbye old friend
Goodbye old friend

Goodbye old friend
peace be with you
may it follow wherever
you want it to
if it becomes a burden
and you long for sin
rest assured I'll never
turn you in
Goodbye old friend
peace be with you
Goodbye old friend
peace be with you
Goodbye old friend
peace be with you

-- Tom Flannery

Well.

An old friend from three decades ago got back got in touch, as they say, a few weeks past.

He wrote to me, courtesy of a professional organization to which we both belong [think American Medical Association, American Society of Chemical Engineers; you get the idea] which kindly forwarded his letter to my current address.

We were such friends, he wrote. It's been so long, he wrote. Last time we talked I was getting married and you were moving overseas... I've been divorced for a few years, recently moved, was unpacking, found your letters from 35 years ago. We had such fun, we enjoyed each other's company, are you back Stateside? Are you well?

So.

After a few days' thought I wrote back, using my P.O. Box address, of course. We live in the same state, the same county even, now. Remarkable, and he thought so too.

Let's get together for coffee, he wrote. Call me here, or here, or here.

So I did, and we did.

And:

We were sitting on the patio, at a restaurant I love that he had never visited before. And he asked me what my favorites were, on the menu. And I smiled and lifted my face to look at the sunset, and then squeezed my eyes tight shut the way I do when I am really, truly happy, and listed them.

And quietly, in an undertone, as I was telling him about the Reuben Sandwiches, I heard him say: "... and I see you still have that squint."

He said it very quietly, and took great care to say it while I was talking. Plausible deniability, is what they call this. Unfortunately for him, I'm a musician and I can hear quite well, even when I'm talking. Trained to it.

So I know what he said, and that's it, verbatim. Uh-huh, yeah, really. Old college chum from 30 years past goes to the trouble to get in touch, takes the time to meet me for dinner, and says THAT within the first 15 minutes.

I'd love to say that I got up, poured our pitcher of ice water over his head, and walked out, but folks, I'd been working overtime and skipped lunch, and I was starving.

So: I ordered, ate, and paid for my own meal [it was delicious, as always], let this charmer dominate the conversation [which instantly became a monologue, but he didn't seem to notice or care], tipped the waitress [jerks are nearly always also stingy], finished my coffee, patted him on the shoulder and went away from there.

Laughing, because I'd remembered this, and decided it was exactly right to print out and send him as a memento of the event.

And yes, it was his wife who filed for their divorce. I kind of figured it had to be, but I asked just to be sure.

Goodbye, old friend.
Goodbye, old friend.
Goodbye.

Berserkerin At Prayer

2009-07-19T14:53:00.004-04:00

[A covered wooden deck, deeply shadowed. An ornamental cherry tree screens it from passersby. It's dusk; in and about the tree, and above the grass, fireflies dance. On the deck, the Berserkerin sits in a chaise longue, with the ever-present coffee at her side.]

Berserkerin: ✝In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit... well, I'm back.

YHWH: [listening, attentive silence]

B: And You know why...

YHWH: [listening, attentive silence]

B: Those poor creatures... You know the ones I mean. And You know it's not only the ones I know about in detail. It's all of them. Dying afraid, and in pain, dying to be devoured, dying in the air and in the grass and in the seas and on ice floes and on highways... dying in front of cameras, dear Lord Jesus, with never a hand lifted to help or prevent...! [recalling details silently] You know all about it... I know You know... we've been over this so many times.

YHWH: [listening, sorrowful silence]

B: How can You stand it? How have You been able to tolerate this for geological epochs? I can't bear it for twenty minutes, I run screaming to You and at You, I call You names, I've done that for the past forty years, time and again. How! Can! You! Stand! Seeing! This!

YHWH: [sorrowful] What makes you think We can?

B: Oh please. The fact that it continues? Hello?

YHWH: Child, you are right, it does continue. But it also continues past the part for which you mourn. You know that...

B: Yes, I suppose I do. It's the body that dies. The soul continues, but please. How can a soul endure such things and come to You clean or sane? Whether animal or human? To be subjected to [recalls details]... Lord, I fear for my own soul's sanity, just knowing such things happen. What of the ones to whom it actually, physically happens? Why is it necessary that this should happen at all, and so often to innocents, while the guilty slink or swagger away afterwards, licking their bloody chops?

YHWH: [gently] Now... should We not know precisely how a soul can endure such things? Have We not been part of every death, in dying for all creation? Yes, Child. We did and do and will until the end of Time be part of every dying creature as it dies.

B: [scornful] Easy for You. Look who You are.

YHWH: [chiding] Was it so easy? So easy that We sweated blood, in pure terror, at the thought of it. We knew what lay ahead. We already knew every. Detail. Of every. Death. That We were to be part of....

... Now. Was your birth easy?

B: [slightly taken aback] Probably not; I was premature, and incubated, but of course I don't recall... I can't, I was so new.

YHWH: [carefully, lovingly] There are those who do have birth memories, though they are rarely ever verbalized. It is not an easy process at all, being born. The loss of warmth, the terrible constrictions, the terrifying noises [children in the womb most certainly hear their mother's cries in labor] - the sudden cessation of umbilical life support, the imminence of physical death if breathing does not begin... think, child, about these things. And none of it explained in advance. It cannot be foreseen, it is not taught and understood. It must simply be endured, and gotten through; there is no appeal. Birth is a trauma; you know this; and birth is absolutely necessary, to bring body and soul together into the world of matter. Death, you also know, brings soul out of body and into the world of spirit. It is not Our will that either of these processes should have been as painful, as arduous, as they are. You do know that as well... We know you do.

B: [feeling the touch of a cosmic Hand, stroking her head lovingly] [quietly weeping]. But I cannot love those through whom these things happen. I despise them, and I can't help myself. I can't see what they do as good. Animals hunting animals, I understand, they have no choice. But the humans who do these things... not for sustenance... who through stupidity or indifference or laziness kill Your beasts, or set their own creatures in Death's path... and then run wailing, demanding pity for THEMSELVES.

YHWH: [Hand still on B's head] That, that is something else. Those are your chop-lickers, and that is evil. And We do see it so. But child, you know that this is not your Work. To deal with this is Our Work, and We do not forget, and We do not shirk, and child, We promise you, We are not mocked. Some who have done evil may be salvaged; that is Our Work. Some cannot, and We know you know this; and to deal with that is also Our Work. But you do not know which is which. Although you have done awfully well, understanding where the differences lie.

But remember Niels Bohr, child.

B: [sniffling] Who said to Einstein, "Albert, please stop telling God what to do."

YHWH: [smiles] We couldn't have said it better Ourselves. Now, child. You don't feel dismissed, or brushed aside, or told We Know Better, Hush Your Mouth, do you? Because your tears and caring matter greatly. They are part of the sacrament of mourning, the Rites for the Dead, in this world as it must be.

B: [with acceptance] As long as I can run to You to weep, and scream at You when I can't stand the weeping one moment longer, I suppose I shall weep as long as I must. Forgive me, that I so despise these people. Forgive my impatience with You. You know why I feel these things.

YHWH: Your healing is also Our Work. Can you trust Us to see you through?

B: I can, and I must. I forget every day that because You are Good does not mean that the world is safe. Forgive me for that, and help me in my unbelief?

YHWH: [kisses the top of B's head, and flicks her battleaxe with a tolerant finger] Added a little something to your Ephesians armor, child? Very well, We know why you need it, and We do not despise either it or you for keeping it close. Here is something you need more, just now. Remember this; it is absolutely true.

[B. sees then, in her mind's eye, the Holy Mountain, the Peaceable Kingdom, and Christ Himself holding animals tenderly in His arms, surrounded by others who are stroking them, tending them, loving them. He smiles at her. Beautiful animals lift up their heads and gaze lovingly at her as she weeps both in sorrow at their passing and in joy that they shall not be lost. And those tending them look up at her and smile. She will, one day, be among them. And not a few of them have battleaxes of their own, disused now, golden and bejeweled, hanging in places of honor at their sides.]

B: [in tears, whispering] Thank You.

YHWH: [gently mussing her hair] Your coffee is getting cold, child. We love you, and We're here. We will always be here when you call.

[A firefly lands in her upraised palm, lights up, and takes off again.]

[Silence.]

Return of the Berserkerin

2009-07-18T21:57:00.008-04:00

Not so very long ago, I wrote a series of posts in realtime, as I did some serious work with anger.

Lately you may have noticed a prolonged silence.

I've been trying to keep the lid on a volcano. The Berserkerin is roaring and whirling her battleaxe so swiftly that it looks like a rotary saw blade. She's been at it for more than a week, and I don't want her to get out... not where she wants to go, anyway.

What she wants to do is time travel, and reduce to quivering slivers several different people, each of whom is responsible for the death of a pet through being, themselves, too stupid to live...

And all of whom have written about it.

They have described their animals' deaths in lavish, sensationalistic detail, and clearly - oh, very clearly indeed - feel much, much sorrier for themselves than for the poor animals.

I haven't been looking for this stuff. It's shown up in my daily newspapers [I read several], or been in items I read online...

What's more, I read some of these accounts years ago. One consequence of surviving abuse, learning to recognize it, and having an excellent memory is that these things tend to cumulate. And with each successive pointless-avoidable-painful-horrific-death-of-an-innocent-from-its-owner's-stupidity, Berserkerin has become angrier - and harder to suppress.

I am deliberately being obscure. If I provided sufficient detail here, then people could run searches and find the articles of which I speak; and then I'd be aiming readers of this blog at the authors, and that's a game I'm not going to play.

But dear God, I want to climb down every one of these idiots' throats wearing steel spiked shoes and using a flamethrower.

And it won't do any good.

There is nothing I could say to even one of them that would have any effect whatsoever.

Nothing I can say will change the fact that innocent beasts died horrible, protracted, painful deaths because they happened to belong to people I regard as negligent morons, and nothing I can say is going to make those purported negligent morons either more intelligent or less negligent. Nothing I can do is going to prohibit any of them from ever owning another animal, either. Nothing I can do will make any of them into responsible, caring, adult human beings.

I didn't cause it, I cannot control it, and I cannot cure it. I own none of these things. They are not mine to own.

Sadly, all I can own are my responses. Which are: to mourn, to rage, and to care, impotently, for the innocent dead.

And eventually to pray, but Berserkerin will be praying first. She tends to pray "with her eyes on fire"... and definitely prefers the imprecatory Psalms.

I won't pretend these deaths don't matter. Once you start doing that, the b@$+@rd$ have won.

And oh, dear God, if you think this is bad... you should see what Berserkerin is like when I read or hear a news account of some fool baking their child to death in the family car.

What I Got To Sing on the Fourth of July

2009-07-06T09:31:00.001-04:00

along with America the Beautiful, of course...

"This is My Song"

This is my song, O God of all the nations,
A song of peace for lands afar and mine.
This is my home, the country where my heart is;
Here are my hopes, my dreams, my holy shrine;
But other hearts in other lands are beating
With hopes and dreams as true and high as mine.

My country's skies are bluer than the ocean,
And sunlight beams on clover leaf and pine.
But other lands have sunlight too and clover,
And skies are everywhere as blue as mine.
This is my song, O God of all the nations,
A song of peace for their land and for mine.

May truth and freedom come to every nation;
May peace abound where strife has raged so long;
That each may seek to love and build together,
A world united, righting every wrong;
A world united in its love for freedom,
Proclaiming peace together in one song.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is set to the tune of Sibelius' Finlandia Hymn, which will move you to tears with no words required.

These lyrics were written by two Americans [!] -- Lloyd Stone in 1934 [verses 1 and 2] and Georgia Harkness in 1939 [verse 3]. I was privileged to sing them, along with about 100 other people, as part of a jubilee celebration for two wonderful women of faith, two kind and loving nuns each celebrating her fiftieth anniversary of 'taking the veil' - on the 4th of July, 1959.

Fifty years lived in the daily practice of the presence of God, lived in the daily work of love, of community, of faith; of teaching and learning, of seeking to be, bring, and live peace.

As if that wasn't more than enough to fill a day with joy - a few hours later, there were fireworks!

Another Road Trip

2009-07-01T11:58:00.002-04:00

I'm going to be away again for a bit; while I'm gone, I'd like to share something I wrote on one of my other blogs, Strange Mercy.

The subject is theodicy, the theology of suffering; which makes it relevant here.

I am a Christian, and that underlies the value system from which I speak here. But I prefer to write in another venue about matters of faith, so that people reading here are not discomfited if they do not share my personal beliefs.

I hope that there is worth, in this particular post, for Christian and non-Christian alike.

War Zone

Low Tech

2009-06-23T21:41:00.005-04:00

This is a very, very low tech blog.

There is a very, very good reason for that.

No, it's not laziness - at least, not primarily. It's also not Fuddy-Duddy Disease, although I will admit it's long past time for me to update my browser and operating system.

And it's not Militant Simplicity. A beautifully laid-out site, with well chosen graphics and a warm color scheme, is something I enjoy tremendously.

[Insert shameless promotion here for CZBZ's blog The Narcissistic Continuum, which is not only incredibly well written, but can be enjoyed purely as an art gallery, when one is weary of the struggle and needs refreshment for the soul. (CZ? The Waterhouse is great, but so is the Chagall - if you linked to more of his stuff in future posts, I sure wouldn't mind :-) )].

Nope. The reason is more fundamental, and it's personal only in the way that any informed choice is personal.

Abuse survivors come from all walks of life; all socioeconomic levels; we come from all nations and races and languages and faiths. And in cyberspace, we can come from anywhere in the world; in http://www., the www. stands for World Wide Web.

World wide Web.

World wide Web.

How cool is that?

Very cool. But also, extremely variable in terms of technology.

A lot of us are on dial-up. Some of us can't afford DSL or cable, or don't have that service in the areas where we live.

Some of us find dial-up to be a cheap and convenient 'extra firewall'.

And some of us live in parts of the world where people buy pedal-powered computers, and our phone service, while adequate, won't load elaborate Web pages rapidly if at all.

Many of us have limited time for the Web. And it can take long enough to get a connection - after that, having to wait and wait for a search result to download can mean that we never get to see that particular result. We can't afford to wait that long; so we move on to the next hit, and hope that one loads fast enough that we'll have time to read it.

I can't do much about the language barrier, i.e., this blog being in English only. But I can do something about the technology barrier. I can keep this blog as simple as possible, so that anyone, anywhere in the world, with enough Net access to find it, can load it and read it and, hopefully, find something helpful here.

And that's why this blog has stayed so basic, un-glam and low-tech. No criticism of any other site is intended. There are amazing, incredible sites and blogs and Web pages in cyberspace, a treat for the eyes and ears. But I want this site to be accessible to anyone, anywhere, who can get online and run a search and find it.

In sisterhood [and brotherhood] and peace,

Stormchild

Neoteny Again: A Little Math, or The Cat's In The Cradle...

2009-06-15T21:03:00.009-04:00

In my previous post I discussed the fact that we are neotenous, both physically and psychologically - that we have a long, long childhood, compared to most other critters on the planet. I stated that this neoteny gives us more time to learn and grow, but also makes us more vulnerable to psychosocial damage, and keeps us vulnerable much longer, than many of our animal companions.

What I need to do now is show you a little math, so you can see what neoteny 'means'.

Let's go back to cats as a model, since dogs' lifespans vary so much depending on breed size. The average well-cared-for indoor cat typically is a kitten or juvenile for about, say, 18 months. [Yes, breeding becomes possible earlier than this, but that is also true of us, and our culture no longer considers 13-year-olds to be adults - not really.] With luck and care, you can have your feline friend beside you for a long time after that. I've known a few 22 year olds, but the average indoor cat, in my experience, typically reaches 16 - 18.

To make things simple, let's take 18 years as our working figure. So kitty is a child for 18 months, and lives for a total of 18 years. [I'm not going to get into how long a kitty is young, prime, middle-aged, etc.; these periods don't match our aging process either. We'll keep it simple, and look only at the total lifespan.]

What if our biological time were similarly allocated between juvenile and adult lifespans?

Let's try this from both angles.

First, let's give ourselves the full lifespan of a cat, without reducing our kittenhood. Neurodevelopmental scientists now tend to think that the human brain isn't really 'adult' until around the age of 20... so, if we were kittens until 20, how long would we last as cats?

Eleven times longer. 18 years is 12 times 18 months; if we lived in the same biological timeframe as our cats, we would live 12 x 20 years. Not quite Methuselah, but we'd be checking out at the very respectable age of 240 - as compared to our usual 70 - 80.

And those among us who reached an age equivalent to those 22 year old kitties? We would live 14.7 times the length of our childhoods: to 294.

In other words, we'd be around from 3 to 3.7 times longer than we are now, if our adult lifespan, relative to our juvenile lifespan, matched our l'il fuzzballs'.

Now let's look at the other angle. Retaining our 80 year lifespan, but reducing our childhood so that it matches the relative duration of kittenhood in a cat's lifespan: how long would we spend as children/adolescents?

Ready? Take a deep breath...

6.7 years.

That's right. Do the math. One twelfth of 80 years... on my little iMac calculator program, it's showing as 6.666666666667.

We'd be full-grown, able to move away from home and live entirely on our own, at about the age that we now begin first grade.

Shocking, isn't it?

That's neoteny. We'd either live three times longer, or we'd reach biological and neurodevelopmental adulthood in one third the time that we do now, if our developmental timelines matched those of our kittycats.

When you realize this, you realize just how much more vulnerable we really are, because of this developmental delay.

It really does explain a lot.

Cat's in the Cradle
by Sandy & Harry Chapin

My child arrived just the other day,
He came to the world in the usual way.
But there were planes to catch, and bills to pay.
He learned to walk while I was away.
And he was talking 'fore I knew it, and as he grew,
He'd say, "I'm gonna be like you, dad.
You know I'm gonna be like you."

And the cat's in the cradle and the silver spoon,
Little boy blue and the man in the moon.
"When you coming home, dad?" "I don't know when,
But we'll get together then.
You know we'll have a good time then."

My son turned ten just the other day.
He said, "Thanks for the ball, dad, come on let's play.
Can you teach me to throw?" I said, "Not today,
I got a lot to do." He said, "That's ok."
And he walked away, but his smile never dimmmed,
Said, "I'm gonna be like him, yeah.
You know I'm gonna be like him."

And the cat's in the cradle and the silver spoon,
Little boy blue and the man in the moon.
"When you coming home, dad?" "I don't know when,
But we'll get together then.
You know we'll have a good time then."

Well, he came from college just the other day,
So much like a man I just had to say,
"Son, I'm proud of you. Can you sit for a while?"
He shook his head, and he said with a smile,
"What I'd really like, dad, is to borrow the car keys.
See you later. Can I have them please?"

And the cat's in the cradle and the silver spoon,
Little boy blue and the man in the moon.
"When you coming home, son?" "I don't know when,
But we'll get together then, dad.
You know we'll have a good time then."

I've long since retired and my son's moved away.
I called him up just the other day.
I said, "I'd like to see you if you don't mind."
He said, "I'd love to, dad, if I could find the time.
You see, my new job's a hassle, and the kid's got the flu,
But it's sure nice talking to you, dad.
It's been sure nice talking to you."
And as I hung up the phone, it occurred to me,
He'd grown up just like me.
My boy was just like me.

And the cat's in the cradle and the silver spoon,
Little boy blue and the man in the moon.
"When you coming home, son?" "I don't know when,
But we'll get together then, dad.
You know we'll have a good time then."

The Curse and Blessing of Neoteny

2009-06-13T18:27:00.011-04:00

Earlier this year, Cinder Ella posted about having been raised by cats. It's an experience I share with her; for all intents and purposes, my real mother was a brown Abyssinian, and I was lucky to have her.

I've paid that blessing forward all my adult life, taking in kitties or otherwise helping them whenever possible. And I've noticed, as many others have noticed, a rather interesting thing: the number of mean, bullying, seriously screwed up toxic cats is rather small. Much, much smaller than the relative number of mean, bullying, seriously screwed up toxic hominids in any sample I've ever observed.

Dogs, poor loves, have the deck stacked against them far more often, since many [not most, but many] dog owners buy specific breeds that are bred to be aggressive, then actively work to make the dogs vicious. This is rarely ever true of cat owners - I can't think of a single instance in over 50 years of conscious observation. And, by the way, I love Pits and Rottweilers and Pinschers. Lovingly raised, they are wonderful.

It occurred to me - over coffee, as usual - that the induction of meanness in dogs, which is so often deliberately human-induced, is largely possible because dogs are pack animals; they have an inborn socialization to 'look up to' their Pack Leader, and dogs living with people generally adopt the dominant human as their Alpha. Dogs are quite dependent on their Pack, and exert real effort to conform to the expectations of the Alpha. [Yes, I believe animals think. Correction: I know they do. When your mother is a ten pound furball who loves you dearly, walks you to the school bus, meets you at the bus stop, and yells at you if you aren't in bed on time, you get a good education in ethology and interspecies communication, very young.]

Cats, on the other hand, are pride animals; they affiliate, and there are alphas in prides, but the affiliation tends to be looser, and the dependence on alphas less strong overall. But very, very strong bonds of affection are possible within both pack and pride, and, thank God, those bonds aren't species-specific.

I'm going to annoy ethologists and anthropologists now by appropriating a term from developmental biology and psychology: neoteny. It means: the adult form of a species [or strain] retains traits that are normally seen only in immature animals; or, the process of development and maturation is extremely prolonged in a particular species or strain, so that the individual remains 'plastic', developmentally, much longer than would normally be seen in closely related animals. Compared to mountain gorillas, for example, humans are extremely neotenous; chimpanzees are also neotenous compared to gorillas, but far less so than humans. And compared to cats, we are out of the ballpark.

The Wikipedia article I've linked to has a nifty phrase for exactly what I'm trying to address: "a dilation of biological time". And neoteny is, when it serves its normal purpose, a very nifty thing. By keeping us 'immature' for twenty years or more [there are strong arguments that human brain development is not complete until the early twenties] neoteny allows us much more time to learn - but there is a price to pay: our prolonged childhood keeps us dependent on our parents - or their equivalents - far, far longer than most other species.

Now let's jump back to Fido. The 'pack mentality' that allows human beasts to corrupt their dogs into vicious fighters and killers can be seen as a form of psychological neoteny. Cats' 'pride mentality' [pun not intended, but I'll take it] involves less dependence and is thus less neotenous in this sense. Humans, though -

- we remain neotenous all our lives. Not merely physically [although we never grow our full coat of fur]. Far more important, we remain neotenous emotionally and psychologically. And this neoteny can be deliberately prolonged and intensified.

You probably see where I'm heading now. Circumstances that promote or intensify dependence, in child or adult, are circumstances that prolong neoteny, at least psychosocially. And such circumstances are common in highly controlling environments - cults, extremely conformist cultures and workplaces, and families headed by alcoholic, drug-addicted, or otherwise abusive parents [and their enablers].

Moving along this thought line, we'd expect that the extended psychological plasticity ['formability' or 'impressionability', if you prefer] that accompanies neoteny would also be intensified in this type of dependence-fostering, controlling environment.

And there you are. Want to know why there are so many jerky humans on the planet, compared to jerky dogs and cats? Because our species remains 'plastic', developmentally vulnerable, dependent on others for our nurture and training, and thus susceptible to profound emotional and psychological damage from those others, far longer than any other animal with whom we share our world.

And, God help us, we have a long, neotenous lifespan. So once we're badly damaged, we have much more time in which to damage other vulnerable members of our own species. Not to mention the poor pit bulls.

A rather cheerless thought for a Saturday afternoon... but let's complete it, now. Because there is a blessing to accompany the curse. The problem of neoteny contains its own solution. For which, again, thank God.

Because that psychosocial plasticity can be used to heal. The same pliability that makes us so damageable can, in the right circumstances, allow us to learn, allow us to see the damage and its source, allow us to find our footing in safer places, with safer people. This is what makes 'deprogramming' possible.

It may be true that 'you can't go home again'; but fortunately, in many cases, we can, because of our neoteny, go back to school.

Conflict Resolution? or Abuse Resolution?

2009-06-06T14:07:00.008-04:00

In a much earlier post on this blog, I examined the "Non-Abusive Presupposition", which is the premise that

people on both sides of a frustrating, or sidetracked, or repeatedly conflicted interaction are non-abusive in the emotional sense; i.e., neither person is a bully or has a cluster B personality disorder [sociopathy, borderline, etc.]

This is a perfectly reasonable premise, but you have to remember it is the premise on which a specific approach to conflict resolution is based. In fact, it is the approach on which all 'conflict' resolution must be based.

Sadly, it is not universally true.

An approach based in the presupposition that both parties to a conflict are fundamentally decent works in that situation - and only in that situation. Where one party is not fundamentally decent, but rather is abusive, the situation is not a conflict. It is abuse, instead of conflict; they are very different things. Another approach is needed.

This approach would generally take the form of

- constraint [as in stopping a meeting when a manager deliberately antagonizes the creative programmer, or ending a phone call when your relative starts in on X],

or, when that is not possible,

- avoidance [ask for a call in number and teleconference to meetings dominated by abusers / 'phony gurus'; always be 'busy' when the bully in your book group wants to do coffee];

when that's also not possible [i.e. your boss screams and throws things, at you, daily, and they're leaving gashes that require stitches, either in your body or your soul] it may well be time for

- the nuclear option: this could involve 'going no contact', setting up an intervention, quitting, or calling 911 or your company's security guards; getting a good employment lawyer, or divorce lawyer; serving the object-hurling boss [or spouse] with a protection order; and [for the boss] filing a lawsuit against the employer who permits and enables abusive managers to throw things at their staff.

This last option is also the last resort, but in real life people often end up here. And in the early stages of a relationship, if you can leave with minimal mess, 'no contact' at the first sign of abuse is the best FIRST resort.

These are hugely different strategies from normal 'conflict resolution' skills, because they have to be.

Personality disordered, abusive individuals neither learn nor change on their own; they're fundamentally averse to taking responsibility for the consequences of their own behavior. They also do not regard you as an equal, ever; that means you will not be able to make yourself heard non-defensively. It's just not possible in that situation. Therefore, it is impossible for conflicts with such individuals to ever, really, be resolved.

The strategy for 'conflict resolution' with abusers must presuppose that they abuse with intent, to gain a reward; you are not in relationship with them; they are predators. To modify the behavior of a predator, you must either remove the reward they expect to obtain from certain behaviors, or you make the behavior so costly to indulge that it's not worth the payoff.

Detachment is as important in 'abuse resolution' as it is in genuine 'conflict resolution' involving two decent, emotionally healthy parties. You need to see clearly in order to discern which situation you're in, figure out what the payoff is for the person misbehaving, and find the best point to disrupt the pattern.

You also have to honestly reckon the cost to yourself, and have a strategy in place for self protection, if you determine that your 'conflict' is actually abuse. People - and groups - and systems - and organizations - who are abusive are invariably vindictive. It's an inherent property of abusiveness, on any scale.

The Telephone is Screaming, but I am Not... and You Don't Have to Either...

2009-05-24T19:32:00.007-04:00

Mother -- The Police

Well, the telephone is ringing
Is that my mother on the phone?
Telephone is ringing
Is that my mother on the phone?
The telephone is screaming
Won't she leave me alone
The telephone is ringing
Is that my mother on the phone?

Well every girl that I go out with
Becomes my mother in the end
Every girl I go out with
Becomes my mother in the end
Well, I hear my mother calling
But I don't need her as a friend
When every girl that I go out with
Becomes my mother in the end

Oh mother dear please listen
And don't devour me
Oh mother dear please listen
Don't devour me
Oh woman please have mercy
Let this poor boy be
Oh mother dear please listen
And don't devour me

Well, the telephone is ringing
Is that my mother on the phone?
Telephone is ringing
Is that my mother on the phone?
The telephone is screaming
Won't she leave me alone
The telephone is ringing
Is that my mother on the phone?

************************

It's been a quiet, busy couple of weeks. Lots of things going on, but pretty much all external; meanwhile, Inner World has been "... full of sweet dreams, and health, and quiet breathing."

Only in the last few days have I realized just how deeply I've managed to separate chaos without from peace within. Strangely, it's felt as though it was happening all on its own, without the least bit of effort on my part; but when I actually pay attention, I realize that I've been profoundly involved the entire time.

Just not on a fully engaged and conscious level, most of the time. It's been like keeping my balance on the deck of a sailboat; an automatic, instinctive shifting and balancing. A subconscious awareness of weather and light... while my conscious mind handles other things.

The lyrics quoted above capture many aspects of abuse - its relentlessness, its insatiability, its savage greed. Daily life in an abusive environment can feel like Death By Pestering or worse, depending on how many abusers are in your daily round, how abusive they are [at home, at work, at church, at school], how insistent they are, and how much latitude you have to constrain or ignore them.

That's the secret. To constrain or ignore abusers - and recognize that you have an absolute right to do so.

Many of us who blog or have blogged about abuse [see "Narcissists Suck", "What Makes Narcissists Tick" and "Getting Past Your Past" as examples] are strong advocates of "No Contact" with those we've identified as committed, intentional abusers in our lives. At first glance, it seems like a harsh doctrine, but consider the alternative - really consider it:

-a life spent being sandblasted raw by constant, unremitting abuse;
-being expected to carry the world on your back with no slightest acknowledgement, rest, or recompense;
-and being reviled, punished, or abandoned the instant you fail to produce as per someone else's unilateral specification.

Really, all that No Contact does is reverse the polarity of an already existing harshness that you neither created nor desired. It allows the abusers to own the consequences of their abuse. Which is only fitting, since the abuse originated with them in the first place.

When we won't engage, don't feed the drama, and continue to avoid engaging despite changeback reactions, pressure, and escalation, a surprising thing often happens: the abuser loses his or her hostages, and their power over us is broken. This is often because the biggest hostages they hold are the ones we give them:

our own need to look good to ourselves,
or to have or do whatever we have learned to equate with success.

Once we redefine 'looking good to ourselves' and 'succeeding' as 'being free of abuse', that game is over forever.

And then, even if the abuser keeps on trying to abuse us, it just stops working.

************************

The telephone is ringing;
There's an abuser on the phone.
The telephone is ringing;
There's an abuser on the phone..
The telephone is screaming...
Won't they leave me alone?

Um; no. They won't.
They're abusers, and this is what they do.
So, OK. Enough already,
Just turn the d--n thing off for now.
Tomorrow, change your number.

A Male Borderline

2009-05-07T21:08:00.009-04:00

The Washington Post's advice columnist, Carolyn Hax, runs a weekly chat. This week's took place today, and I discovered its transcript while reading the paper online this evening.

The Post, quite reasonably, prefers to be linked rather than quoted. Although many of its articles are behind a "registration wall", online chats are accessible, as are links within those chats.

So: here is a link to the chat that ran today.

First, Truth In Labeling. There was no discussion of Borderline PD in the chat. Rather, there was a discussion of suicide - and, I hope, there was a successful intervention as well.

A poster commented that he didn't think his family would miss him if he... wasn't there anymore, or anywhere else, permanently... because he had become emotionally estranged from them. He did not state outright that he was considering suicide, but the implication was clear, as was his depressed state.

Ms Hax, bless her, did her best to direct him to immediate help.

Shortly thereafter, another poster recommended a 1996 Post article written by a woman who lost her father to suicide some 20 years previously.

The brief discussion within the chat centered on suicide and its impact on those left behind, and on concern for the man who posted today. But when I read the linked 1996 article, what jumped out of virtually every paragraph was not the anticipated tragic portrait of a self-doomed father who suffered from depression. What I found, instead, was a detailed description of a man who almost certainly suffered from Borderline PD, and abused his entire family for years before his death.

The article is graphic, starkly honest, and very chilling. Approach it with caution.

This link may give you direct access. If not, and you hit the registration wall, you can access the article by opening the chat, scrolling down to the comment from "Chantilly, VA", and clicking on "The Legacy".

Again, respecting the Post's preferences, I won't quote the article. But I will explain why this man struck me as suffering from BPD.

First, there was the issue of impulse control. As you will see if you read the article, he acted out violently on more than one occasion, deliberately hurting a family pet [it survived], threatening to kill himself and others repeatedly, holding his wife hostage at gunpoint...

Add hostility. Which is obvious above, but comes through in icy clarity, layer upon layer, in the circumstances of his suicide.

The night he killed himself, he again held his wife hostage at gunpoint... for hours. Then had her call his daughter at work, and pull her off the job - as he had done, apparently, many times before.

Daughter came home, could not convince father to give up firearm, did manage to take mother away for an interval. While they were away, having coffee, trying to figure out what on earth to do, but too dazed to come up with any real options - or even to understand how endangered they were,

he killed himself.

And he did all this...

on his son's Prom Night.

Leaving behind not one, but three suicide notes - which, from their contents, seemed intended to "split" the family forever.

Unable to kill them, did he try to kill their relationship?

This was not depression. This was borderline rage.

This was punishment of his son
for beginning to have a life of his own;
of his daughter
for doing the same;
of his wife -
for escaping, even temporarily?

Because, God help her, she went back.

And her daughter went back with her.

And I am certain - absolutely certain - that if he had not committed suicide while they were away, neither mother nor daughter would have survived that night,

and son would have come home to discover them all.

A Prom Memory to last a lifetime.

That is the greatest tragedy of Borderline PD.

It is not merely self-destructive; it wants to take everyone and everything within its reach down with it, when it goes.

Well Worth Reading

2009-05-02T11:08:00.003-04:00

It's always good to discover new and informative sites.

Most recent recommended: the blogs at counsellingresource.com. This link takes you directly to the blogs; the whole site [click on 'Home' to get there] is well worth exploring.

Alas, the contributing authors haven't discussed anniversary reactions yet; but you can't have everything. They really 'get it' about abuse dynamics, and are willing to admit that there are practicing professionals - in their own profession, no less - who really don't.

One doesn't always see this kind of moral courage. The site is worth a visit for that reason alone.

Anniversary Reactions: Caution. This Post Is Not For The Squeamish

2009-05-01T21:45:00.001-04:00

In my previous post, I mentioned "anniversary reactions". I'd like to talk a bit more about this phenomenon, because I think it is fairly common and not widely recognized.

The American Psychological Association has a good short description of anniversary reactions tucked away here. Scroll down to the subhead, "The Anniversary Effect" to read their description...

... and here is mine.

But first, a serious disclaimer. Please do not read this post if you, yourself, have recently been through any type of harrowing experience. In order to explain how I developed this reaction, I have to recount a traumatic experience which literally almost killed me. There's no way I can soften the impact, even if some of the details could be changed. Be kind to yourself, and wait for the next post, if you've been too close to such horrors recently yourself.

In the fourth decade of my life, after years of dealing with chronic abuse, overt and covert, in both family and occupational settings, I went through a traumatic experience which had all the features necessary for producing PTSD. Following a surgical procedure that was absolutely necessary to save my life, I developed post-operative internal hemorrhaging, which was ignored, disputed, and denied by the nursing staff for a period of eleven straight hours. I was essentially left to bleed to death, internally, overnight, in order to punish me for having the nerve to be both attentive and knowledgeable about what was happening to me [and for committing the additional offense of expecting the staff to listen to me and do something about it].

I refused to play, but even so, they almost won.

I spent the entire night sitting up in the tightest 'tuck' I could accomplish, in order to minimize my internal volume, hoping that would bring the bleeding to an end, and demanding fresh i.v. fluids again and again throughout the night.

Fortunately, I got them, and obviously, I survived - but it was a very close call.

I was lucky enough to have two surgeons, one of whom was a true physician. He saw to it that those responsible for neglecting me [viciously - did I mention the namecalling? Yes, they taunted a woman who was helpless and at risk of bleeding to death, mocked her concern and called her names] were fired on the spot. I received a transfusion of my own blood [banked in advance despite my being advised that I would, of course, not need it] and ultimately escaped from that place ...

The hospital went bankrupt almost immediately after this ordeal.

I was already an excellent candidate for PTSD, having been, as I mentioned, in various abusive settings for various lengths of time. My stress reactions had been 'primed', and this experience completed the recipe. I was:

-trapped
-defenseless
-helpless
-in very real danger of dying
-terrified
-sleep-deprived [if I fell asleep before I could get help, I knew I would probably never awaken]
-for hours, without any possible escape,
-and taunted by so-called 'professionals' who were supposed to be helping me.

Fortunately again, I wasn't entirely helpless or defenseless. I had my education, my intelligence, and a damn good pair of lungs, and I stayed in that tuck for the entire night, screaming for i.v. fluids every time the bag emptied. They didn't dare sedate me; I suppose it would have spoiled the fun [not to mention being detectable on autopsy]. So I kept vigil over myself, and demanded and received enough to keep me alive.

Because I knew that I had managed to survive by using my wits and guts [and being stubborn as hell], I expected to put the experience behind me - I had triumphed against truly horrifying odds, after all, and received some 'rough justice' when the people who neglected me were fired. I'm not a litigious type, and the bankruptcy seemed less like an impediment to a lawsuit, and more like karma, once I was on my feet again. And by the time I had healed physically, it seemed to me that I had also healed emotionally.

I had no nightmares. I did have considerable residual anger, but it was articulate, specific to the situation, focused where it belonged, and to my mind entirely justified.

Imagine my surprise, the following autumn, when I was suddenly and absolutely unable to lie down to sleep.

No matter how tired I was. No matter how relaxed I was. No matter how badly I needed the rest. The minute I lay flat, whether prone, supine, or on either side, I entered a state of instant, primitive, panic terror. For more than a week, I could only sleep with my upper body propped up by a mound of pillows, and I woke in terror repeatedly through the nights.

And then I thought to look at the calendar.

My night horrors had started the very week of my surgery, one year later.

I had not even thought about the surgery, but my body had remembered. My subconscious had remembered. There was an 'alarm clock' - literally - tucked away somewhere deep in my emotional wiring. The trauma of hemorrhage and near death had left something eerily like a post-hypnotic suggestion, with a one-year timer running.

"Do not lie down to sleep now. If you do, you will die."

This is an anniversary reaction. And I am one of the lucky ones. Mine was of relatively short duration, and occurred only on the first anniversary of the event, never again thereafter. And it was purely an emotional response. A massive, almost disabling emotional response, to be sure; but limited to the inside of my own head.

There are reports, going back all the way to Freud, of similar reactions that recur for years. Manifested as accident-proneness [a child loses a parent, and every year near the anniversary of the bereavement, they have an accident of some kind]; or as acting out [people quit jobs, move away, even end marriages on or near the anniversary of devastating losses].

Frustratingly, this area does not seem to have been very deeply explored. Most resources I have found don't provide much more than an assurance that anniversary reactions eventually end - and of course, the standard advice to see a professional if the reaction is particularly troubling or disruptive.

I have experienced yet another anniversary reaction this year, arising from a 'fresh' event that took place last spring. This time, I knew it might happen, and I was reasonably prepared for it, in terms of knowing what to watch for. All the same, it devastated me.

This is not garden variety anxiety, or even garden variety panic. This is something primeval - and I am very glad to be rid of it, again.

But I can't help wondering: how many others suffer this? I think of the 9/11 familes, the survivors of the Christmas Tsunami, of earthquakes, of Columbine... and of every other person who has held on for dear life, post-operatively, and lived to tell the tale.

Surely something more, something better, can be done than simply telling all of us to hold on tight and ride it out. If this response is indeed "PTSD on a timer", perhaps it can be prevented or at least diminished, by early intervention. Our culture, as a rule, doesn't seem to be much invested in prevention; but I can promise you, after two rounds of this, I certainly am.

I'll let you know what I discover.

So Much for Respite...

2009-04-21T22:06:00.006-04:00

Last April 15, just over a year ago, Kathy Krajco published her final blog post - not knowing it would be her last. But by early May, to the shock and sorrow of people throughout the blogosphere, she was gone.

Late last March, I was enduring a prolonged, incredibly stressful, hugely painful ordeal. Just as I was beginning to recover from it, beginning to remember that I was a human being, not merely a robot that worked and suffered and suffered and worked,

Kathy died.

Her death, of course, was not 'about me'; but her writing, and her wisdom, and her graciousness as a fellow blogger helped, encouraged, and touched me deeply. Her death was a loss to many, myself among them. I am not ashamed to grieve for her.

So one year later, I find myself experiencing an 'anniversary reaction' - to the combined pain of her death and my own past ordeal.

This has only been augmented by a newer loss: Anna Valerious, author of "Narcissists Suck" has decided, almost exactly a year after Kathy's passing, to cease posting to her blog as well.

Two bereavements in two years. Two brave voices falling silent. One on the anniversary of the other.

Pain. Loss.

So I sought respite.

Hah.

Who first coined the term 'escapist literature'? I'm here to say there is no such thing. I simply could not face the anniversary. Could not think about Kathy, or Anna's well earned and richly deserved retirement, or my own year-old harrowing. Decided to lose myself for awhile in the jewelled, rarefied world of fiction, far removed from issues of abuse and human cares.

For this respite I selected two brilliant novelists, Kazuo Ishiguro and Arundhati Roy.

Those of you who actually read things like The New York Times Review of Books may begin giggling now, because you can see the punchline coming, can't you? It's OK if you guffaw, even. I had it coming. Stormchild the Genius decides to get away from memories of abuse and dysfunction, of loss, of pain, by reading

"The God of Small Things".

And "Never Let Me Go".

Serves me right. I owed my ghosts more courage.

These books are incredible, truly awe-inspiring works of art. But they are no literary respite from the hard realities of abuse in human lives. In fact, I was amazed, while reading them, at how profoundly these two writers understand the problems of abuse. It's an understanding so deep that it precedes words. These books are like sculptures, the authors' understanding is the raw marble from which the sculptures emerge - not chiseled out, but stroked free.

I don't quite have my courage assembled yet; the very thought of trying to explain anniversary reactions makes me feel as though I weigh a good half ton. I will have to return to these ideas later: to an explanation of anniversary reactions, and an appropriate homage to both of these powerful books.

Respite. Hah.

Savor life, Anna. May it be good to you; you richly deserve goodness. Feel the wind in your hair and the rain on your face and let it be rain, and not tears. Laugh and love and go with God.

Rest in peace, Kathy. You loved and served more wisely and more widely than you knew. May you be loosed and blessed. Rest in peace.

Abuse is Fractal

2009-04-09T20:37:00.007-04:00

I should probably begin this post by apologizing to any mathematicians and/or physicists who are reading here. I've appropriated one of the most beautiful, entrancing models of reality that math / physics has ever produced, and am using it to capture a key feature of something unspeakably ugly.

I have been considering the notion that abuse is fractal.

What I mean by this is that, although abuse can be complex, the behaviors, roles, interplay that characterize it appear to be self-similar at any scale, which is a primary property of actual fractals.

In previous posts I've talked about groups, teams, cliques, and gangs, using a model that places them along a continuum of abusiveness, with gangs at the highest level of abusiveness and low-affiliation groups at the low end. I've talked about 'phony gurus' [what the AdminZone people call 'forum bullies' when they act out online] and the recruiting, inciting, and targeting tactics of such stealth bullies in realspace and cyberspace.

But I haven't talked as much about the way in which abusiveness follows similar patterns regardless of whether it is happening on a small [two children, or a husband and wife], medium [schools, churches, small companies] or large [entire corporations, denominations, or nations] scale, and regardless of the age of the abuser[s] and target[s]. [Office bullies do seem horrendously similar to bratty middle schoolers with money and cars, don't they? Yes they do; because they are.]

I have also spent little or no time discussing the way that, within the large scale abusive entities, whatever they may be, there will inevitably be smaller-scale abusive entities, whose net effect is to endorse and reinforce the large-scale abuse. You can find a good exposition of this in the TH in SoC blog, I believe, where TH talks about experiencing racism, and observing sexism, in a church small group. I believe the Blog of Lema Nal [linked through TH's blogs, and an excellent resource] also discusses this at various points. Fractal... self-similarity.

What brought this to mind was my recent discovery of an excellent summary of the Large-Scale Abuse Playbook at Derailing for Dummies [advisory: site language is not family-friendly. Very much not.] The focus of this site is on specific tactics used to marginalize and exclude members of certain groups on both the individual and collective scale; while it is amusing in a satirical way, it is also extremely sad.

Because it is so terribly, terribly familiar. These are the tactics of verbal, emotional, psychological abuse. They will be very familiar to any target or survivor.

Now, when I say this, I do not mean it to further marginalize the people who are the focus of the "Derailing" piece. Quite the opposite. I mean it inclusively...

... because what is going on when entire groups are deliberately 'cut out' and marginalized, is abuse on the grand scale. Abuse "just like Mother used to make"; or Father; or the mean boy in your seventh grade class, or the mean women in the sewing circle. The objective - to exclude, diminish, destroy - is the same. But in this case, it is an entire group, or 'cohort', or race, or faith, or nation that is the target of the abuse; hundreds, thousands, millions of human beings calculatedly, deliberately harmed;

one heart, one mind, one soul - one unique and irreplaceable human being - at a time.

Yes, I'm convinced. Abuse is fractal. And although my first reaction to this idea was a feeling of despair at the thought that something so ugly can reproduce itself from the micro to the macro scale so easily...

... my second reaction was cautious hope. Because, if it is fractal, then indeed it is going to follow predictable patterns. And there will be a limited number of patterns that need to be learned and discerned, and those patterns will be detectable at whatever scale of abuse is being practiced.

Learning and understanding and developing strategies to deal with a few patterns, that operate across an infinte range of scales, is far more manageable than trying to grasp and construct responses to an infinite variety of behaviors.

Thus the phenomenon of abusiveness, at any and all scales, becomes much less of a mystery, and much more of a puzzle. And puzzles can often be solved far more readily than mysteries can.

Site Administrators Discussing CyberBullies

2009-04-06T22:17:00.001-04:00

I wish I could remember how I found this discussion thread. It is a priceless description of the phenomenon of 'gang creation' by bullies in online environments, and I stumbled across it within the past few weeks.

Bookmarked it immediately. It's solid gold.

If I'd seen it when it was first written, I'd have been spared much soul-searching with regard to some of my own experiences.

On the other hand, the validation is - again - priceless. This is coming from site admins. These are people who've pretty much seen it all. And what they're seeing is -

- well, go take a look, and let them tell you.

And may you find it as comforting, and validating, and healing as I have.

It's all there. Every single bit of it.

here it is.

On Schadenfreude

2009-04-02T21:39:00.004-04:00

Schadenfreude literally means 'sorrow-joy', and that pretty well defines it.

You might feel it when someone who has made your life a living hell finally 'gets theirs'...

but it's also what that person feels while he or she is making your life a living hell.

You might experience it when the student who bullies your child is held to account by someone in authority with guts and a spine...

but it's also what the bully feels when your child is humiliated or harmed in the bully's presence - especially if the bully manages to put your child 'in the wrong' with someone in authority who lacks either guts or a spine.

It's not one of the uplifting human emotions. It doesn't speak to the good in us. And it's dangerous to indulge, because anything that associates enmity with pleasure is toxic to the soul.

But if we live long enough, we're going to live through circumstances in which schadenfreude is the first, most appropriate response. Inescapably.

There are a few constructive things that can be done with this.

First - it's a feeling. And it's often a response to escape from abuse in one form or another. It exists in that context for a reason. We can properly rejoice in the escape as a separate thing from the 'payback'... as long as we remain focused on the escape.

Second - it's a message. The 'payback' is creating a strong emotional response for a reason. If we can focus on the reason, we can detach, emotionally, and 'disinvest' in the payback. This may happen in baby steps, but it can be done. And it can give us a better understanding of that particular abusive situation specifically. Which can help in understanding abuse in general.

Third - it's a warning.

As I noted above, people who escape abuse may feel schadenfreude as a result of that escape, especially when the abuser suffers appropriate consequences in some form. But abusers ALWAYS feel schadenfreude when their targets suffer, whenever the abuser can see that suffering. Whether the abuser has caused the specific suffering or not, they regard that suffering, in C.S. Lewis' words, as "a legitimate and pleasing refreshment" [Screwtape Letters].

And that is where the warning lies. We are human, and if we have been abused we have been wounded, and those wounds can - and often do - weaken us. It is human and understandable to experience relief when we escape abuse, and to have positive feelings about an abuser being 'brought to justice' in one way or another. But if we revel in this, if we begin to crave it, if we reach the point where we dream of revenge and fantasize about the abuser 'getting theirs', we are at serious risk of becoming the very same thing we so deplore. We have begun to dream of abusing the abusers.

See the abuser wallowing in Schadenfreude. There, but for the grace of God, go we. Our own Schadenfreude can remind us how frail and fallible we are, how sweet and seductive it is to hate, how easy it is to fall.

Bon Voyage Mick

2009-03-28T18:53:00.007-04:00

In a surprisingly positive development, Mick has trundled off to greener pastures.

Been trundled off, rather...

To much greener pastures, far 'beyond the fields we know'.

He finally stabbed that one back too many; but more importantly, he tried to enlist the worst possible henchman when doing so.

If you can believe it... he tried to discredit, demean, and undermine the female head of a department that collaborates very closely with ours, on very significant issues...

to her husband...

who just happens to be ...

One of the chief assistants to our Department Head.

Of course, good ol' Mick had no idea they were married.

It was the usual scenario. Amplified. Mick had to solve a problem that required input from her staff - and she was kind enough to phone him herself and explain, in detail, exactly what he needed to do when requesting that input. SOPs. Standard formats for requesting this and that and the other. Stuff like that.

Just so you have the proper perspective, this is kind of like the Pope calling to ask where he should mail your airline tickets for your visit to Vatican City. Magnanimous doesn't come close. This is a very decent, wonderfully unpretentious lady, who does a very very important significant job. And she took the time herself to call a lost and bumbling rookie, to explain to him directly - and kindly - what he needed to provide her staff, in order for them to help him most efficiently.

Ah, but Mick doesn't do SOPs and follow standard formats. Stuff like that is for other people...

So off he ran to our Associate Head, to complain about what an incompetent, unreasonable, hidebound, unhelpful old pejorative derogatory-noun-for-women they had in charge over there.

It was glorious.

Who would ever have thought that the right of a woman to keep her maiden name would have such positive consequences for her husband's colleagues and subordinates, almost thirty years later?

But the most glorious part of all - from my vantage point - is this:

I told Mick they were married, not two weeks after he started here.

But that, of course, was something he "didn't need to know"; so he brushed that "irrelevant detail" aside.

I strongly suspect that he wasn't listening, at all, to anything I was saying at the time - except to determine when my sentences ended, so that he could loftily dismiss them. A Machiavellian schemer of his calibre normally pays close attention to all available information concerning the power structure - but, apparently, this particular Machiavellian schemer had no intentions of learning anything that I, or various others, sought to teach him; and it was the need to maintain that superior posture that was his ultimate downfall.

:-)

Schadenfreude is a sin; I will almost certainly repent of it - in due time. But right now, I just can't help myself.

IT WAS GLORIOUS.

An Inescapable Dilemma

2009-03-21T21:31:00.006-04:00

In my previous post I explained how many workplaces, being hierarchical, are set up to strenuously oppose boundary setting by those lower in the hierarchy with respect to those above them.

There is very little admission of this in most 'management made simple' literature.

You won't find many time management articles or books, for instance, whose authors honestly admit that most workers are not permitted any real ownership of their time - which is, of course, the first prerequisite for actually managing it.

You won't find many books in the 'One Minute Cheese' genre that accurately describe the backlash experienced by a harried middle manager who puts a 'Please Do Not Disturb' sign on her locked office door for two hours, because she is being interrupted so frequently that she can't complete a single sentence, let alone a paragraph, of the rush report she's just been assigned - and told she must complete by the end of the day. [In a particularly noxious variation on this theme, these interruptions come either from the same person who assigned that report, or people who are being referred to her by that same person.]

Nor will you find many books that honestly admit that, in many organizations, managers who do successfully limit their time and investment in the workplace often do so less than honorably, by foisting their responsibilities onto others.

Telecommuting is one favored method of responsibility evasion for this type of manager; when emergencies arise, the off site manager inexplicably can't be reached via vmail or email - and a peer or subordinate who is physically on site will be left 'holding the baby'.

Another method of responsibility-ducking is the Holiday Dump strategy I described in my previous post - where one manager takes time off and arranges coverage by dumping their responsibilities on a colleague or subordinate [who, in the most noxious version of this game, is given no advance notice, not even the courtesy of being asked for assistance].

The inescapable dilemma that many of us face is simply this: our workplaces are abusive. They are emotionally and psychologically toxic places, and we are often denied the right to protect ourselves from this toxicity.

This gives rise to a secondary dilemma - even when we successfully identify, address, and manage to eliminate as much abusiveness as possible from the family, faith, and recreational dimensions of our lives, we may find it far more difficult to do the same in the occupational / professional dimension. And this can be terribly frustrating, even to the point of hindering our ability to fully recover from abuse.

Why? Because as long as we continue to be forced to experience abuse in any aspect of our lives, we continue to experience a 'crime in progress'. We are not yet safe, and therefore we cannot fully heal. Healing can be fully completed only in safety, only when we are no longer exposed to injury.

As a very poignant Yom Kippur article - written by Barbara, author of the "Sanctuary for the Abused" blog [and quoting trenchantly from the late Kathy Krajco], explains, "... it is as impossible to forgive a crime in progress as it is to forgive a crime in advance. Purporting to do so amounts to saying it is no crime ..."

The Myth of Workplace Boundaries

2009-03-14T00:12:00.009-04:00

As I continue thinking about boundaries my focus has shifted to the workplace.

In that context, I've been staring at an ugly truth - for about ... 25 years.

Fair warning: what I'm going to share here upsets me, and I'm the one bringing it up; it isn't pleasant; it goes against all the comforting myths that we're told and sold. But based on a quarter century of direct experience, in the US and elsewhere, it's not merely true, it seems to be global.

Here we go:

Most enforceable boundaries at work exist primarily between peers, on the same level of a workplace hierarchy.

Boundaries between levels of a workplace hierarchy are generally respected only from the bottom up.

In other words, any person of lower status and power in a workplace is compelled to respect the boundaries set by any person of higher status and power. However, the person of higher status and power is under no compulsion to respect the boundaries of his or her subordinates.

In fact, in many workplace hierarchies, violating the boundaries of subordinates is often considered a 'perk'; meanwhile, subordinates who attempt to set and maintain boundaries with their superiors run a serious risk of being branded 'insubordinate'.

A direct example: I worked for years in a field in which projects typically had to meet critical year-end deadlines. And in every instance I can recall, those year-end deadlines were never met by the actual executives whose annual ratings and bonuses depended upon meeting them. Those executives were in the Caribbean, or the Greek Islands, or Hawaii; it was the people reporting to them who were expected to cancel holidays, give their families short shrift, and work nights and weekends to finish the job. Quite often, these same year-end deadlines were moved up by said executives, by a week or more, just before they hopped on their planes. Net result? Unconscionable stress and wretchedness for the subordinates and their loved ones, while the bosses baked their backsides in the sun.

Another example: I once observed a highly competent female manager in another department being repeatedly 'set up' by her male supervisor. He would decide, apparently at the last minute [but don't you believe it!], that he didn't want to work on the Friday before a given Federal holiday. His last official act before leaving work that Thursday would then be to write an autoreply email announcing his absence on Friday - and dumping all responsibility for running the office in this woman's lap. She would then come in on Friday and find that she'd been sandbagged.

Of course, he never asked her, or even told her, before foisting his job on her - he just dumped on her, which left her with the delightful choice of spending her entire workday doing his work, or being accused of malingering if she had the gumption to leave early. The setup was sickening, and she wasn't going to get any of her work done anyway, under the circumstances; who would blame her for going home?

But she never did. She rolled up her sleeves and endured his abusive exploitation. And every time he pulled this stunt, something nasty and time-consuming would happen. His failure to brief her - or even inform her of his intentions - was almost certainly no coincidence.

She only had to be sandbagged twice to see the pattern, but it took her about four sandbaggings to amass enough evidence to mount a counteroffensive. When she did, though, it was a beauty.

What she did was extremely simple. She requested leave, in advance, for every Friday before a Federal holiday, and for Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve, for the next three years; and she brought this request to her boss' direct superior for approval, while covering for her boss on the Friday before a Federal holiday. She showed her boss' boss the calendar, showed him the autoreplies from the sandbagging series, said nothing about being sandbagged, but explained that it was now 'her turn' to get these days off. Amazingly, this worked.

With leave pre-approved by her boss' boss, she was now protected from future sandbagging, but still had the freedom to come in if she needed to work. When she did come in, she simply revoked her leave request upon arrival, so that she could get her own job done, go home at a reasonable hour, and not forfeit leave.

The fellow doing the sandbagging, of course, tried to criticize her, telling her that she was being inflexible. In fact, she was being quite flexible and creative, and had come up with a very ingenious defense to counter his bullying and sabotage. Her work was excellent; she was extraordinarily competent; her work ethic was admirable. None of this mattered. She was a woman, over 40, and therefore, in this man's mind, a target for abuse.

You will note the semi-passivity of this man's superior. While he was willing to grant the woman leave, he did nothing to intervene directly with her supervisor. It's hard to believe that he didn't recognize what was being done to her, but she was essentially left to fend for herself.

Cynical types, and those who identify with the oppressor, might here interject that all this just means that "it's good to be the King."

I think it means something quite different: few monarchs are truly benevolent, bullies love hierarchies, and many, many workplaces have never emerged from the Dark Ages.

Really Tangled Boundaries

2009-03-05T06:59:00.004-05:00

There's an old story about a lighthouse keeper who learned to sleep despite a loud foghorn sounding all night long; the foghorn malfunctioned and he was instantly awakened by the silence.

It's amazing what you cease to see, or perceive, when you adapt to a given situation.

I've been thinking about Mick and boundaries and my supervisor, and realized that the boundaries where I work are very tangled. I suspect this may be fairly common; and I can't recall seeing any writing about management or organizational psychology that addresses it...

let me explain.

In a comment two posts previously, I recounted how my Department Head had overheard Mick being a classic 'Help-Rejector' very shortly before becoming a classic 'Backstabber', and how the DH contacted me immediately following the backstabbing to find out what was really going on. At that time it appeared that Mick would be turfed off to another mid-level manager to train; now, it appears, he's going to be traded to the 'minor leagues' instead, and when I volunteered to talk to him - since nobody appears to be confronting him directly with any feedback or consequences - my supervisor gave me a gnarly stare.

I understand gnarly stares; I'm not bad at them myself when called for. I didn't understand this particular gnarly stare, at the time. But I've thought about it and realized - it's a direct result of tangled boundaries.

Tangled Boundary 1: The Department Head is not my direct supervisor, but he and I frequently interact as though he is.

This is not intended to cut my supervisor out of the loop. It actually arises from a very common and apparently thoroughly ignored management dilemma: I work full time. The Department Head works full time. Most of my colleagues, and both of the supervisors [we have two; they job share], work part time [that's the point of job sharing, after all].

Tangled Boundary 2: I'm not a supervisor, but I'm often the most senior person available, and therefore end up being pulled into a supervisory type role.

Working full time, I am sometimes the only 'old-timer' around when a crisis first arises, and I end up stepping into a supervisory level role in order to help solve it. Since I don't complain about this [who else is able to do it?], and I quickly step out of the supervisory role as soon as the crisis is dealt with, I rarely experience much backlash. But I hadn't really thought much about what this means, and I hadn't thought at all about how nimble I've had to be in order to avoid conflicts in this situation. I see it as Doing What Needs To Be Done And Then Getting Out Of The Way, and I've always considered that to be part of my job description.

In the Mick Incident, I didn't step out of the supervisory role right away, because

Tangled Boundary 3: when you're training someone, this is a form of supervision. I was approaching my supervisor in my role as Former Mick Trainer and offering to do some Training Involving Icky Emotional Behavioral Stuff since nobody else apparently wanted to touch it.

I don't think this is how my offer was perceived... and I do think that I did exactly the right thing by backing off immediately.

Because, in the Next Installment, my supervisor did indeed take the lad to the woodshed, and apparently gave him a First Class Shellacking [Verbal]. It just took him a few days to reach the point where he could verbalize what he needed to say - perfectly understandable. I was in real-time proximity to the situation. My supervisor wasn't, and because of his part time schedule, he wasn't around when Mick tried to backstab me to the Department Head. So he needed time to process the events before he could express his displeasure both accurately and appropriately.

What will happen to Mick from here forward is no longer my concern, and it will be a good exercise in internal boundary setting for me to keep it that way. Dealing with future Mick Machinations may well be my concern; I will not bury my head in the sand about this, but try to be appropriately vigilant and leave it at that.

However, I now need to think about these tangled boundaries.

The Mick Incident has had a strangely positive side effect: not only the newest staff, but pretty much everyone including the supervisors, have suddenly begun seeing me as a Valuable Resource Person. Me, I always knew I was; but for the first time in my entire career here, others are telling me so and thanking me for it. Previously, it was pretty much taken for granted that I would Fill In As Necessary, and I did, simply because the alternative was unthinkable.

Did I resent the lack of recognition and appreciation? Of course, but not enough to ever consider withholding essential help, which would have been not merely spiteful, but very destructive.

Ironically, just as the rest of the crew have apparently realized that Stormchild is a Very Present Help in Time of Trouble, I have realized that Stormchild Really Needs to Get Out Of The Hot Seat.

I'm going to be doing the math, and if I can sustain it economically, I may begin working part time. For one thing, it would give me much more time to write.

Really Bad Boundaries: or, Slip Your Pals A Mickey

2009-03-02T18:59:00.011-05:00

Back in the Golden Age of American pulp detective fiction, there was a dandy little cocktail known as a Mickey Finn. Hardboiled protagonists would routinely make the plot-furthering mistake of accepting an alcoholic beverage from Little Velma, or Mr. X, or whoever, and shortly thereafter find themselves fast asleep under the influence of [usually] chloral hydrate. Using this subterfuge to incapacitate a pesky shamus was known colloquially as 'slipping them a Mickey'.

Recently, I've been watching a rather different Mickey Finn being palmed off onto the - not unsuspecting, but perhaps unbelieving. It's been a very pertinent demonstration of Really Bad Boundaries.

This is going on where I work... where Mick, the recently hired friend of Jon, recently made a dubious name for himself by speaking ill of Jon, and of me, and of two or three other experienced professionals who've been asked to assist in training him.

It looks like classic 'splitting', i.e., Mick first speaks negatively of me to X, then tells me that it's X, rather than Mick, who is saying these things, in order to elicit negative input from me about X, which he can then tell X in order to fan the flames.

Yes, ostensibly grown men really do act like bratty third grade girls. The amazing thing is that they are very often lavishly rewarded for it. Which, of course, is why they continue to do it...

What Mick doesn't know, however, is that we have one of these already, and everyone is wise to him. Fortunately for us. Because that means that it's not necessary to explain the theory and practice of splitting and triangulation to everyone while issuing a Mick Alert; all one has to do is say, "Mick's doing the same thing Geoff does", and everyone gets it instantly.

To a point, anyway.

Over the last few weeks, I've seen a surprising degree of moral courage from several colleagues in response to Mick's attempted disruptions. Three different people have come to me to let me know he's been defaming me. Jon has apologized to me and to our immediate supervisor for bringing him into the workplace; it turns out they never actually worked on the same team before, and Jon had no idea this was his M.O. I've spoken to a colleague Mick defamed to me, and then to my supervisor in defense of that colleague [and found out that Mick had Been There Done That exactly one day earlier].

But nobody is talking to Mick.

What's more, there's palpable opposition to the very idea of talking to Mick. I've volunteered to do so, and my goodness, you could fry eggs in the heat of the glare I received. Which would be understandable, if the Powers that Be were planning to take the lad to the woodshed themselves, in which case I'd be usurping their authority and stuff like that. But they're not planning to do that.

What will happen instead, it appears, is that he will be transferring to a similar team in another department. Apparently one of the supervisors there participated in Mick's interview and hire, here, and heard about our little troubles, and thinks they're overblown. That The Ladies are Overreacting [that would be me and another defamed colleague] and Mick's Just Misunderstood.

Me, I think this is a Really Bad Boundary, not to mention a Colossal Mistake.

If I were the decisionmaker, which I'm not in this case, it would be time for Mick to get the Come-to-Jesus Talk; the one that starts off, "Are you TRYING to get your silly tail fired? Because the stunts you're pulling are going to GET you fired, if you keep doing this stuff..." and goes on from there to explain precisely what those stunts are, and why they're unacceptable behavior.

Having the CTJ Talk with him would put the onus where it belongs: on the Person Behaving Badly. And would make it very clear what the Bad Behavior is, and why it is Bad Behavior, and unacceptable. It also prepares the ground for the next step in the process, which is Sending Him Off To Re-Education Camp [aka, the EAP or mandated EEO training]. And the step after that, which is Firing His Silly Tail if he doesn't straighten up.

That is a hard verbal boundary, preparatory to a hard behavioral boundary, and it is also Owning Our Mess. We hired the guy, after all. It ought to be our job to deal with him. But it looks like nobody's going there.

Instead, it looks as though we're going to take advantage of that fellow manager, who is just a wee bit clueless, and just a wee bit sexist [it would seem]. But neither he nor his teammates quite deserve what they're going to get. And if they are clueless enough not to recognize triangulation and splitting when Mick starts it there [and he will, you know he will], and sexist enough to dismiss the pain and concern of the women in their own group when Mick starts on them [and he will, you know he will] we are preparing to do a huge and lasting amount of serious damage to people who have done nothing to deserve it.

Which, of course, leads me to consider my own boundaries, and issues of ethics. I know from much painful experience that there is little point in attempting to enlighten the clueless in these situations; refusing to believe in the problem is much easier than accepting the need to solve it, and few people really understand how much damage a badly placed splitter/triangulator can do in an organization. And yet, it is extremely difficult to sit on my hands, and watch my outfit Slip Our Pals A Mickey.

However, I'm afraid that's what I have to do for now, and there are very good reasons for it.

The first reason is that this is not my Role. I'm an Elder, a senior member of staff, a trusted and usually respected advisor. But my authority is intellectual and, to an extent, moral. I do not have direct authority of the type that I would need in order to intervene concretely. For me to attempt to do so would almost certainly backfire. I'm not a supervisor; I can give them advice, but I cannot act on their behalf and must not do so without appropriate delegation of authority.

This is a fact of life. It's a hard boundary. And a much needed source of humility, too. Just because I think I'm right doesn't always mean that I am...

The second reason would be Geoff ...

our Vintage Splitter and Triangulator ...

... who has never, as far as I know, been taken anywhere near the woodshed himself. He's simply been 'encysted', more and more isolated, as more and more people have become aware of his tricks.

Now: Walling Them Off / Sending Them Elsewhere, as a hard nonverbal boundary, is often very effective when you are setting boundaries in your personal life. And that's what appears to be happening here, first with Geoff and now with Mick. But in a workplace, there's a lot more at stake, and there's a lot less freedom of association. I can refuse to answer the phone at home if Mick were to call, but I can't refuse to respond to his calls or emails at work.

Failure to set a firm boundary at a supervisory level, in other words, forces all the lower-level people into continuous boundary-setting, and can allow much unnecessary damage to be done.

But I'm not the supervisor, and although I'm a Respected Elder of the Tribe, I got a pretty ferocious glare when I suggested direct intervention.

For whatever reason, that road's closed. I will tread lightly while I consider what this means, and respect the nonverbal [!] boundaries that I have been shown. There's more than enough constructive work to be done.

Hard Vs. Soft Boundaries

2009-02-22T18:52:00.001-05:00

As is my wont, I've jumped into this boundaries discussion with show first, rather than tell. I.e., I've been letting boundaries explain themselves from context.

Let's backtrack a bit.

A truly outstanding book on boundaries is titled just that - "Boundaries", by two Christian psychologists, Drs. Cloud and Townsend. Yes, it's been around awhile, but human psychology has been around as long as humankind. I also find that Dr. Lerner's books "The Dance of Anger" and "The Dance of Deception" both provide good information on boundaries... as does Melody Beattie in her Codependency books.

I'm headed back to my files and calculator in a matter of minutes to continue working on my income tax, so I won't insert hotlinks; but all of these books can be easily located via Google or Amazon.

The easiest boundary to understand is one's own skin. I think "Boundaries" uses this as an example; it's not original with me. It keeps you in, and the world out. It's water-resistant and shock-resistant, to a point. And you'll notice that it's got a splendid perimeter alarm system - touch, temperature, wet/dry, and discomfort register very promptly.

We also have culturally determined preferred interpersonal distances, and culturally determined [for the most part] behavioral boundaries - for instance, regarding eye contact - whether it happens at all, and if so, for how long; speech [them's no words to use in front of ladies!]; and other behaviors [again I forget who first said this, but it's very true and a good example: in cultures where it is polite to belch after meals, it is generally not polite for male guests to chat up the womenfolk; and vice versa; but in cultures where one is expected to make polite chitchat with one's hosts and hostesses both, one is not expected to belch resoundingly to demonstrate appreciation of the cooking. (I think this example may come from Suzette Haden Elgin)].

Cultural boundaries are psychological, but societally so. It's the individual psychological boundary, which may or may not be reinforced by actions or words, that I'm principally concerned with at the moment.

Hard boundaries are exactly what they sound like. Basically, they are shields, walls, etc., put in place psychologically and, when necessary, physically, to ward off intrusion of various kinds.

"No Contact", advocated by several bloggers [Anna Valerious and Susan Elliott among them], is the ultimate hard boundary for keeping abusers at bay. It can require considerable energy to maintain, both psychologically and physically; Anna V., in her blog, describes having physically relocated to leave her primary abuser behind; Susan E. talks at length about the psychological efforts required to remain out of touch in situations where an abuser persists in attempted contact. Gavin de Becker, by the way [The Gift of Fear], is also a good source of information on this level of self-defense, since stalkers are abusers, and nearly always intend harm.

Hard boundaries tend to be permanent edifices, so it's pretty important to be sure before setting them.

Soft boundaries are something else. They're permeable, negotiable, flexible. For example: I generally start my workday by going through my email inbox; I've done this for years, and people know about when to expect an answer from me. But at the moment, I'm assisting in training several new hires. Because they come in early, and I come in later, I've modified my routine. I now start my day with them; after an hour of coaching and guidance, I start on my email.

I've notified people about this, because it definitely puts me off my stride in terms of getting things done first thing in the morning, and I've made sure they understand that it's temporary, but will last for awhile, because it's being done for a worthy and important cause.

There are at least three soft boundaries there.
One is my shifting of my schedule.
One is my investment of time in my new colleagues.
One is my notification of other colleagues regarding the 'lag time' they're going to see in my email response patterns, and the reason for it.

All of these things are, within reason, negotiable. But there are also limits on the extent to which they can be negotiated - if, for instance, I were to receive a verbally abusive e-mail from someone in the outfit, demanding that I make them my first priority regardless of any other obligations, I would impose a hard boundary with that person immediately: I would forward the email to their supervisor, and schedule a discussion of it.

There are also two hard boundaries here: can you spot them?

One is that I'm not willing to shift my work schedule to match our newbies'. I come in when I come in; and I make myself available immediately for an hour. I'm not going to come in two hours earlier because the rookies like to start at 7, when I've arrived for years at 9. We have many other people who start at 7, 7:30, 8, and 8:30, and we're 'team-training'; it's not only perfectly reasonable for me to preserve my schedule, it's important for me to establish that I have that right as Senior Staff.

The other is that I'm available for that hour, and after that, it's email answering time. So if I come in and the rookies are hanging out chatting for 45 minutes, and they ignore my invitation to stop in for the morning session, they get the remaining 15 minutes and that's it. This is important because one of these rookies is Mick, and Mick, as I described previously, Takes Advantage. He's quite capable of expecting me to train him at his convenience any time during the workday. We fix that one by not letting it start.

I also have similar boundaries during the workday. if I'm writing a crucial report and someone comes into my office, I'll hold up one hand and say, "I need to finish this [sentence, paragraph]; please wait and I'll be right with you." Once I've reached the end of my sentence or paragraph, I keep my word. I withdraw my attention from the task and give it to the person, completely. If I'm not working on something complex, I can usually stop immediately; but I reserve the right not to be completely derailed when working on something complicated and difficult. This is a soft, negotiable boundary, but it has a backbone.

It's interesting that many people won't wait even 30 seconds for assistance. If they leave, I do not follow them [a hard boundary; I'm not here to provide instantaneous gratification, but to do my job, including providing reasonable assistance to colleagues as one adult to another]. They'll come back, or, if they're categorically unable to accept a 30-second wait, they'll find someone else and derail that other person's train of thought instead. The irony here is that usually by the time they find an alternate, I could already have answered their question; but that's an observation I tend to keep to myself.

I also set a very hard boundary that favors people over technology: when someone is in my office, and my phone rings, the person in the room gets priority over the person on the phone. The only time this is not true is when I'm expecting a crucial call, and in that case I always let my visitor know that we may be interrupted, and why. [This is 'a hard boundary' nowadays; 20 years ago, the term for it was 'manners'.] This, to me, is fair and just; if someone has waited for me to finish my paragraph, the very least I can do is give them my undivided attention.

Of course there are even softer boundaries, such as deciding with co-workers when and where to go out for lunch on payday. But even here - again think Mick - one must be prepared to firm things up.

The bottom line? Soft boundaries are flexible and negotiable, within reason, but they depend on the participation of two reasonable people. They may need to be hardened when this isn't the case, so it's important to set them in such a way as to make that possible.

Boundary Setting: Hard Boundaries: Three Issues

2009-02-16T19:25:00.006-05:00

In my experience, the single biggest objection raised when someone sets a hard boundary - of any kind - is that this is an unkind [mean, cruel] thing to do.

The second biggest objection is that it's a unilateral act - and the person setting the boundary has no right to act unilaterally.

The third objection is that it's controlling - that the person setting the boundary is doing so in order to control others.

I'd like to address these issues.

-First: setting a hard boundary is almost always resorted to as protection from some form of abuse, misuse, or other inappropriate behavior.

Hard boundaries are not, generally, offensive in nature. They are resorted to, not initiated. One does not encounter them unless one is trespassing... They are inherently defensive. They do not involve attack, rather they involve constraint.

The boundary setter is raising a shield, not a sword. "Thus far, and no farther, shalt thou approach." There is nothing inherently unkind in this; but it often does involve a refusal to tolerate or enable, 'bad behavior'. And tolerating or enabling 'bad behavior' is often encouraged - if not demanded - by our socialization, as though it were a form of kindness.

Tolerating or enabling is not kindness. It's usually the exact opposite, for all involved.

-Second: boundary setting is unilateral because all self-defense is unilateral.

Just as trespassing / boundary crossing / misuse is unilateral. The objection to 'unilaterality' in this instance is merely a straw man - at best; at worst, it's a covert objection to the target's right to protect themselves.

-Third: constraint is not the same thing as control.

Hard boundaries, set as constraints, are intended to limit vulnerability to specific persons or specific types of abuse / attack. This is constraining, in the sense that it does not allow someone to abuse or misuse the boundary setter in specific ways. It is not, however, controlling in any other sense. It does not necessarily even prevent that exact same someone from abusing or misusing others who lack a similar hard boundary... nor does it deprive them of any other basic freedoms.

Of course, not all boundaries are hard boundaries. There are soft boundaries, too, and I'll think about those next.

So That's Why...!

2009-02-16T00:00:00.003-05:00

A very quick note before moving on to soft boundaries.

In replying to a commenter on the last post, I pointed out that hard boundaries create emotional distance... that in fact this is one of their purposes.

This is true. The point of setting a hard boundary is to protect oneself, and quite often the protection is emotional in nature.

I want to quickly add, here, that this is the source of the "Beattie Effect" - I call it that because, in my readings anyway, Melody Beattie first articulated it.

To wit: "It is impossible to set a boundary while simultaneously taking care of the other person's feelings."

That is true, and this is why. If the purpose of a hard boundary is to create emotional distance, then of course one cannot simultaneously reduce emotional distance [caretake the other's feelings] while doing so.

This probably seems boringly obvious to everyone reading - but to me, at the moment, it feels like quantum physics.

The Myth of Verbal Boundaries

2009-02-15T15:22:00.003-05:00

The previous post on this blog, in my honest estimation, is of very limited usefulness. I posted it because I felt an obligation to explain, verbally, the 'hard' - serious, unilateral, non-negotiable - boundaries that I had long ago established, and had been applying, nonverbally, for well over a year.

In other words, I posted this information to be courteous, strange as that may seem. I don't regret the courtesy; but I don't expect that explaining the boundaries in words will either strengthen them or make them more palatable to anyone who might be affected by them.

There is good reason for this. My experience with setting and enforcing boundaries through purely verbal means has been uniformly discouraging.

I've thought back over as many times as I can remember, when I've tried to get through to someone with words, about something really important to me - involving something that they 'did and should not have done, or left undone and should have done.'

As I recall, the usual response was:

-laughter, derision, putdowns
-hostility, indifference ['uh-huh, yeah, sure, whatever' or 'who cares what YOU think (want) (need)']
-diverting, distracting ['I did NOT take your red blouse without asking, I took your BLUE blouse' 'well, that's interesting, but what I want to know is how does it feel when you cut your toenails?']
-immediate and savage counterattack ['yeah but what about ME huh what about what you did to ME yesterday when you were BREATHING in the same ROOM...']

i.e., defense mechanisms;

but what I cannot recall experiencing is:

-being listened to
-having any interest shown in what I was saying
-having intelligent and responsive questions asked to build understanding on the information I have just provided
-hearing anything remotely approaching an apology or admission of responsibility or expression of regret
-having anything change

i.e., nondefensive responses.

And I do know how to use I-messages and neutral speech. They simply do not work in these situations.

One explanation for this is that many [not all] boundary violations that are important enough to do something about - are intentional. And those that are intentional are often abusive. And there is no point in attempting to reason someone out of abusive behavior; abusiveness is a deficiency in values, not in cognitive ability.

Another explanation is that boundary violations cause people to feel embarrassed, uncomfortable, ashamed. Both those whose boundaries are violated, and, at times, those who violate the boundaries. Bringing the episode out further into the light is not going to make the discomfort, embarrassment, or feeling of being ashamed disappear; on the contrary, it will usually intensify them. The feelings must be faced, understood, and worked through, in order to resolve them. It's simpler, easier, and quicker to react defensively - which means that even reasonably well-meaning people are unlikely to respond constructively in these situations, unless they can force themselves to stop and think before reacting. Which is not easy.

The whole situation is very, very difficult. To do nothing means that nothing changes, and eventually someone loses their temper; to confront, verbally, usually means someone else loses their temper immediately. Which looks an awful lot like a zero-sum game, to me.

Therefore, I usually find myself setting 'hard' boundaries nonverbally. I explain, if warranted, afterwards. I don't announce that I'm setting them and explain why; I just set them.

The 'hard' boundary being set can be a small, quiet thing, such as always using email to correspond with people at work who are verbally abusive over the phone [even replying to their phone messages via email].

Or it can be larger, like always requesting separate checks when lunching with any party that includes a chiseler [someone who always 'forgets' his wallet, for instance, or never includes his share of the tip when chipping in on the bill].

Or larger still, like never being available to join any lunch party that includes the chiseler - without, of course, ever specifying this as the reason for your unavailability.

The only way I have ever been able to bring about genuine, positive, lasting change in situations like these is by enacting the necessary 'hard' boundary myself. With the emphasis on acting.

Unilaterally.

As opposed to words.

And usually without ever making any subsequent attempt to explain or describe my actions in words.

Now, I do believe that there are people on the planet who, when they hurt or injure someone and are confronted about it, can hear this without becoming defensive, and will care, and actually do something about it;

but I also believe that such people, because they care, are already paying fairly close attention to how they treat others. From the outset. And as a result, they will rarely hurt or injure people to the extent that others need to confront them about it.

The bottom line?

Verbal boundaries generally aren't worth the paper they're written on ;-)

Setting a hard nonverbal boundary = setting a limit on the potential for being abused, whether deliberately or otherwise.

This is not the same thing as trying to control other people. I'll talk more about that in my next post.

Comments Policy: Boundaries

2009-02-14T09:24:00.009-05:00

Comments to this blog have been enabled again.

I recently disabled comment posting here, for two primary reasons:

[1] an argument appeared to be developing; civilized disagreement is fine here, but brawls are not.
[2] I was observing what seemed to be an escalating violation of boundaries, when I needed to focus all my resources on a specific issue and had no energy to spare for boundary reinforcement.

Item [1] is self-explanatory; item [2] requires some background.

This blog has actually had a comments policy ever since it began.

Initially, comments were completely disabled.

Given my own experience with badly managed discussion groups in realspace and poorly moderated message boards in cyberspace, I was reasonably certain that I would soon see trolls or hecklers [a troll, in my definition, is a 'stealth' heckler, someone who engenders conflict deliberately, generally an abuser]. I had neither the time nor the inclination to filter out trolls and hecklers or to referee disputes involving them.

Over time, I realized that this was an overly hard boundary and could be modified. This blog now allows all readers to submit comments for moderation. That is, one need not be a blogger or be registered at Blogger.com to submit a comment. Comments may be submitted anonymously.

However, I screen them.

I do not post multiple repetitions of the same comment, once an answer has been provided;
I do not post comments from IPAs that have submitted abusive content in the past, especially if the same IPA posts under different screen names when doing so [sock-puppetry];

[note: bloggers with multiple screen names are a different story and I recognize this.]

I do not post obvious heckling;

nor do I post overly fulsome praise.

[Extreme, unrealistic praise is usually the first move in an idealization-devaluation cycle, whether conscious or otherwise. These cycles always end badly. It's far easier and kinder to all concerned not to allow such cycles to start in the first place, once you know the signs.]

Sincere thanks and honest compliments are always welcome, of course, as are
respectful disagreement,
respectful presentation of alternative viewpoints [within limits; trying to persuade me that abuse is a form of 'free speech' will not get anywhere],
and posts offering additional information and useful links.

I will also not post comments that violate certain boundaries.

Family-friendly language is essential. [PG-13; mild profanity]
Family-appropriate topics are essential; there are other, excellent sites which address, with great courage, recovery from the most profoundly damaging events a human being can experience, and such events are best addressed on those sites.

I cannot provide ongoing counseling; there are other, excellent blogs that use their comments sections more like modified message boards, and those sites do provide direct personal counseling, both from peers and from the authors. There are also excellent message board communities available, with password protected areas in which it is safe to discuss one's deepest sources of pain.

I do not post comments that identify other sites, individuals, etc. to their detriment. If there is information in these comments that I feel ought to be posted, I will post a paraphrased version, and indicate that I have done this. I also post responses to emails, when appropriate, without posting the email content.

Finally, I will not post comments that violate my own boundaries.

Comments that question my choice of topic, presentation style, etc., will be posted and responded to if they seem to be honest questions.

However, comments that attempt to control what I post here, i.e., what I am free to think about and discuss in pursuing my own recovery or sharing the lessons I've learned, will not be posted.

Lest anyone think that babies are being thrown out with the bath water in such cases, here are the criteria I use to differentiate control from persuasion:

Persuasion attempts. When heard, acknowledged, considered, and rejected, persuasion listens, understands, respects, responds, and accepts. There may be multiple exchanges, but there is no escalation. Persuasion can agree to disagree.

Control attempts. When heard, acknowledged, considered, and rejected, control ignores, insists, then demands, then attacks. There will be multiple exchanges, and there will be escalation. Control has to win at any cost.

A sense of escalating pressure, unreceptivity to communication, and/or impending attack is an indication that you are dealing, not with attempted persuasion, but with attempted control. They are different things, and require different responses.

Please Donate to Australian Bushfire Relief

2009-02-10T21:42:00.005-05:00

Please donate what you can for Australian bushfire relief...

the situation is terrible, there have been many deaths and huge losses, people need help.

Meg has posted an update on her blog today.

Please do what you can, if you can, to help.

Thank You [Falettinme Be Mice Elf Agin]

2009-02-10T10:20:00.010-05:00

My subconscious has presented another blast from the past, this one from even further back.
I'm sharing it for several reasons:

-it was an anthem of hope and freedom in a more innocent time, not only in my own life but in the life of this society;
-it corresponds closely to what I feel [viz. the chorus and final verse; note, these may not be 100% accurate lyrics, but they are the lyrics as I remember them, which is what my subconscious has held onto].

most importantly, this is a classic event in recovery.

When you 'strike oil', doing this work, you almot inevitably tap a gusher of memories. This includes emotional memories [which for many of us are stored in music or poetry].

If you're lucky, they'll be positive and/or freeing. If, on the other hand, you feel profound sorrow, a sense of mourning, any kind of fear or apprehension, and this is prolonged or intense enough to be a distraction or hindrance, don't hesitate to consult someone qualified to help.

My personal recommendation is usually either a good clinical psychologist or a good MSW, LCSW, or LCSW-C, simply because they are best trained to deal with the actual events and emotions that arise in these situations. They will also know how to offer and utilize medication, if and when it is needed, as an assist rather than a damper. This can help you navigate difficult passages rather than simply closing them off.

There is no shame in hiring a guide [or carrying oxygen] when you are climbing Everest. It can save you from wasting your best self in a desperate, hopeless pretense that there is no mountain there.

That being said, let us now get down and funky.

Thank You [Falettinme Be Mice Elf Agin]
[Sly And The Family Stone, 1970]

Lookin' at the devil
Grinnin' at his gun;
Fingers start a-shakin',
I begin to run
Bullies start a-chasin',
I begin to stop
We begin to rassle,
I was on the top.

[I want to]
Thank you falettinme be mice elf agin;
Thank you falettinme be mice elf agin.

Starch all in m' collar,
Fuzzy in m' face;
Chit chat chatter 'bout it,
Stuck here in this place;
Thank you for the party,
But I could never stay
Many things is on my mind,
Words is in the way...

[I want to]
Thank you falettinme be mice elf agin,
Thank you falettinme be mice elf agin.

Dance to the music,
All night long
Every day people
Sing a simple song
Mama so happy,
Mama start to cry
Papa still singin'
"You Can Make It If You Try"

[I want to]
Thank you falettinme be mice elf agin,
Thank you falettinme be mice elf agin.

Flamin' eyed people,
Fear burns into you;
Many men are missin' much,
And hatin' what they do;
Youth and truth are makin' love,
Take it from the start;
Dyin' young is hard to take,
But sellin' out is harder.

Thank you falettinme be mice elf agin,
[I want to]
Thank you falettinme be mice elf agin.

Techniques of Healing

2009-02-09T14:11:00.006-05:00

At this point, I have told as much of this story as there is to tell. I would like to again refer anyone in similar circumstances to Lundy Bancroft's books.

Whether or not you have a history of overt Domestic Violence in your family. Whether or not you are a parent.

His advice to mothers, regarding ways to further the emotional healing of their children, is invaluable advice to adults in recovery seeking healthy models for re-parenting themselves, to address and remodel old, archaic coping mechanisms.

I therefore whole-heartedly recommend:

"Why Does He DO That?"

"The Batterer As Parent"

and last but very definitely not least,

"When Dad Hurts Mom: Helping Your Children Heal the Wounds of Witnessing Abuse".

These books will help, regardless of the type of abuse or its origin - whether it's domestic violence enacted by a father, or emotional abuse enacted by a mother, either form of abuse enacted by your own spouse or partner, or workplace abuse enacted by a clique or gang or bullying supervisor.

Because abuse is a disease of values, a disease of society; and abusers behave in highly stereotypical, truly predictable ways.

Which means that healing also has common components, and fundamental techniques can be applied, often with surprisingly prompt results. When we are resilient, when our values have not been permanently distorted by abuse, we can heal.

At this point, my road to healing becomes a more private one; not because of a desire to conceal anything, but because it will be made up of myriad small events, more reading and thinking, and the routine application of healing techniques. The daily work is repetitious, and there will be limited benefit from repeating all of the details here.

Its results, however, should be obvious.

For more details on healing techniques, I refer you to "When Dad Hurts Mom", pages 266 - 311. You will be amazed, and pleased, I hope, to discover how familiar many of these concepts will be. Validation is a comforting friend, always. Bancroft describes:

-safe forms of emotional expression
-safe forms of describing events and experiences
-finding safe help from outside agents [his take on the use and misuse of psychotropic medication exactly matches my own, FWIW]
-empowerment through critical thinking, psychological literacy, and learning to strategize.

And of course, since I have blogged about many of these same techniques in the past, I will blog about more of them in future, once I've become somewhat adept at applying them in this new context.

But meanwhile:

The Road goes ever on and on
Down from the door where it began.
Now far ahead the Road has gone,
And I must follow, if I can,
Pursuing it with eager feet,
Until it joins some larger way
Where many paths and errands meet.
And whither then? I cannot say.
---J.R.R. Tolkien

Whence This Urgency?

2009-02-08T13:58:00.007-05:00

First a quick note to any new readers...

This is a blog about learning to recognize and constructively deal with abuse, which I consider to be quite pervasive throughout our society. I believe we can do so without despairing. Instead, we can arm ourselves with knowledge; it is then often possible to choose a path that prevents us from being either a helpless target or a conscripted aggressor ["choosing, when we can, to be neither prey nor predator"].

For the past two years plus, I've focused on amplifying and deepening the knowledge I've obtained along the way, and I have described events that have occurred to myself or to others, preserving anonymity as best I can. Some of these events have illustrated forms of abuse, others illustrate responses to it.

I have also spoken, in theory but from direct personal experience, about the importance of both support and accountability in the process of recovery.

Without support, we may never gain enough validation to get any traction in our recovery; we just whirl in circles, doubting everything and everyone, most of all ourselves. Without accountability, however, there's another serious danger: we learn to apply the new information to everything and everyone except ourselves.

This recent series of posts involves me applying the information to myself. If this alarms you, or you are uncomfortable with it, please feel free to read the archives starting with the post immediately preceding "Blowing A Gasket", and working backwards in time from there [or vice versa, working forwards and stopping there.]

In my last post, I referred to another of Lundy Bancroft's books, "When Dad Hurts Mom". I'd like to share some advice he provides, which he applies to abusers, but I would apply to everyone who has had inappropriate behaviors modeled for them by either abusers or their frustrated targets:

Bancroft repeatedly emphasizes that neither anger management nor parenting skills training will help an abuser to change. What is required, in addition to these or in place of them, is a specific abuser intervention program, in which the abuser is repeatedly, firmly but constructively, confronted whenever he attempts to avoid facing his own abusiveness. Abusers given anger management or parenting training alone will simply misuse the principles they are taught, twisting them around as ways to further blame and abuse their targets. Only a program which literally requires the abuser to apply the principles to his own behavior will have any chance of success.

As with abusers, so with those of us exposed to their behavior patterns. We must learn to see, not only without, but also within, and we must be able to do so without fear, or shame, or excessive self-condemnation.

It's a tall order, and it's hard work, but it is very, very important.

Moving right along...

I now see that there are situations in which I apply an inappropriate model for expressing anger. I know where this model came from and I am able to view it with both compassion and detachment -- vitally important to moving forward. What I now need to think about is the fact that this is not my standard model for expressing anger. This is a model I use only on 'special occasions'. Which is good, as far as it goes, but I can go further now.

I resort to this model in situations where I am, or feel myself to be, trapped; cornered; overwhelmed; surrounded by abusers and targeted by them; or when I perceive others to be in this condition.

There have been rare occasions when this was 'the best option', but usually it is not.

What is my emotional state on these occasions?

I feel angry - of course. I also feel fundamentally threatened [being cornered, overwhelmed, and subjected to mass attack is going to feel like a fundamental threat to one's survival], or I see others as being in that position.

But I also feel, as I noted in the previous post, a huge desire to control, a sense of entitlement to control, and a combination of disdain and superiority [moral and ethical] that adds up to strong feelings of contempt.

Some of this is a 'survival driver'. Many cornered animals will attack the predator, as a last resort, when that is the only way open to them. The Berserker impulse is not limited to human beings.

If I reflect, I can see that on those occasions where a type of survival really was at stake, and I expressed anger in this way, one of two things happened: I successfully backed the predator[s] away, or I drew them from cover in such a way that there was no mistaking the predatory, destructive intent.

However, there have been occasions when my survival [economically or as a member of a group] wasn't at stake. What was threatened then?

When I really put thought to this, I'm surprised at the answer. Sometimes, apparently, I've feared for the survival of my principles.

This, I think, explains the occasion which has prompted this series of posts.

And there are several fallacies there, that I can see clearly now.

First, my principles aren't "mine" - they're not unique to me. Many others hold similar beliefs. Therefore they survive entirely independent of me...

Second, my principles, in "me", survive as long as my soul survives and holds to them. In the here and now, they survive as long as I survive and can act from them, or can articulate them to others.

I am vulnerable to being drawn into the Karpman Persecutor Role when I feel compelled to act as an "enforcer" of these principles on others. But then, paradoxically, my principles don't survive -- because then I, myself, have overridden them.

Click.

Another piece snaps into place.

Many of these situations don't need Stormchild to ride to the rescue. My tension can be resolved quite simply, merely by setting an internal boundary with myself, and refusing to engage. [It keeps being true, over and over: the only way to win is not to play.]

Many other situations can be resolved without unleashing the Berserkerin. To constrain is not necessarily to enforce. And there are, in most circumstances, alternate behaviors available to me which do not require the use of force - although setting a 'hard boundary' unilaterally is a forceful act, it is not force in the same way as tantrum-throwing. It is focused, channeled, self-constrained, and limited.

The key, for me, will be to block that sense of urgency, of fundamental threat, that prompts the Berserkerin; understanding that in nearly all cases she is an archaic response [linked back in time to my childhood, no longer needed in adulthood].

Since I am already channeling other types of anger constructively via conscious displacement of my fight-or-flight response, i.e. treadmills and pillow-punching, I am confident that I can do the same in these cases, now that I better understand the dynamics and the source of my response.

And - there is no blame, there is no shame. There is history, there is compassion, there is understanding, there is regret, and there is honest determination.

Which means:

there is healing. Not instantaneous, but well launched, and well provisioned for the journey.

to be continued...

I've Had Enough, And Enough Is Too Much!

2009-02-06T22:44:00.009-05:00

Let's recap.

A couple weeks back, I 'lost it' elsewhere in cyberspace, and found myself reacting with abusive anger towards a group of people whom I found appallingly abusive.

This was both ironic and totally counterproductive, BUT, much more importantly, it captured my full attention, and I realized that I must, really must, address it.

This business of, at times, acting abusively in anger. Rare times, thank God, very rare indeed. But - as long as it's happening at all, there's something here that needs to be recognized, confronted, thought through, and changed, where change is possible.

Otherwise, all I've been doing here for the past two years is blowing smoke.

So.

I've been reading such literature as there is, on anger, and on anger originating from experiences of abuse.

It's not easy to find information that genuinely applies. There are articles aplenty available. But most seem to be based in the fallacious assumption that it always takes two to tango, that all anger originates in situations where both participants share blame.

Abuse is unilateral. That's what makes it abuse... and the anger created by abuse is the anger of those unjustly accused, unreasonably mistreated. The anger of the exploited, the anger of the innocent. But it is still anger, and it needs to be expressed constructively, if it is to have any constructive effect.

I have found a few very helpful articles online, but - again - I'm winding up extremely grateful to Lundy Bancroft [along with Harriet Goldhor Lerner, Ph.D., credited previously].

Recently, I posted here about his book, "Why Does He DO That?", and implored people to read it. I'd thought it was probably not going to be terribly relevant for me, since its focus is more on Domestic Violence and the abuse that leads up to DV, so I'd postponed reading it...

... oh, how wrong I was.

Having learned that he has a lot to teach me, I am now reading two of his other books: "The Batterer As Parent" and "When Dad Hurts Mom"... even though I have never been battered or battering.

Because I have lived and worked with people whose lives have been affected by domestic violence... and those people matter, and understanding their situation - and its possible effects on their attitudes and behavior - matters.

In fact, it matters to me, personally, much more directly than I've ever considered before. I'll get to that in a moment.

Bancroft describes, in detail, a set of attitudes that accompany battering specifically, but also abusiveness in general.

-A desire to control - people, situations, outcomes.
-A sense of entitlement - which gives rise to double standards, exploitiveness, and
-self-centeredness that excludes even the possibility of other selves.
-Disrespect for others; a sense of superiority to them.
-Possessiveness in the sense that others are treated as things, and certain others are treated as things the abuser owns.
-Manipulativeness
-Hypocrisy [not stated as such, but this is what it is]
-Blame-shifting; evasion of responsibility
-Denial and minimization
-A perception that love equals abuse, or confers the right to perpetrate it.

Abusiveness, as a character disorder, truly IS a character disorder. It is a disease not of thinking, not of feeling, but of values.

And yes, when I am honest, I can see some of these distorted values creeping into my own attitudes, on those occasions when my anger boils over and wants to rampage.

Not all of them, thank God. Primarily

-the desire to control [by God, I'll convince these idiots if it's the last thing I do!]
-a sense of entitlement [I'm right about this, and I'm going to persuade these blockheads if it's the last thing I do!]
-and, of course, you can't have either of these without both disrespect and a sense of superiority.

These are not, thank God again, among my values when I am "clothed and in my right mind", which is 99.999998% of the time.

Which means that I can answer the question "So, does this make me an abuser?" honestly by saying:

No, but I can behave abusively, and have done so perhaps 00.000002% of the time.

You will note that I have my foot firmly on Wiggle Wiggle Squirm Squirm at this point. WWSS wants to point out how provoked I've been on these occasions and how I don't resort to this kind of behavior unless I am pushed beyond anyone's reasonable limit of tolerance.

I'm not going there. There might be some excuses to be made along those lines, but this is not the time for that. Right now, it's time to figure out: Where did I learn this? Where did I pick up the tendency to shift values - temporarily, under duress, but still, shift values - in this way?

At home, of course. When I examine the way in which my parents modeled anger, I see these things lurking underneath.

It should not really surprise me that my parents did not 'do anger' well. What should surprise me is that they 'did anger' as well as they did. You see, they were both children of battered mothers. And this is a fact that, until now, I had never fit into my own personal puzzle.

Why? Because by the time I was born, there was no longer any battering in my grandparents' marriages. In both cases, family history relates, a son intervened to stop the battering permanently, once the boy was sufficiently well grown to lay down the law to his father. The son who intervened in my father's family was my father himself; the son who intervened in my mother's family was her younger brother.

Probably because the cycle was broken in both their families in this direct and deliberate way, my parents' marriage was free of battering.

There was, however, emotional and psychological abuse, which originated with my mother primarily.

Again, now, let me stress: they were both children of battered mothers. The fact that their families 'intervened' to stop battering is amazing.

The fact that they did not understand and were unable to avoid recreating other forms of abuse is sadly, all too understandable. There was almost nothing available to them to learn from... except the behavioral examples modeled by their own parents and relatives. Which were generally fairly unhealthy.

So how did my parents 'do anger'?

My mother concealed hers, kept quiet, and coiled to strike.

She was never direct, always retaliatory, and often struck back in an area totally unrelated to the source of her anger. At times it would be a single blow; at other times, she would snipe, and pick, and pick, and snipe, until you felt like a pile of whitened bones by the end of the evening / weekend / meal / event.

Family members literally never felt safe from this. There was always some old score to settle, and one rarely if ever even knew that it existed until she struck out.

My father tried to temper his responses to the occasion - but with my mother, he invariably tried to placate, and this usually failed.

As a result, he did model self-control in response to normal frustrations of daily living; he was a patient and involved parent, rare for his time. It would have been better - for the whole family - if he had been able to express healthy anger in response to abuse, and confront it directly. But he had no model for that, other than the old confrontation with his battering father, which didn't fit this situation.

So, I grew up watching him tolerate persistent psychological abuse...

... gradually become furious ...

... come to a slow boil.

And he would hold his anger in...

... until he couldn't hold it in any longer ...

... then let it blow.

With words.

.
.
.
.
.

Well, now.

It appears I've inherited more from him than his Breitling watch.

Anecdote

2009-02-04T20:01:00.017-05:00

A funny thing happened on the way home from work one day this week.

Both funny ha-ha and funny-interesting.

I was waiting for the light to change, and there's a gas station on the corner. With a right turn lane next to it.

It's a real, true, profound pain to get out of that gas station at the best of times, if you don't want to make that right turn.

Somebody wanted to get out of the gas station, and pull into the second lane over - the one next to the right turn lane - just behind me.

I scooched up to try to help them out, but the person in the Jeep in front of me, who had two full carlengths ahead of him, didn't move.

I scooched up a tiny bit more, and the person seeking to escape the gas station tried to scooch into my lane so they wouldn't block the turn lane...

... and the oblivious soul in the Jeep remained oblivious ...

I flashed my brights, quickly, twice, and waved out my window to try to get his attention, and pointed behind me at the person trying to scooch in [who was now keeping someone from making that right turn]

I got his attention, all right. He gave me 'the finger'.

What happened next was interesting, to say the least.

The person scooching in behind me saw me receive the Unidigital Salute, and at the same time, he realized that the lane next to me, on the other side, still had room for his car. So he scooched over into it, and ended up next to me. I waved, held up both hands in the universal gesture of sympathetic helplessness, shook my head. He held up both hands and shook his head in the universal gesture of understanding helplessness. Pointed Jeepward, and thumbed his nose.

I nodded and laughed.

The light turned green. All the cars in my lane started to move. Except for our mutual friend in the Jeep, who remained perfectly still. Perhaps he didn't notice the light had changed; perhaps he was continuing to be an obstructionist.

It really doesn't matter.

For Lo, my foxhole buddy from the gas station

went - zoom - nipped neatly over in front of him, and was gone.

Whereupon Jeep Person realized that. if he'd been sitting there intentionally, all he'd done was give a break to precisely the person he'd been trying to, umm, jerk around in the first place.

And off he went - looking more than a little - Jeepish.

Now, what's interesting about all this is that

I was never even slightly angry during any point in this process.

I would not have acted out, previously, but I would certainly have been vexed. I would have found Jeep Person very affronting, and probably would have practiced my scatological vocabulary, in several different languages, on the drive home.

What's more, I might have christened him "Jeep Jerk" here, in recounting the tale, and it would have taken me several days to retrieve the humor in the situation.

Rest assured, I do most definitely consider him a jerk. He was, most definitely, abusive in his response. But - he was a transient, minor annoyance at worst. And it was so funny to watch the other car nip over into his lane, right in front of him, and take off like a pocket rocket, while he was sitting there trying [perhaps] to make my life just that little bit more unpleasant. [Maybe.]

It was funny, it was perfect poetic justice, and I made it through the light myself with plenty of time to spare.

And the funny perfect justice is the part that I will greatly note and long remember.

This is progress, people.

And yes, I realize that this is not so very different from my recent experience at Mr. Singh's place of business.

That is greatly encouraging.

So... we press on.

*********************************************

A comment on comments:

I've decided not to post comments for awhile.

I need to focus on this process. Once I'm through, and out the other side, I'll reopen posts to comments.

Thanks, everyone, for your understanding.

Refueling Stop

2009-02-01T09:13:00.017-05:00

This has been moving at a pretty fast clip, largely because I've been putting words to things that have finally come close enough to the surface for me to articulate. Doing that is a crucial part of the process. It's necessary to deepen my understanding, because it's in verbalizing these things that I'll really come to grips with the subtleties and details.

This is one of the situations in which details definitely matter.

In the last two days I've hit the mother lode, except that it's about equally the father lode. [sorry CZ, couldn't resist]. I'm looking again at FOO patterns, associated with the expression and acting out of anger, what was modeled for me vs. what was expected from me. Am also looking at the cultural matrix, the 'temper of the times' [sorry again CZ] when I was a child, a teen, a young adult, and at workplace cultures I have experienced.

This is jampacked, and it's taking a while to sort out major components.

I still have the strong sense that I'm going to continue to make progress.

I also have a 'token', if you will, of what lies ahead. In the past several days I've had an inordinate number of extremely frustrating, annoying, bothersome things to deal with. Nearly nonstop petty hassles at work, nearly nonstop 'petites miseres' outside of work. Lots of sand in the gears, very little forward motion on things that have to move forward.

Normally I come home from a siege like this, and either spend an hour walking or working out, or a few minutes punching a pillow - to offload the 'fight-or-flight' that accumulates at times like this, so it won't cause problems elsewhere. This stuff 'comes out sideways' if you let it accumulate; that much, I already knew.

Strangely, it hasn't been accumulating.

Even more strangely, I've been watching the 'stuff' as it goes by. Just as with the pity, just as with the 'Karpan Rescue' impulses. Watching and tagging, like some kind of emotional naturalist doing field studies.

Hey, look at that, there goes a Five-Crested Gratuitous Snipe. Look at it preening! Wow, here's a Three-Toed Inconvenient Delay. Poor thing looks like it's asleep on its feet. And there's a Slithering Innuendo. Out there, coming closer, a stampeding herd of Inappropriate Demands... yikes, they're heading straight at me... quick, up the canyon wall, hang on as they thunder past. And if they stop right under me and start milling around, waiting for me to come down, then drop a corral around them quick!

There's a difference; I'm tagging things that are on the outside, which seems to be instrumental in keeping them outside. Which, after all, is where they belong.

Isn't it interesting that appropriate labeling is such a key component of boundary setting -- and isn't it interesting how relentlessly we are taught that we should not label - as an absolute. With no hint that there are times and ways in which it is not only appropriate, but essential. What a nifty way to prevent someone from learning to set boundaries!

And with that, I'm off for a refueling stop. Catch some rest, kick back, then get a cup of coffee and start in again.

Back soon, God willing.

Sidebar: Will this Accomplish Anything?

2009-01-31T10:45:00.002-05:00

I want to stop for a second and thank everyone who has commented here. And folks who have emailed too.

There is much kind concern, and I mean that, about my emotional well-being; concern that I'll end up going too far with this and hating myself undeservedly, or leave myself open to unwarranted criticism from others who might not have my best interest at heart.

Peace.

I'm far, far more likely to end up hating myself if I don't address this. It's time, and I feel that. It's like being led to speak in Quaker Meeting. [No, I'm not a Quaker, but yes, I speak from experience.] You don't do it, it does you; the pressure becomes unbearable otherwise.

Like giving birth.

It's time.

I'm also no novice where unwarranted criticism is concerned - Lord no! And there have been scads of people in my life, and the lives of people dear to me, who didn't have my, or my dear ones', best interest at heart. Many of them have ultimately provided rich sources of blogging inspiration - a fitting fate: lo, they are become anonymous mental compost.

Never underestimate the power of writing as exorcism; and never for a moment think I'm being flippant about that.

But the real question is, will this accomplish anything? Am I wasting my time on nothing more than a bit of personal drama?

Yes, and no.

This will indeed accomplish something, and the reason I can state that with confidence is because the same process, applied to other dynamics, already has.

I am now extremely aware of my own Karpman Rescue tendencies. Of the upwelling of pity within me, and my own tendency to confuse that with love. And of the way in which that makes me vulnerable to exploitation...

This has not stifled my feelings. Quite the contrary. To my great surprise. I actually seem to have a broader range of feelings in this area than ever before, because I am now aware of shading, of varying intensities, and of admixtures of feelings - whereas what I felt before was primarily a driving discomfort, a sense that something had to be done, by me, immediately.

I can now say to myself, 'wait a second, look at this more closely, it feels like you're being gamed into a rescue...' or 'wow I'm ambivalent about this. Let's back off and figure out where the mixed signals are coming from'.

And I've avoided many Karpman traps, at work and elsewhere, by sitting quietly on my hands when someone waves a dilemma at me - especially at work, after 3 PM, on Fridays, in hopes I'll ride to the rescue [and they can go to the movies].

I have, in other words, 'surfaced' my Karpman Rescue Dynamics to the point where I genuinely do have opportunities to 'choose' my response.

What is happening now is that I am 'surfacing' the recalcitrant bits of my Karpman Persecutor Dynamics.

All of my previous blog posts here are the product of similar exercises in thinking, and grasping, and putting together the pieces. But this time, that process is happening right here, in real time.

And I can say, with absolute truthfulness, that I am already beginning to see the shadings, variations, and admixtures in the feelings that drive my Persecutor tendencies. Already.

Twelve-Step veterans know exactly what comes next:

"4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.

5. Admitted to God, to ourselves and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.

6. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.

7. Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings."

This is what that process looks like, live; at least, for me. It is my devout hope that somehow, working through this live, I'll not only find a way out of this particular Karpman quagmire, but also provide useful escape tips for others floundering alongside.

Thank you, bless you, for being here with me.

Praying Like A Roman?

2009-01-30T20:16:00.009-05:00

[Scratching head]

Well what is up with this?

Is Wiggle Wiggle Squirm Squirm trying to persuade me I'm some kind of anti-heroine?

That won't work.

But there seems to be something else in there.

My subconscious is a terrible punster. About 30 years back, I was doing some very boring and repetitive labwork for someone who was equally boringly and repetitively unappreciative, and one evening as I was scrubbing up before going home, I started singing one line from -another- Steely Dan song.

Over and over.

About ten minutes later, I started listening to the words.

I was singing: "I'm a fool to do your dirty work, oh yeah! I don't want to do your dirty work no more!"

Whereupon I started roaring with laughter, and decided there and then that it was time for me to make some serious changes in the situation. Had to be, if my own subconscious was sending me such obvious hints.

This Josie thing, now.

The song was popular right around the time I was in that lab singing about the dirty work, and frankly, I was far more innocent then than I am now. To me, then, it symbolized kicking back with my other geeky pals on a Friday or Saturday night, maybe going out and dancing for hours - an inexpensive and harmless diversion, as long as you stuck to soda or coffee after the first two beers, but continued to tip the bartender as if you were still drinking. [It's not the fact that you don't drink that bugs 'em. It's the fact that people who don't drink tend to be lousy tippers. Fix that, and you're welcome anywhere.]

Well... this song is rather obviously not about that. Obviously to me now, anyway.

OK. We can safely assume that I'm not longing to be a teenybopper gang member. But there's something in there, isn't there. Something about a woman - and anger, again - and the anger not being rejected as unwomanly at all. In fact, she's admired for her guts, isn't she? They're gang-type guts, alas, but that sailed right past me back in the day.

Prays like a Roman with her eyes on fire.

Doesn't quite go with the rest of the picture.

Does go with Boudicca.

Yikes... another piece of the puzzle drops into place.

DEFIANCE.

Which, a very respected friend once told me, seemed to be a major source of my strength in the desolate times.

Boudicca. Defiance. Yes. Praying like a Roman with her eyes on fire...

I can see how this could work. The same defiance that drives perseverance and the refusal to give up, during hardship, would be difficult to throttle back in other situations. Yes, I can see this.

Needing defiance as a source of internal strength, but not knowing how to tame it, at certain times.

So: what do I have now?

Tantrums at Trolls - not good. Needs to change.

Defiance as a source of self-preserving energy - definitely good, but needs to be broken to saddle or it can be counterproductive. In fact, learning to tame my Defiance [more: it's actually fairly housebroken, these days, but needs better table manners] is, I suspect, a key piece to learning how not to throw Tantrums at Trolls.

Damn, this is exciting!!!!!!!

Josie: A Musical Interlude

2009-01-30T09:50:00.004-05:00

I have learned that when my mind pulls lyrics from memory and starts playing them to me, insistently, I ought to heed the message.

Here we go:

Josie -- Steely Dan

We're gonna break out the hats and hooters
When Josie comes home
We're gonna rev up the motorscooters
When Josie comes home to stay
We're gonna park in the street

Sleep on the beach and make it
Throw down the jam till the girls say when
Lay down the law and break it
When Josie comes home

When Josie comes home
So good
She's the pride of the neighborhood
She's the raw flame
The live wire
She prays like a Roman
With her eyes on fire

Uh huh...

Jo would you love to scrapple
She'll never say no
[No!]
Shine up the battle apple
We'll shake'em all down tonight
We're gonna mix in the street

Strike at the stroke of midnight
Dance on the bones till the girls say when
Pick up whats's left by daylight
When Josie comes home

When Josie comes home
So bad
She's the best friend we ever had
She's the raw flame
The live wire
She prays like a Roman
With her eyes on fire

When Josie comes home
So good
She's the pride of the neighborhood
She's the raw flame
The live wire
She prays like a Roman
With her eyes on fire

-----

I'll figure out what my subconscious is trying to get across here, in a day or so. Meanwhile, I'm not going to hide from it, whatever it is.

Berserkerin, Part Two

2009-01-29T21:01:00.002-05:00

I'm going to assume that a female berserker would be a berserkerin [assuming the etymology is Old Norse]. Interesting title, one I haven't held before...

OK. Back to business.

I've been truly fortunate to have important men, central to my life and work, grant me a right to my anger and accept its strength - while also allowing me my womanhood. I've had pretty much lifelong permission from Pop to take no prisoners when in extremis, and this was reinforced very recently by the admiring amusement of my Department Head - when I handed a bully his Figurative Head, and admitted as much without sugarcoating events.

That's interesting, but not really what I need to look at. Although it will help later on, when I start asking how much of my anger is legitimate [in general and in particular cases]. It also encourages me to work on using anger as a weapon of defense, not a bludgeon.

I've retrieved some instances of true berserkerin behavior now, and I'm looking for common elements.

First, I need to admit I have done something like this about ten times since 1988. That's about once every other year. More in some seasons, less in others. Yay, whew. But, if there's any way to reduce that, it's all to the good. I really don't want to act this way if I can help it.

If I only got gutter-rolling blotto once every 24 months, that would still be too often, and I'd still have a problem. Oh yes. I would. This is just a different form of intoxication... and please note the 'toxic' in the middle of that word. It's there for a reason.

Let us resume.

Several situations, including this most recent episode, I can classify as Troll-Baiting, or, rather, as a response to being baited by trolls. These situations were similar: people were holding up cruelty and meanness - knowingly - as something to strive for with pride. Actively encouraging others to treat a specific person or group cruelly, or with 'depraved indifference' - that's a legal term, by the way, and it's pretty damn serious.

As in the most recent case, I got all righteous on their tails, seriously up in their business. To no net effect, of course, except to feel like a complete fool five minutes later... not because I said something, but because I took an almighty whack at them as I was saying it.

In other words, I let my feelings run away with my mouth [or my typing] and turned a potentially useful confrontation into a tantrum.

OK, let's tag those episodes as 'Tantrums At Trolls'. That's a good name. It's catchy, descriptive, and sufficiently accurate to give me a good idea of what to avoid and why, in future. I'll come back later to see how it is I get sucked in to this type of performance - that's a knee-jerk reaction I need to break.

Now. Let me consider the other outbursts I can remember, the ones that weren't Tantrums At Trolls. Can I find common elements?

Yes... yes, I can.

Renewed, I think you were on to something. These other outbursts occurred in situations where I perceived myself as being actively abused - sometimes quite overtly, but often in a snide, underhanded fashion. Usually by a tag team of bullies. Even more usually, by females. But not always.

There's another common element too... my goodness. Betrayal.

One particularly nasty event from more than a decade ago involved an alcoholic, possibly untreated bipolar, about-to-be-ex, who went on a meanness rampage precisely when he fell off the wagon. Despite bleared eyes and an unmistakable aura of metabolized Scotch, this guy managed to con a couples therapist into seeing me as the one with the problem. Hypersensitive. Overreacting. Hysterical female.

Yow.

Fortunately, he couldn't sustain the pretense, and when he blew his cover in the office, in front of the therapist, it was unmistakable what the problem really was. No question.

I was just merciless to the therapist afterwards - flayed him verbally, left, and never went back.

In that case, I felt betrayed by both my ex and the therapist; but it's the therapist's betrayal that I still have emotion about today. It was the more profound betrayal, after all. A mean drunk is going to be a mean drunk, just as surely as the sunrise; once it's accepted that he's a mean drunk, most of the sting goes out of it. It's not personal; he does this to everyone eventually. But a therapist is supposed to be therapeutic, not an appendage to an abuser.

The other situations I can recall were variations on this, really.

Being cornered by the adult equivalent of High School Mean Girls at a book discussion group.

Being marginalized by a bunch of European Male Chauvinists [sorry, but they really were] who ignored everything I said in meetings, while stealing all my suggestions and recommendations as fast as they could shovel with both hands.

Having a male acquaintance turn on me in public, to score points with a vicious female bully in a faith-based 12-step group [think ACOA or CoDA] with whom he later went on to have an affair. He was married, and the denouement came very soon after I suggested he was getting a tad too fond of me, to the point where it was making me uncomfortable in the group...

Several truly nasty encounters in a recovery group, involving betrayal similar to the one I experienced with the alcoholic ex, again from someone in a position of relative responsibility, who really, really should have known - and done - better.

And let's go for broke... since I'm being candid about all of this, and have to be if it's going to work, I should add that I became solidly convinced that the troubled, abuser-laden recovery group was full of high-functioning, non-recovering alcoholics. The non-recovering is significant. Seriously recovering alcoholics are very, very different people, and have my highest respect... but in the setting I'm talking about, there was much reference to beer, and a lot of what looks to me now, at a distance, exactly like drunken abusiveness.

And just as the couples therapist missed screamingly obvious signs from my ex, so long ago, the person who was nominally in charge of keeping us all on the 'straight and narrow' in this other setting was easily conned and gulled by exactly the people whose dysfunction should have been most obvious.

Well now.

One moral to this story seems to be "stay the hell away from support groups and therapists".

That's a tad extreme, and it's not what I advocate at all.

Let's reframe it as "don't expect many support groups to be supportive, or many therapists to be therapeutic, where abuse is involved. Not even, or perhaps especially not, groups whose stated purpose on paper is to facilitate recovery from abuse! Abusers can game groups and even so-called professionals very skillfully. Trust your gut, and try to cut your losses with minimal drama."

But yes. There are underlying commonalities here, and they are significant.

Being betrayed
Exploited
Bullied
Cornered

especially, but not always,

in settings where I have gone to seek
Help
Understanding
Support

and being pushed just that last, little, teensy, weensy bit

over the line.

Well... guess I'll pause here. I see all of this very clearly, and I don't want to push too fast, because that's when things become blurred and you lose your grasp of what you learn.

Over the line, huh? I wonder where that line is and who taught me to draw it.

Looking for Patterns - and Going Berserk

2009-01-27T19:55:00.012-05:00

So at this point I am facing the fact that my behavior in a specific time and place was abusive, and I'm going to avoid making excuses for it as best I can during this next post.

"Accept those things you cannot change..."

I can't change the past, not even the immediate past. But I can make an effort to understand it, and by doing so, perhaps change the future.

Appropriately.

The Dance of Anger is turning out to be exactly the right book at exactly the right time. It's about recurring behavioral patterns, driven by anger that's not clearly understood or acknowledged. Best of all, the author is willing to share her own patterns and explore her own anger, and that's exactly the model I need right now.

It's pretty obvious to me that my behavior was driven by anger. Large anger, serious anger. I need to know where this anger comes from - and 'a history of abuse' isn't specific enough. This was very specific anger. I am willing to bet that it has a similarly specific source.

First Uncomfortable Question for this post. Have I ever done anything like this before?

Get coffee, sit still. Pray to be honest with myself. Remember.

Yes. As a matter of fact, I have done this before. Very rarely, but that's beside the point right now.

OK: what were the circumstances when I did this before?

Don't rush, this isn't a timed final exam.

Let me see. About 18 months ago, I 'blew back' at an office bully who exploded in my face without real provocation because he asked me to do X and I told him I would take care of it as soon as I finished Y, which I was working on at that very moment in order to meet a deadline.

Was I rude to the person in any way before he blew up? Think seriously about this. No, I wasn't. I was Leveling, speaking the truth. I didn't diminish his need but I also didn't set it above my legitimate priority at the time, which was to finish Y. I reassured him that X would be next and would be done that day, in fact, if at all possible.

How did I 'blow back' at him?

He blew up at me, called me a collection of scatological terms, and stomped out of my office, leaving me in a state of complete shock. I didn't become sad, as I would have earlier. Nor did I become frightened, as I would have earlier. I was just stunned by the unwarranted abuse, recognizing it for what it was.

I blew back at him when he came back for seconds. He tried to do a drive-by dump on me again, about 30 minutes later, while I was now trying to finish Y and, at the same time, figure out how to address his outburst constructively, because I wasn't going to let it go.

Bad, bad time to try anything. This time I let him have it, verbally, with very few holds barred. I didn't use scatological language about him, but I did use it, as in:

"And you didn't give a rat's * what the h--- I was doing or had to do, for what, or how many other tasks I have, you didn't give a s--- that I have had to work overtime, weekends, holidays to get this d--- thing done.

HOW DARE YOU SPEAK TO ME LIKE THAT!!! DON'T YOU EVER SPEAK TO ME LIKE THAT AGAIN!!!! I NEVER WANT TO HEAR ANYTHING BUT PLEASE AND THANK YOU FROM YOU AS LONG AS YOU WORK HERE!!!!! NOW GET OUT OF MY OFFICE AND DON'T COME BACK!!!!!!!"

Then I immediately got up, walked down the hall to my department head, and told on myself, leaving nothing out. One of the things I told on myself about is that I've never done this before, anywhere, on any job, ever, which is true. I also clarified that I don't plan to do it again, ever, unless similarly provoked, but that I would reserve the right to do it again, in very much the same way, if treated that way again by anyone.

By the time I finished, my Department head was grinning at me, and when I said, 'I understand if you're displeased about this but I didn't see much of an alternative that would have had any real impact, and I can't accept that kind of treatment.' ... he winked at me and said 'Go get 'em Tiger'.

OK... that doesn't quite fit the bill. That was weaponized anger, and probably falls under the category Just Use of Force, aka Setting A Boundary With TNT. It also seems to have worked, at least up until now.

When else have I gone berserk?

Oh. My.

Berserk, as in berserker. As in:

The etymology of the term *berserk* is disputed. It may mean:
• "*bare*-sark," as in "bare of shirt" and refer to the berserker's habit of going into battle unarmoured, or often, completely naked. Ynglingasaga records this tradition, saying of the warriors of Odhinn that "they went without coats of mail, and acted like mad dogs and wolves" (Snorri Sturluson. Heimskringla: History of the Kings of Norway. trans. Lee M. Holander. Austin: U of Texas P. 1964. p.10).
• Others have contended that the term should be read "*bear*-sark," and describes the animal-skin garb of ther berserker. Grettirs Saga calls King Harald's berserkers "Wolf-Skins," and in King Harald's Saga they are called *ulfhedinn* or "wolf-coats," a term which appears in Vatnsdoela Saga and Hrafnsmal (Hilda R. Ellis-Davidson,"Shape-Changing in the Old Norse Sagas, " in Animals in Folklore. eds. J.R. Porter and W.M.S. Russell. Totowa NJ: Rowman and Littlefield. 1978. pp. 132-133), as well as in Grettirs Saga (Denton Fox and Hermann Palsson, trans. Grettir's Saga." Toronto: U of Toronto P. 1961. p. 3).
• Some berserks also took names with björn or biôrn in them in reference to a bear. This is likely to be the source of names such as Beowulf and Bödvar Bjarki.

Or as in the psychohistory suggested by my father, when I came home from college wearing a Frank Frazetta T-shirt captioned "Berserker", featuring a horn-helmed warrior, battle-axe in hand, fighting desperately against a massed army of ghoulies and ghastlies...

"Poor b---d," he said, after applauding my choice of artist; "What else do you do when you know you're outnumbered, you'll never see your wife and kids again, you're cornered and you're doomed? What else can you do but take as many of them with you as possible when you go? Who knows how many survived by using that tactic? The Celts were famous for it... good girl, you're true to your heritage. Don't forget where you came from." And he, too, grinned at me...

Interesting memory that. "Go get 'em Tiger", 35 years earlier.

OK. This doesn't quite do it either... but it does one very important thing. You can see that I've been given implicit, if not explicit, permission to use anger, as a weapon, by two men in positions of authority in my life.

Not indiscriminately. In desperate straits - especially in that long-ago conversation with my father. But the implication was definitely there with my department head as well.

I've run about as long as I should, for a single post, at this point, and I didn't get where I thought I would. I have instead come up with one instance of constructively but forcefully expressed anger and two instances of strong male figures giving me permission to have and express anger, even strongly.

Not what I intended. A little too much like making excuses for it, if I don't push beyond this point.

So I have to keep pushing.

I've remembered some instances that truly do correspond to my recent idiotic behavior, much more closely. Fortunately, they're widely spaced in time, which does make me feel a little better.

But I need to go over them. And the berserker business is going to be very relevant, I think.

I also begin to suspect it wasn't by chance that a British young man, who loved me once, long ago, christened me Boudicca. I had entirely forgotten that, too, until just now. I believe he meant it as a compliment...

So... What's Going On Here?

2009-01-26T11:17:00.002-05:00

Well, now.

After sitting back and looking at the situation, I've reached the conclusion that I recently pulled the most genius move of my entire emotional career:

I tried to get [an] abuser[s] to stop being abusive by abusing [him] them.

Oh yeah, that's really going to go somewhere constructive. But as attractive as a 2-day ***headdesk*** session might be [and it is, oh it is] I think it's going to be a lot more constructive if I sit with this and try to learn from it.

First: yes, you read that accurately. My behavior, by my own evaluation, was abusive.

What you aren't reading or seeing - here and now, anyway - is how adroitly - and desperately - I've been trying to excuse, rationalize, shift blame for, etc. etc. etc. my own abusive behavior in this instance.

Trust me on this. It's been remarkable to watch myself. Wiggle wiggle, squirm squirm. Avoid, distract, excuse, justify, squirm, wiggle. Whew.

The amount of mental energy I've put into trying to avoid facing this plain fact is truly impressive.

I really really don't want to see that behavior as abusive. I've become honest enough that I can't duck the abusive part. So Wiggle Wiggle Squirm Squirm wants to see it as "abusive, but..."

No, uh-uh. That road's closed. There is no "abusive, but". Abusive behavior is unacceptable, and there are always non-abusive options. I know this. I've been explaining it for two years now, I'd better know it.

So. I'm going to take this in baby steps - it's very tiring, being partly outside myself ['Just Saying No' to my Inner Thug] and at the same time, being in there wiggling around trying to cook up a credible excuse for acting like a cretin. What's more, I know that wiggling squirming stuff is going to resume the minute my 'executive function' attention shifts elsewhere. So I'll tag it as MonkeyMind, aka the Old Adam [or Eve, in my case], and just let it squirm, and try not to believe anything it says.

Onward.

By the way, prayers are being said and will keep being said throughout this process, as they have been throughout other processes. I hope to spend my latter years 'in community', and I have no intention of bringing this in there with me, if at all possible.

With Thanks to Dr. Harriet Lerner

2009-01-25T17:15:00.010-05:00

Most of the time, when I post here, I've already worked through the strong feeling surrounding an event, or a series of events, or a pattern -- at least far enough to be able to describe it and consider it without the feelings taking over completely as I do.

This is called detachment. It's not only healthy, it's essential for taking inventory and making meaningful changes. Those things happen from the inside out, and you have to be able to think clearly [and to "serenely bear the trial of being displeasing to yourself"] or they can't happen at all.

I'm going to be working through something in realtime, here, for once. This is probably a good thing. But you need to be aware, this series of posts will be different. I'm going to be exploring more than explaining, and I have no idea, myself, where I'll end up. But it's a necessary journey, and I'm already underway.

Before I get into that, though, I want to express serious thanks to Dr. Harriet Goldhor Lerner, whose book series "The Dance Of" [Intimacy, Deception, etc.] was started in the 1980s and continues to this day.

I'm reading one of the oldest books in the series now - you guessed it: The Dance of Anger. And would you believe: many concepts that I've learned through discussions with counselors, or by querying colleagues whose specialty is mental health, or by cogitation over coffee or prayer, or by rummaging about in the professional and popular literature online, are explained very well indeed in this very book. She discusses triangulation, the "Change-Back" reaction [in fact, that's what she calls it], and a number of other concepts that are old, familiar friends to me now.

I wonder how many of the people I've learned from ... learned what they taught me directly from her?

The Dance of Anger was published in 1985, so it is a bit limited by the mindset of the times, which did not address abusiveness directly. The prevailing emotional tone is thus 'there aint' no good guy, there ain't no bad guy, there's just you and me and we just disagree'. I.e., everyone is decent if you dig down far enough, and everyone tries to do their best by themselves and by others.

This reflects the 'values-free' approach to therapy which is still popular today, and is the main reason I found many self-help books to be no-help books when I was younger. I knew I was being abused, and all the case histories, in which two or more people all miraculously come to their senses and work out mutually satisfactory solutions to shared problems, sounded to me like fairytales.

But now I understand abuse. And I'm trying to find the root of specific, very inappropriate behavior that I 'acted out' all by myself, seemingly without provocation, just a few days ago.

I need to go back to the basics, the real fundamental stuff, and try to see and think clearly. Her explanations of the psychodynamics of anger look like a good starting point for necessary self-examination. I can adjust the perspectives myself, now, to factor in the reality and impact of abuse. And as I read, I catch little flickers here and there, turns of phrase, subordinate clauses, which do allow for the existence and impact of abuse, if I pay close attention. She knew it was there, of course. All along.

Thank you, Dr. Lerner.

Blowing a Gasket -- Yep. Me.

2009-01-24T19:28:00.017-05:00

I had a very interesting experience recently, in which I blew my stack, seemingly out of nowhere, but not really...

In order to talk about it, I'm afraid I have to 'out' myself politically, but I doubt that my politics will really surprise anyone.

I voted for Obama, with tears running down my face all the way from my car into the polling place, through the line, into the booth, out again, and all the way back to my car. I wept and wept, silently and constantly, at the mere possibility that he might win. With my mind on Nelson Mandela and Steven Biko, and Emmett Till, and Barbara Jordan, and Shirley Chisholm, and George Russell, and Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, and Rev. Dr. MLK, and Ann Richards, and Molly Ivins, and on and on.

It was crowded in that voting booth, but surprisingly comforting.

Given the usual tenor of politics in this country [I've lived overseas, and no, it's not the same everywhere] I hardly dared to hope that the man would keep his promises, but there was a quiet little pilot light flickering away, all the same.

Then, on his first day in office, he signed an executive order putting an end to this nation's use of torture. And another one setting a one year time limit to close the Guantanamo Bay offshore dungeons...

... and that little pilot light has been getting braver and brighter with every news story, every speech.

Then, later this week, I stumbled across a discussion of those executive orders. Among people of faith, supposedly. And I saw grown up U.S. citizens, people who have drivers' licenses [and get to vote and everything!] acting as though our right to torture people into giving forced confessions, then incarcerate them indefinitely as public menaces because of those confessions extorted under torture, was somehow defensible, somehow debatable. As long as they were furriners, preferably of the Islamic persuasion.

Now a brief digression. If anyone reading this is old enough to remember the movie "Airplane", Lloyd Bridges had an extremely funny role as an overwhelmed air traffic controller who decompensated at an exponential rate throughout the movie. Starting off by saying he'd picked the wrong week to give up coffee... then cigarettes... then scotch... and ultimately delivering the funniest punchline of the entire movie, IMO, before falling flat on his face.

Wow. Now I know exactly how that character really felt - except I didn't do it in stages. I went over the falls in one swell foop. Not only did I fall flat on my face, I bounced.

That little pilot light suddenly turned into a flamethrower.

I rendered up a diatribe that would probably earn honorable mention in an Irish Cursing competition, but shed far too much heat and very little light, and managed to insult most of the known universe on top of it. Starting with the fact that violating Habeas Corpus doesn't merely go against our Constitution, it goes all the way back to the Magna Carta... ending with the fact that there is an International Court of Justice in the Hague, which would have been the place to adjudicate any international cases of suspected terrorism, except that we sneered at it and rejected its jurisdiction so that we could invade a country that was never any threat to us and had nothing to do with 9/11.

The facts alone would have been fine, but I also insisted that anyone who actually believes that confessions obtained under torture have any validity at all is a moral idiot with less brains than an amoeba...

... not quite in those words, but pretty damn close. With several inventive variations on that theme.

***sigh***.

The strange part of all this is that I do, of course, believe that way, on one level. Deep in the heart of me, I truly believe that people who think what we did in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay was justified, who think that the horrendous number of civilian casualties in Iraq are just 'part of the cost of doing business', are exactly the kind of people this blog exists to 'out'.

That there's no difference at all, none whatsoever, morally, between

an abuser in your family using a double standard to punish you for requesting from them, once, what they demand from you, day in, day out, 24/7/365, and

an entire nation using a double standard, with lies, smoke, and mirrors, to justify destroying Mesopotamia.

But dang. There I was, rebuking away like an Old Testament prophet, hair on end and smoke curling out of my ears [Jehovah! Jehovah! Jehovah! What do you mean I'm just making it worse? How can I MAKE it any worse?]

and ya know what?

In behaving that way, I became indistinguishable from those I rebuked.

To quote Charles M. Schulz,

"AAAAAUUUUUUUGGGGGHHHH!!!"

***facepalm*** ***facepalm*** ***headdesk*** ***headdesk***

Lessons of the War:
[1] given the right mix of circumstances, anyone can blow their stack, even those who really should know better and have been trying to know better for years now;
[2] it really is counterproductive to return evil for evil;
[3] sometimes talent is a two-edged sword (it was a truly outstanding diatribe).
[4] affect is not necessarily your friend.
[5] Stormchild needs to stay away from minefields until she learns to keep her dern trap shut, even under extreme provocation, and
[6] when * you * make * a * mess, * it's **YOUR** responsibility * to * clean * it * up. [In this case, my responsibility].

This little humbling episode will probably be good for my soul, ultimately, but it bothers me greatly that I almost certainly did my 'cause' far more harm than good.

And yeah, I went back and admitted to God, everyone there, and myself that I had behaved exactly like a troll.

Because I had.

***facepalm*** ***facepalm*** ***headdesk*** ***headdesk***

Stormchild, over and out.

A Call to Genuine Moral Courage

2009-01-20T13:58:00.008-05:00

This post will hopefully do something to counteract the taste of the last one, which was a necessary evil in all senses of the term...

These are the words spoken today,
to throngs of people gathered in the icy cold on the Mall,
to huddled masses listening to their radios along the parade route,
to students in their classrooms tuned in to the TVs,
to office workers running streaming video or audio on their PCs,
to auto mechanics in their shops,
to the unemployed,
the homeless,
the disenchanted,
the disenfranchised,
the discouraged,

by the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama.

This is the conclusion of his inaugural speech.

"Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends — hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism — these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility — a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.

This is the price and the promise of citizenship.

This is the source of our confidence — the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.

This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed — why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent mall, and why a man whose father less than 60 years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.

So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have traveled. In the year of America's birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:

"Let it be told to the future world ... that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive ... that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it]."

America. In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations."

Amen.

For the full transcript, and my source for this segment, please click here.

Lynching a Madwoman Takes Real Moral Courage

2009-01-18T15:30:00.006-05:00

A place of refuge beckons there
So seemingly secure,
But thugs and bullies have a lair
Beyond that open door.
Where hypocrites pontificate
And stealth abusers dominate,
They only will exacerbate
The traumas known before.

The weary wounded stumble in,
Told they are safe at last
By predators who sit and grin
Awaiting a repast.
With cloying words of phony praise,
The narcissists prepare to graze;
Their targets, in dependent daze,
Compete to be harassed.

Each endlessly repeats a tale
Of post-traumatic hell,
But of abuse within the pale
Each is forbid to tell.
The ones who see are forced to leave;
For banished friends the remnant grieve;
Yet the remainder still believe
That place can make them well.

I wrote this, some time ago, after witnessing incredibly vicious behavior directed towards someone who was clearly unwell, by people who knew the person, knew the problem, and were supposedly there to "help".

[No, thank God, it wasn't me.]

It's time to share it.

It is dedicated to every individual, anywhere, who has survived abuse only to be re-traumatized by an abusive recovery group, whether faith-based, secular, 12-step, online or in realspace.

A Lab Practical In Anthroherpetology.

2009-01-12T20:09:00.041-05:00

Oh dearie me...

I've been blogging here since August 2006 [seems like no time at all]. During that time I've experienced some remarkable human savagery, witnessed far too many other people doing likewise, yet - generally - managed to keep my affect at "Minimum Safe Distance" for blogging / processing / healing purposes [see Aliens for an explanation of Minimum Safe Distance] throughout.

I was beginning to wonder if perhaps I really have learned a few things; it looks as though I'm going to find out.

I seem to be getting a Lab Practical in Anthroherpetology.

For the record, I don't discuss my profession or my work here in much detail, and I don't intend for that to change. It's not because it's irrelevant. Au contraire - it is just relevant enough to provide inspiration and insight if left in the background, and to get in the way to a major extent if it ever got into the foreground.

However, I have at times discussed my workplace and its dynamics here.

I've decided to try a double experiment. I'm going to blog my way through the Lab Practical with minimal disguising of details - just enough to shield people involved. Comments will be welcome, because this really IS a lab practical, as you will shortly see.

And it has barely begun.

Onward...

We have recently added a new face to the happy throng at my place of employment, and the Red Flags are a-flyin'.

I was caught off guard at first. This was not because my immediate superiors are enthused about this person, although they are. Their pattern for the past several years has been wild, loud, public enthusiasm for all new hires, right until the poor souls actually show up and start working. Then, the newbies are usually devalued and targeted within three months of their start dates, regardless of actual performance, talent, ability, etc. Unless they've trained in one specific discipline, but even that is no guarantee.

Normally, I ignore the propaganda and wait to see who arrives and what they're like. This time, though, the new hire is a Former-Colleague-of-Someone-Else. And 'Someone Else' has been here awhile, been through the devaluation-targeting cycle himself, survived it in much the same way that I have, and sees very clearly what's going on around the place.

When I set the Supervisory Enthusiasm alongside the Collegial Endorsement, it seemed to me that we'd probably get a savvy guy who wouldn't be too easily fooled.

Our newest Mouseketeer [Mick for short] started work about a week ago. Here's what I've seen so far.

1. Mick can't listen. Literally can't. He'll ask a question, and as soon as you begin to answer it, he starts to fidget; within a few sentences, he jumps in and tells you he knows that already.

Then he asks the question again.

This is a game; it's about you being wrong and him being right/superior/etc. It's also about your time being less important than his. I've been sucked in twice, but now I tell him I'll send him an email. I then send him relevant URLs, titles of SOPs, etc; when he comes back with questions about those, I aim him at the guys who hired him.

2. Mick is a chiseler. This one embarrasses me a little, because the setup was classic but I didn't see it coming. Mick's buddy, "Jon", took a day off last week and asked me to keep Mick company and help him out. I suggested lunch at a restaurant that Jon and I both like, and Mick showed great enthusiasm, even pulling up the online menu and checking prices, telling me the cost seemed very reasonable, etc.

Sho 'nuff, we get there, we eat, he stiffs me with the bill. Now don't misunderstand me: I did not expect him to pay my way. Rather, it was well established that each of us would pay their own way. Remember all that malarkey about the prices being reasonable? Then the check arrived -- and he punted. It wasn't the old 'left my wallet in the desk' trick, it was far more audacious: 'I'll treat next time, OK?' Said shamelessly right under the waiter's nose. Whew!

Not much to do about that except shut my teeth and take it, as the Brits say. But it made a lasting impression.

Today, Jon got back, and wanted to have lunch with the two of us. Sure, I said sweetly, I'd love to. When we got there, I asked for separate checks. When they came up, I handed mine to Mick, saying 'Your turn to treat, now! Thanks so much," then proceeded to tell Jon about all the lovely things we ate on Friday "when I treated, now aren't you sorry you missed it!"

Next time, there won't be a next time.

3. Mick is exploitive. We already know this, see above. But wait, there's more... that lunch today? About an hour before we left, Jon had a meeting to go to, and Mick sat in on it to 'learn the ropes'. On their way to the meeting, Mick tossed me the online menu with his order and Jon's marked and suggested I call it in for all of us, so we wouldn't have to wait when we got to the restaurant at noon.

Hmm. He's been here four days, I've been here ten years, I have two more degrees than he does, twenty more years of relevant experience in this field... and now I'm his secretary. Oh-kayyyyy.....

So I looked up the meeting on the calendar, and my belief in God was reaffirmed.

After grinning evilly for a good 30 seconds, I decided to go ahead and call the order in... placing orders for 12 noon, firm, eating in. At 11:15, when the meeting broke up just as early as I knew it would, Mick bounced into my office and said, "Hey, we're out early, let's go!" To which I replied... "Oh rats, I wish I'd known that would happen; I've already called in the orders - for noon precisely. I can meet you there; I'm going to finish this report now, but you and Jon can run on ahead if you like."

Jon, of course, wouldn't hear of leaving without me. So Mick got to wait. And wait. And wait.

Next time, there won't be a next time for that one either.

4. Mick is a con artist. Yeah, we already know that too, don't we? But wait, again, there's more, again.

This one will take your breath away.

We're sitting at lunch, and Mick starts philosophizing. Remember now, he's been here four whole days.

Our job, he tells me earnestly, is to make sure that our supervisors look good. In order to do that, he assures me sincerely, we need to be really tactful when we present new ideas.

It would be a really good idea, he thinks, for me to share my suggestions and recommendations with him and Jon, and let the two of them present my brilliant notions to our higher-ups, so I don't have to contend with the resistance I'm naturally going to encounter...

just because I've been around so long...

that nobody pays any attention to what I have to say, anymore.

Thanks be to God, and to Saint Robert Hare, Ph.D., and to Saint John Babiak, Ph.D. ... to my amazement, I saw through this as it was being played.

"Oh gosh", I responded, girlishly [ugh]. "Would you believe, that's never been my problem here... My ideas are picked up with so much enthusiasm that sometimes people forget to give me credit for them! Now, I've already started fixing that problem. But it's kind of you to offer to help. I'm sure we'll work together really well as a team."

Wow.

That was definitely the Last Lunch Ever with Good Old Mick.

"Rikk-tikk-tikki-tikki-tchk!"

I wish I owned a mongoose.

But I don't,

so I'll just have to put the EEO office on speed-dial.

Predator-Prey Relationships

2009-01-01T19:39:00.019-05:00

Every now and then, I'll be sitting, thinking, [coffee is usually involved in this process] and suddenly two concepts snap together like puzzle pieces. The join is absolutely seamless. And all at once the world looks different, and I wonder why on earth I never saw 'the fit' before.

Most of the time this is a good thing, and uplifting; but now and then it can be very unsettling.

Recently I've been contemplating the way in which abusers seem to focus on eliciting pity.

They seek pity from the people they want to target, and they seek it from the people they want to dupe. The duping is important, because an abuser can't successfully isolate and abuse the target unless friends, co-workers, relatives, etc., can be counted on to side with the abuser if the target ever tries to describe the abuse and obtain help. It's essential, in other words, that everyone else be fooled into thinking the abuser is a terrific person.

This business of pre-emptively poisoning the well is, of course, a secondary level of abuse, from which the abuser derives even more pleasure. Not only is he or she abusing the target, he or she has the target's friends and loved ones so totally deceived that the target can find no solace or support...

And the foundation upon which this entire process rests appears to be the deliberate eliciting of pity. For this awareness I am indebted to Martha Stout, Ph.D., and her book "The Sociopath Next Door", as well as to Robert Hare, Ph.D., author of "Without Conscience" and [with John Babiak, Ph.D.] "Snakes in Suits: When Sociopaths Go To Work" and Lundy Bancroft, author of "Why Does He DO That?".

Dr. Stout makes it clear that sociopaths [all of whom are abusers; and I believe that all abusers are essentially sociopathic when behaving abusively, even if the label doesn't 'stick' at other times] deliberately seek to be pitied because they know that pity is disarming.

This I understand, this I have internalized, this I am defended against, now.

Over the coffee, however, I put this information together with something else, something I learned long, long ago in ACOA:

"Adult children of alcoholics [and of other dysfunctional parents] tend to confuse pity with love."

I am not, ordinarily, an "OMFG" type of person, but that is precisely what I said, except not as an acronym, when the significance of these two facts, taken together, hit me.

O.

M.

F.

G.

Those of us with severely dysfunctional parents tend to confuse pity with love; this is a lifelong weakness against which we must be ever vigilant.

Meanwhile, abusers deliberately seek to elicit pity from those they intend to abuse or otherwise exploit.

Net result:

Children raised by dysfunctional parents - parents who are actively alcoholic, mentally ill and untreated, or otherwise impaired in their parenting - are PREDISPOSED TO LOVE ABUSERS PREFERENTIALLY OVER NONABUSERS.

Abusers KNOWINGLY USE this predisposition.

It troubles me greatly to think that so many of us have, for all intents and purposes, been programmed to love monsters - even worse, to prefer loving monsters - so that we risk spending our lives in what can only be termed

"predator-prey relationships".

What troubles me even more, however, is that the monsters clearly know this, and have just as clearly known it all along.

Ring Out, Wild Bells -- Alfred, Lord Tennyson (1850)

2008-12-31T20:58:00.000-05:00

Ring out, wild bells, to the wild sky,
    The flying cloud, the frosty light:
    The year is dying in the night;
Ring out, wild bells, and let him die.

Ring out the old, ring in the new,
    Ring, happy bells, across the snow:
    The year is going, let him go;
Ring out the false, ring in the true.

Ring out the grief that saps the mind,
    For those that here we see no more;
    Ring out the feud of rich and poor,
Ring in redress to all mankind.

Ring out a slowly dying cause,
    And ancient forms of party strife;
    Ring in the nobler modes of life,
With sweeter manners, purer laws.

Ring out the want, the care, the sin,
    The faithless coldness of the times;
    Ring out, ring out my mournful rhymes,
But ring the fuller minstrel in.

Ring out false pride in place and blood,
    The civic slander and the spite;
    Ring in the love of truth and right,
Ring in the common love of good.

Ring out old shapes of foul disease;
    Ring out the narrowing lust of gold;
    Ring out the thousand wars of old,
Ring in the thousand years of peace.

Ring in the valiant man and free,
    The larger heart, the kindlier hand;
    Ring out the darkness of the land,
Ring in the Christ that is to be.

Parasuicidality

2008-12-29T12:45:00.003-05:00

This next topic is very non-politically-correct, but it needs to be discussed.

There is a behavior pattern called 'parasuicidality'.

It is a form of manipulation, very high-stakes. Usually, it is resorted to by people who have borderline personality disorder - or similarly severe emotional problems.

It is the use of suicide threats to blackmail people, emotionally, into doing what the parasuicidal individual wants them to do. The real objective is, of course, control. Suicide is threatened because the stakes are so high that it is seen as an essentially unanswerable form of blackmail - by the practitioner.

And yes, on some level the person making the threats knows exactly what they are doing.

This behavior can begin at an early age. I vividly remember a young man in my high school who would threaten to 'wrap his car around a tree' if any young woman he happened to fancy wouldn't sleep with him. This actually worked on several of his targets. [No, thank God, I wasn't one.]

Most laypeople don't understand that there is such a thing as parasuicidality, distinct from suicidality. We've been taught to take suicidality seriously, which is absolutely right and essential. But we haven't been taught to understand it, and in fact, it's such a fearful thing that it's extremely difficult to understand. Unfortunately, this lack of understanding makes us prime targets for manipulation by parasuicidality.

Please be aware, I am absolutely not saying that suicidality, in general, is manipulative. Far from it. Suicidality is dangerous, literally life-threatening, and must always be taken very seriously. What's more, parasuicidality itself is dangerous to its practitioners. Parasuicidal individuals do, sometimes, accidentally manage to take their own lives.

If you happen to know anyone who threatens suicide, especially if the person has done so more than once, try to remember what, historically, has triggered the threats.

If a threat of suicide is triggered by depression, life setbacks, or major losses, you are probably dealing with a genuinely suicidal individual. But if the threat seems to be triggered by frustration, by not getting one's way, and especially by not getting attention [or drama] when the person is trying to get attention [or create drama]... when the threat seems to be 'aimed' at someone specific, or when you have the sense that the person making the threat is 'upping the ante' in a game of some kind... it may very well be parasuicidality.

Generally the least constructive response one can make to any threat of suicide or any announcement of suicidal ideation is to panic.

If the person is genuinely suicidal, they need all the clear eyed support they can get, and they need to be steered to professional intervention as quickly as possible. This will get them the help they need, the medications they need, and hopefully break the ruminating - obsessing - suicidal ideation chain.

If the person is parasuicidal, they still need a clear eyed, unemotional, supportive response that - again - steers them to professional intervention. This will again get them the help they actually need, medication if they need it, and hopefully be a step towards clarifying and ultimately breaking their reliance on parasuicidal threats as a way of controlling others.

If you believe that you are experiencing parasuicidal manipulation, you can express - and act on - appropriate concern for the person's welfare, without allowing them to blackmail you. You don't have to let a parasuicidal person control you. You can counteract the threat in constructive ways instead.

Don't become enmeshed.
Don't believe that you are responsible for the person's emotional state
or that you alone can alleviate it by giving in to their demands.

[1] Remain as calm as you can.
[2] Advise the person to get to a therapist or emergency room.
[3] Monitor them, but maintain emotional separateness.
[4] If you think they are going to act out, call 911.
[5] Definitely call 911 to arrange transportation for them, if you think they may act out while you are transporting them. Don't take that risk. A parasuicidal person's judgement is poor, to say the least.

You will observe - and it is a very important observation - that these steps are exactly the same steps that you would take if the person were genuinely suicidal. And, in fact, you should react in exactly the same way, regardless of what you believe the underlying dynamic to be.

Stay calm,
advise professional intervention,
be prepared to call 911 and get the person to an ER if you must,
but maintain your emotional separateness.

Whatever you do, do NOT 'call their bluff' if you think someone is parasuicidal. DON'T EVEN MENTION parasuicidality. DON'T EVER MENTION parasuicidality.

Someone who is parasuicidal may well be sufficiently grandiose, or otherwise out of touch with reality, to make a genuine suicide attempt if they feel that they are being 'dared' to do it. They will almost certainly respond to ANY mention of parasuicidality as though you are daring them to prove that their intention is genuine. And they may very well succeed in the attempt.

Only a trained professional should ever raise this issue directly. This should be done only in the context of safe, supportive, closely attentive therapy. And it should only be done if, and when, that professional believes it is the right time to do so.

It's important to know that parasuicidality exists. It's important to know how to deal with it - internally by recognizing it, and externally by providing the same detached support to the person that you would otherwise.

But it's most important to know that the term should never, ever, be used as a 'club' or 'weapon' against anyone, no matter how much they have angered you, no matter how certain you are that this is what is happening.

The stakes are too high, and the losses may be permanent.

Backing Up: Borderline Basics

2008-12-28T10:51:00.016-05:00

Having described in some detail what borderline PD 'feels like' to me, I want to provide a more academic description of the condition.

This page on this site gives a very clearcut and accurate 'official' description of this disorder. A brief excerpt follows.

What is Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD)?

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a serious psychiatric illness. The diagnosis encompasses patients with a pervasive pattern of affective instability, severe difficulties in interpersonal relationships, problems with behavioral or impulse control (including suicidal behaviors), and disrupted cognitive processes. This instability often disrupts family and work life, long-term planning, and the individual’s sense of self-identity. The estimated prevalence of BPD in the general adult population is about 2%, mostly affecting young women. It has also been estimated that 11% of outpatients and 20% of psychiatric inpatients presenting for treatment meet the criteria for the disorder.

What are the symptoms of BPD?

1. Frantic efforts to avoid real or imagined abandonment.

2. Pattern of unstable and intense interpersonal relationships characterized by alternating between extremes of idealization and devaluation.

3. Identity disturbance: markedly and persistently unstable self-image or sense of self.

4. Impulsivity in at least two areas that are potentially self-damaging (e.g. spending, sex, substance abuse, reckless driving, binge eating).

5. Recurrent suicidal behavior, gestures or threats, or self-mutilating behavior.

6. Affective instability due to a marked reactivity of mood.

7. Chronic feelings of emptiness.

8. Inappropriate, intense anger or difficulty controlling anger.

9. Transient, stress-related paranoid ideation or severe dissociative symptoms. (DSM IV)

People with BPD often have highly unstable patterns of social relationships. While they can develop intense but stormy attachments, their attitudes toward family, friends, and loved ones may suddenly shift from idealization (great admiration and love) to devaluation (intense anger and dislike). Even with family members, individuals with BPD are highly sensitive to rejection, reacting with anger and distress to such mild separations as a vacation, a business trip, or a sudden change of plans.

Distortions in thinking and sense of self can lead to frequent changes in long-term goals, career plans, jobs, friendships, gender identity, and values. Sometimes people with BPD view themselves as fundamentally bad, or unworthy. They may feel unfairly misunderstood or mistreated, bored, empty, and have little idea who they are. Such symptoms are most acute when people with BPD feel isolated and lacking in social support, and may result in frantic efforts to avoid being alone by acting out; i.e. impulsive behavior or suicide attempts.

People with BPD exhibit other impulsive behaviors, such as excessive spending, binge eating and risky sex. BPD often occurs together with other psychiatric problems, particularly bipolar disorder, depression, anxiety disorders, substance abuse, and other personality disorders.

You can see how the behavior patterns captured in the previous two posts resemble borderline PD.

In my own discussion of BPD on this blog, I am well aware that my tone is somewhat ambivalent - in fact, this is one reason I've postponed discussion of this subject. I myself do not feel sufficiently detached to be a wholly reliable 'guide' in this area. However, I know that this is a problem shared by many seasoned health care professionals and practicing therapists.

And there is good reason for it. It is very, very difficult to maintain a healthy detachment when dealing with a friend, colleague, classmate or loved one who suffers from this disorder, because this disorder 'takes hostages'. Everyone within a specific radius of a BPD sufferer also suffers, in one way or another, from BPD. Even trained and seasoned therapists can find working with a BPD sufferer extremely challenging. It can call on all the emotional reserves a person can bring to bear.

I would also like to add that it can be difficult at times even for a trained, professional observer to distinguish BPD from other disorders, especially bipolar disorder and alcohol or substance abuse. "Nobody's Girl" could, possibly, be either bipolar or addicted, based on the behaviors described [see earlier post]. She could also be borderline plus bipolar, or borderline plus alcoholic / drug addicted. I've described elsewhere how alcoholism, in particular, imitates personality disorders, and can occur concurrently with them.

One way to determine how much dysfunction arises from addiction, bipolar, or a similar condition - vs. borderline PD - is to 'reduce the number of variables' by successfully treating the other underlying condition[s]. This is quite a challenge; it's time-consuming, requires the full cooperation of the person involved, and is thus certainly not a simple step to take. If, when this is successfully managed, borderline type behavior persists, then one can be reasonably confident about its origins.

Another way to estimate, at least, whether borderline PD is present is to consider how 'flamboyantly destructive' the person's episodes of acting out are [see previous post] and how punitive their intentions seem to be at the time. You'll note from the list of characteristics/behaviors above that, while terrified of abandonment, borderline sufferers also experience intense, inappropriate rage, and can even, briefly, appear psychotic under stress [the list does not mention that this stress is fairly often self-produced; it does not take long to realize this in real life].

If you see frequent, punitive outbursts of rage, not associated with 'using' alcohol or drugs [!], and especially if the person in question seems to 'lock on' to an idea that is totally at odds with reality as a way of justifying punitive rage, it is very likely indeed that you are dealing with borderline PD. Bipolar sufferers, and people with addictions, are not, invariably, punitive. Borderline sufferers, in contrast, will almost always react punitively to stress or disappointment, real or perceived, with an intensity that is far out of proportion to the magnitude of the 'offense'.

Having said this, I must again emphasize: I am still struggling with my own ambivalence about this condition. While I feel genuine sorrow for the people who suffer from it - because Borderline PD doesn't 'just grow'; it's a response to early, almost un-survivable trauma - I also understand the frustration and exhaustion, and general sense of helplessness, that friends, colleagues, loved ones, and therapists can experience when dealing with the behavioral manifestations of this disorder.

It is said that 'old age is not for sissies'. I would add to that, that 'close relationship with BPD sufferers is best managed by the strongest, bravest, and healthiest among us, ideally with external resources that match their internal resources.'

In my own experience, I've found that I simply cannot cope with the disorder in anything but the mildest form; for me, the only way to win is not to play. I find the inevitable punitive, abusive behavior to be more than I am willing to accept. This, I emphasize again, is my response, and my solution, and must be seen and understood as such.

For I also know that others, both professionals and non-professionals, manage to maintain productive relationships with actively, acutely suffering borderlines. And I know that the condition can be treatable. Therefore I know that there are heroes living among us, and by that I mean both those who suffer and sincerely seek relief from this condition, and those who remain staunchly alongside them all the way.

"B" is for ... Borderline Behavior?

2008-12-28T08:54:00.008-05:00

A few posts back I mentioned in passing that the topic of Borderline Personality Disorder is one I haven't explored here, and that this is actually a significant omission.

A recent blog discussion provided a natural segue into the topic, but via the realm of fiction and art [popular music] rather than actual life experience.

This link, from a mainstream media outlet, will take you to a recent news story that has far more implications psychologically than politically [I confess: I think politics is primarily about psychology, and we as a nation would be wise to learn this].

The story describes a political hoax in which a young white woman (a McCain campaign volunteer) falsely represented to police that she was attacked, at an ATM, by a black man, who [she alleged] robbed her, then mutilated her face - by scratching a B onto her cheek - when he discovered that she was a McCain supporter.

B for Barack oBama? B for Black?

But the young lady admitted, shortly thereafter, that there was no robbery, and no assault, because there was actually no attacker. The report also mentioned that the 'B' scratched onto her face is backwards.

Which is what would happen if it were a self-inflicted injury, and the inflicting self forgot that images in mirrors are reversed.

Now, I'm not going to state definitively that this particular individual is, or is not, suffering from Borderline PD or any other specific condition.

She is troubled.

There is something wrong.

That is all I can really say - and it should be obvious to any caring human being who reads the news item linked above.

Whatever her condition, she has caused maximum suffering and loss primarily to herself and the members of her immediate family, at this point. Let her receive the help and support she needs to heal.

I will, however, admit that BPD crossed my mind when I read this story.

Because of the behaviors reported in the story. They include:

[Presumed] self-mutilation; cutting.

Attention-seeking through acting out.

Scapegoating. In this case, scapegoating an entire race [in the person of the invented robber and assailant] as well as a specific political figure.

Falsehoods; manipulation.

Monopolizing time and resources with a fabricated 'crisis'....

Then, after the facts are out, wondering why everyone isn't 'over it' already.

This is a news story, subject to the reporter's observational bias and the editors' and publisher's editorial bias. That must be included in any assessment of the reported incident, along with my own observational and experiential bias.

But the behaviors described above, in any context, enacted by any person, would still, to me, be highly suggestive of Borderline traits at the very least.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Over a long lifetime, I have observed a number of unquestionably borderline individuals, male and female. I have worked alongside them, studied alongside them, suffered alongside them.

There is one aspect of the 'borderline personality' that has struck me in every situation where I knew, without any doubt, that the person involved was suffering from Borderline PD:

Flamboyant destructiveness, whether directed towards self or others [often, both].

Common or garden variety abusers are destructive, but often quite 'subtil'. Not so borderlines. When a seriously ill person with full-blown borderline PD "goes on a rampage", it's all stops out; nothing short of burning down the house will do. Even, tragically, when the house is their own.

The condition is horrendously sad, and equally horrendously frustrating.

Now, a point of clarification.

Although I have spoken rather sternly about specific behaviors in this post, I do not consider people suffering from Borderline PD to be abusers in the same sense as the abusers I habitually discuss here.

I believe that these individuals have been subjected, themselves, to some form of pain so great that it could barely be survived - and was not survived without great trauma.

But there is no avoiding the fact that borderline behavior can be abusive in its impact, often extremely so.

Therefore:

Learn to recognize the behavior.

Learn not to fear recognizing the behavior and facing the implications.

Learn that you can care very much for the welfare of people who may, or who definitely do, suffer from this tragic and debilitating condition, but that does not mean that you are required to offer yourself up as a target, or a scapegoat.

Borderline PD is a condition that requires professional handling and care.

To be continued...

Nobody's Girl -- Bonnie Raitt

2008-12-27T22:31:00.022-05:00

I've been trying to figure out how to approach the subject of borderline personality disorder in more detail, and I got sidetracked, then illuminated, by a discussion of the "Twilight" series on someone else's blog. Folks there are properly [IMO] horrified at much of the message conveyed by the books, such as the idea that true love begins as cold disdain.

Reading the reviews and comments started me thinking about the extent to which questionable attitudes and behaviors are romanticized in our culture, which led me right into popular music as one vehicle through which these attitudes are taught. That eventually brought this song to mind... and I realized that it's a classic, romanticized portrayal of BPD.

For the record, I am a confirmed and incurable Bonnie Raitt fan, and I intend to stay that way. And I happen to love this song. Still. Can sing it and play it on the gee-tar, can sing it even without a gee-tar in an emergency. But even the first time I heard it, I knew that the girl in this song... wasn't entirely well.

The behavior described here is mildly borderline. Here we see primarily the self-absorption, plus some instability and just the tiniest hint of hypersensitivity. We don't - quite - see the most important feature, the rage, the devastating outbursts over nothing, the incredible ability some borderlines have to rave and fulminate in one setting while quietly sipping afternoon tea in another... sometimes simultaneously.

But then, the portrayal has to be mild; this is a song about thwarted love. If the full scope of borderline behavior were accurately portrayed here, the song would lose much of its poignance.

And notice, please, that the poignance comes from two main sources:

[1] the impossibility of the man in her life ever having a stable relationship with this lady. When we're 20+, this behavior is 'free spirited', 'elusive', 'mysterious', 'alluring'; when we're 30+, it's 'commitment shy'; when we're 40+, it's 'attachment disordered'. Actually, the only thing that has changed is our degree of understanding. We're taught, oh how we're taught, to yearn after precisely those things that we know we cannot have. It takes years to understand that these may be fortunate lacks.

[2] pity, not only for the sporadically abandoned and yearning lover, but for the girl portrayed here. If you read [or listen] between the lines, she causes him [and others] a lot of pain... but the song's about pitying her as much as the people she hurts. The narrator [someone who knows them both] realizes that she hurts herself at least as much as she hurts anyone else; which is another reason why this behavior is mildly borderline.

OK, enough buildup. Here goes:

Nobody's Girl

She don't need anybody to tell her she's pretty.
She's heard it every single day of her life.
He's got to wonder what she sees in him
When there's so many others standing in line.

And she gives herself to him,
But he's still on the other side.
She's a-lone in this world,
She's nobody's girl.
She's nobody's girl.

She shows up on his doorstep in the middle of the night,
And then she disappears for weeks at a time.
And she gives him just enough to keep him wanting more,
But never is he satisfied.

And he's left to pick up the pieces,
Wondering what does he do this for.
She's off in her own little world,
She's nobody's girl.
She's nobody's girl.

He says "Before I met her, I didn't love nothin.'
I could take it or leave it, that was okay,
She brings out a want in me
For things I didn't even know that I need."

She does anything she wants,
Anytime she wants to,
With anyone she wants at all;
Yet she'll get so upset over the least little thing,
And when you hurt her, makes you feel so small.

She's a walking contradiction,
But I ache for her inside.
She's fragile like a string of pearls;
She's nobody's girl.

She's fragile like a string of pearls;
She's nobody's girl,
She's nobody's girl,
She's nobody's girl.

~~~

It's a beautiful song. The accompaniment is spare, lyrical, absolutely perfect; and Raitt puts it across in a way that nobody else ever could. Hear it once, and you'll never forget it.

It's also one of the saddest songs I've ever heard. She's not 'free'; she's not 'her own person'; she really is 'nobody's girl'. And nobody but herself will ever be able to change that.

For Friends Twice Bereaved at Christmastime

2008-12-24T23:59:00.002-05:00

Not for you, this year, the easy laughter,
The feasting and teasing and drowsy smiles,
Wading through mountains of discarded wrapping paper
To find the child asleep in the box her treasure came in.

This year the cat will curl on your lap
And reach up his paw to touch your cheek,
Because he knows that wetness does not belong there;
This year the child, now grown, will rest her head
Against your knee, and weep, all gifts pushed away.

That song the angels sang
Will be a clashing, rending dissonance;
Not for you, this year, the hymns of hope and love.

Jesus wept
At the passing of Lazarus,
Wept though He knew his friend would soon live again,
Wept though He knew this new life would be His doing,
Wept though He knew as none other could
How truly all mourners shall be comforted.

It is too soon to think of comfort now.
Never be ashamed to weep.
He who has the right to scoff at Death and Time together
Wept for them both, long years ago.

Today, tears are the proper sacrament.
But as you weep, believe, as best you can:
There will be a tomorrow.

The Wisdom of Mr. Singh

2008-12-13T23:43:00.009-05:00

This post is dedicated to Meg and TH in SoC, whose comments to the previous post kept me thinking about the situation I described there. It's adapted very closely from my reply. I thought the concepts deserved a bit more emphasis than their placement in a comment thread would give them.

When writing that previous post, my first thoughts were along the lines of "Look, it really IS possible to recognize and fend off abusers in the real world, even the egregious ones... here's a recent example".

Thanks to Meg and TH, I had further thoughts. More along the lines of "Look at the teamwork that went into fending off the abuse. This was not the work of one person operating alone, it was a joint effort." What helped tremendously in this situation, and what I should have emphasized much more in that first post, was the wisdom of Mr. Singh.

Mr. Singh clearly understood abuse and abusers - and he's no slouch at nonverbal communication, either. The moment this aggressive customer tried to push her way into his interaction with me [a power play, basically, intended to take over his attention for her own needs], he and I looked at each other - just looked at each other. There was no wince or headshake. But just from that look, it was obvious to both of us that we 'knew the type'. And that we both knew the game.

Mr. Singh could have chosen to allow the bullying customer to divert his attention. He could have acquiesced to her hints about how busy she was, the unspoken but obvious demand that he stop assisting me [in the middle of our transaction] and immediately give priority to her. Had he done this, he would have chosen to enable a bully, would have allowed a bully to enlist him in abusing one of his own customers, and would also have been volunteering to be bullied himself.

Instead, he set a firm boundary by continuing to work with me and calling his son to wait on the new customer.

Both of us quietly observed her behavior as his son began to wait on her. We looked at each other again when she started berating young Mr. Singh for having an accent. This time, I frowned and shook my head, very slightly, then looked over towards the browbeating. Mr. Singh nodded almost imperceptibly as he moved towards his son.

The elder Mr. Singh was very calm and in control of himself as he gently moved his son out of harm's way. His demeanor did not imply any criticism of the customer, even in the slightest degree; it also implied no criticism of his son. It was one of the most beautifully neutral interpositions I have ever seen. He placed himself between an abuser and her target, in such a way that he did not offer himself as a substitute target, yet he also did not validate the abuse.

His son, either from a long history of trusting his dad or from shock at being treated so crassly, didn't protest, resist, or make any comment - he just moved smoothly over to where I was standing on the other side of their counter. This, too, was an extremely important part of the process. Any comment from him would have attracted negative attention from the other customer; instead, he removed himself completely from the interaction. Meanwhile, I positioned myself quietly as an active witness, and brought out my cell phone.

The whole process of containing and defusing the abuse was teamwork. It would not have worked half so well otherwise. The remarkable thing about it was that so much of the communication between Mr. Singh and myself, and between father and son, during the incident was nonverbal - except for my reassuring young Mr. Singh that I'd remain in the store, because I wanted to wait and speak again with his dad.

The outcome would have been very different if Mr. Singh, his son, or both had been vulnerable to this other customer's combative baiting, if they had themselves become combative or taken overt offense at her behavior. Had either of them chosen to play the Karpman game she was offering, I could have done very little to help.

This was one of the few times in my life when I have been privileged to see people knowingly decline a Karpman Triangle game [Messrs. Singh vs. the aggressive customer] and opt for a Quinby Triangle interaction instead [Messrs. Singh & Stormchild]. The fact that this took place interculturally - and we didn't all have to use the terms Karpman and Quinby for it to work - makes it that much more marvelous.

To refuse to play the Karpman game, and substitute a Quinby interaction, takes people who are committed to doing the healthy thing. The "Lion's Share" of credit for that positive outcome belongs to Mr. Singh and Son.

A True Story [Multiple Choice]

2008-11-30T11:55:00.009-05:00

This actually happened, quite recently; when I thought about it afterward, several things struck me:

[1] it's a textbook example of abusiveness,
[2] it's also a classic example of the effect a bystander can have in an abusive situation, and
[3] I was never at a loss during the episode - in fact, I could literally predict the course of events.

Anyone who's been reading here for any length of time probably can too, so I'm going to tell the tale in multiple-choice format. You can play along, or just read the choices and follow the story. I"ve partly fictionalized it, to change some details, but the behaviors observed are exactly as described.

It happened at my local FedEx dropoff point, which is very well managed by Mr. Singh. I've been a customer for years; this time, I was there to send several year-end charitable contributions out. Using a delivery service gets them into the right hands fast, and my patronage gives Mr. S and his family a bit of extra income at least twice a year. We've got this semi-annual routine pretty well choreographed by now.

While I was giving him the shipping forms and we were sorting out the envelopes, two women came in. One of them

[a] began talking to him as though I didn't exist and was not being served
[b] strolled up and down the store making rude comments about the furnishings and decor
[c] stood very close behind me talking VERY LOUDLY to her companion about what a hurry she was in and how many IMPORTANT THINGS she just HAD to get done.

This is a trick question, because she actually did all three, first [b], then [c], then [a].

Mr. Singh is quite, quite bright, and he isn't fond of abusers either, but being in a customer service oriented business he has to maintain a certain composure. He called his son out to help the woman. Both he and his son have quiet voices with charming accents, which are quite easy to understand -- if you are listening.

The woman

[a] became verbally aggressive and accused Mr. S of interrupting her [bear in mind, she was interrupting him, while he was clearly occupied with helping me]
[b] asked nastily if his son knew how to do the job

Right you are: she did both.

He reassured her that his son knew everything about the job that he did, and resumed helping me. Both of us had an ear cocked, keeping close tabs on things next door. The woman

[a] announced boastfully that she'd been in mediation over a defective online purchase for almost a year, had 'won' and was sending the item back for a full refund
[b] demanded special services that require additional charges and became verbally aggressive when Mr. S. Jr. tried to explain that these services would add to the cost of her shipment
[c] began loudly berating Mr.S. Jr. for having an accent.

Yep, right again, all three.

At this point, Mr. S. and I had completed our joint task, I'd paid him and my packets were all in the pickup area [well out of this woman's reach]. He moved over, gently took his son's arm and moved Son over to talk with me while Dad addressed the Customer from Hell. At this point, Mr. S. Jr., who was a bit shaken by the totally unprovoked aggression, asked me what else I needed, and I leaned over and said, quietly, "I need to stay here until those people finish. I'd like to talk to your father again, but I want to wait. It's O.K, I don't mind."

I then got out my cell phone, turned it on, flipped it open, held it open, and quietly watched the performance at the next register.

As soon as I did this, things improved dramatically for Mr. S. The woman acted as though a switch had been thrown. Suddenly she was

[a] trying to joke with him about her 'victory' over the person who sold her the 'defective' merchandise
[b] smiling and gesturing and trying to draw me in to the 'party'
[c] using manners: saying please and thank you. [Which of course meant that she knew perfectly well just how badly she'd been behaving previously].

Um-hmm, all three again. I just stood there, with my cell phone open and as calm a face as I could manage.

You can probably predict the next bit too. Mr. S. gave her an estimated cost up front [no fool he] and carefully itemized it for her. She then

[a] expressed astonished offense at the price, VERY LOUDLY
[b] glanced over at me apprehensively
[c] expressed shock at the price again but much more politely
[d] decided that she 'needed to think' about this because the shipping cost was more than she'd paid for the item in the first place
[e] canceled the sale
[f] left with her companion, muttering.

Yep. All of it.

Just to frost the cake, you should know that she was profoundly offended by a shipping cost of about $5 more than she paid for the item. And to further help your perspective, she'd apparently paid less than $25 for it. [And yes, I am well aware that when returning defective merchandise, it's usual to expect that your shipping costs will be covered by the seller. I kept my mouth tightly closed about that. So, you will notice, did Mr. S. and Son.]

As soon as they left, and the door had closed, Mr. S. thanked me for staying. Mr. S. Jr. asked if I needed anything else, and I said, "No, I just wanted to stay until that was over with. I knew that woman was potential trouble and I wanted to make sure you both had an outside witness if you needed one. Security cameras don't usually have soundtracks."

Gavin de Becker -type note: At no time during any of this did I feel the slightest fear on my own behalf, or on theirs. This was not foolish bravado. I've felt apprehensive in parking lots merely because someone who parks nearby glares at my car as they get out of their own; when that happens I find another parking spot immediately, Far Away From There, because glaring at total strangers' parked cars is Not Normal. People who do that dent doors and break windows, all about things that have Nothing To Do With You Or Your Car, because they are Seriously Unwell [but they're not stupid: they do it only when they can Get Away With It].

IMO, this gal was also Seriously Unwell, but she registered as Vindictive Bully [and then as Vindictive Racist Bully] rather than as Potential Axe Murderer. I was sticking around primarily so Mr. S and Mr. S. Jr. would have a witness for their side, if V. Bully decided she'd like to start months of mediation with them over a $30.00 shipping bill. Anyone who would go through a year of mediation over a $25 trinket needs to be closely watched, and avoided completely, if possible.

Incidentally, the best part of this story?

I don't have a cameraphone.

I had my phone on and open so that I could call 911 immediately, if need be.

:-)

.

Wrong Answer

2008-11-27T16:50:00.019-05:00

Abusers tend to telegraph their punches, and quite often they will tell us exactly what they are, very soon after we meet them.

This isn't a tactical slip. It's a test, and it's also a setup. We're being tested to see if we know enough about abuse and abusers to recognize the signs.

If we do, we'll take steps to avoid further interaction, and the abuser hasn't lost anything; in fact they've gained, since the space and time we occupied is now freed up for a more promising target.

If we don't, then our response will reveal that. And by the abuser's predatory 'code of ethics', we've just made ourselves legitimate prey. He or she warned us, right? And we didn't take the warning. So it doesn't matter what they do to us from here forward: in their minds, we have just volunteered for it.

That is how they think.

In a few recent posts, I've discussed one variation on this theme, which is how abusers approach recovery groups and online discussion groups to screen them for targets [and as possible places of residence]. This is usually done by 'presenting' in a seemingly harried, frantic emotional state, apparently desperate for reassurance because they've just discovered Condition X [narcissism, sociopathy, borderline PD] and they're terrified that they have it... The appeal to pity [a classic Karpman Victim stance] calls to the Karpman Rescuer in most people [myself included, which is why I understand it]. It will, without fail, lure out the non-recovering or not-yet-recovering enablers in any group, PDQ. And the abuser then knows exactly where his or her next meals will be coming from.

A different approach is taken when screening individuals. This is when it's important to be mindful of 'red flags', or, to borrow a term from Gavin de Becker, 'Pre-Incident Indicators'. Because they will be there; it's part of the test, part of the game that abusers play. And it's actually fairly easy to recognize them; the greatest obstacle is, as with the Karpman Rescue Invitation above, learning to override our programmed enabling responses.

Sean, 16, is talking to Sally, 15, at the school bus stop; she has her clarinet case with her. When he asks what it is, she tells him; when he asks if she's taking lessons she says she's trying out for the marching band. He responds that the marching band is stupid and full of losers, and she ought to be trying out for the orchestra and playing for the musicals.

Wrong answer.

Very wrong answer.

Even if the marching band IS full of losers, it's still the wrong answer.

Even if Sally's talents are much more suited to Benny Goodman than John Philip Sousa, it's STILL the wrong answer.

The right answer is something along the lines of: that's interesting, I was thinking you'd try out for orchestra, we're doing Guys and Dolls this year. How come marching band?

Or suitably sixteen-year-old words to that effect. Followed by respectful listening to Sally's response.

This conversation, in various forms, could be taking place between two people of any gender, at any age, in any relationship.

Sean, 46, is talking to Sally, 38, about the high speed printer; Serge, 27, is talking to Sully, 34, about the Fermilab cyclotron; Suzette, 59, is talking to Harry, 33, about the price of eggs.

The minute one of them puts down the other, or puts down anything the other has expressed an interest in, or a need for, or any form of curiosity about...

Wrong answer.

The minute one of them ceases to listen to the other, and starts talking over him or her...

Wrong answer.

The ultimate red flag, the first and foremost Pre-Incident Indicator, is the disrespect that is inherent in that behavior.

Abusers are very quick to reveal their disrespect. We make allowances for it, make excuses for it, rationalize it, 'forgive' it, decide to 'be bigger than' it, decide it's 'not worth worrying about', at our peril.

I'm not saying, here, that we need to make a Federal Case out of the co-worker who never lets us finish a sentence, or that Sally should have offered Sean an opportunity to become intimately physically acquainted with her clarinet [i.e., a ' clarinoscopy ' ] in response to his snide put-down of her interests.

I am saying, though, that we need to notice these things. When they happen. And we need to be sure that our response to them is one that the would-be abuser can't easily construe as an invitation to continue the abuse.

The next time that co-worker starts talking over us, we can stop, extend a hand palm out [in the universal Traffic Stop signal], give them a level stare, and say, "Let me finish speaking, please." And when Sally's interest in marching band is met with snide putdowns from Sean, she can say, "Well, I don't think they're losers. Fortunately it's me trying out, not you," or suitable 15-year-old words to that effect. Or, we can take steps in future to reduce or minimize our exposure to the rude co-workers, and Sally can keep any further discussions with Sean minimal and superficial.

Of course, abusers don't stop abusing merely because we ask them to. Refusing to accept abuse may - initially - result in more overtly abusive behavior being directed at us [a Change-Back reaction, basically an attempt to bully us back into accepting abuse.] But that response simply proves that what we saw was real, that this person is abusive, just as we had surmised; and if we're in the earliest stages of an acquaintanceship, this behavior isn't likely to persist.

Other targets are likely to prove more enticing; we're likely to be obnoxious and frustrating and difficult to fool or cajole. Unwilling to cooperate.

We've proved it. We've given the Wrong Answer.

Rivers of My Fathers -- Gil Scott-Heron

2008-11-13T12:38:00.007-05:00

Looking for a way
Out of this confusion
Looking for a sign --
Carry me home.
Let me lay down by a stream
and let me be
Miles from everything...
Rivers of my fathers
Could you carry me home,
Carry me home...

Rubber soles against the concrete
&
The concrete is my smile...
Got to change my way of livin'
Got to change my style.
Let me lay down by a stream
Miles from everything...
Rivers of my fathers,
Could you carry me home
Carry me home.

Looking for a way,
Got to find a way
Out of this confusion..
Looking for a sign
Point my way home..
Let me lay down by a stream somewhere
Miles from everything
&
Rivers of my fathers,
Rivers of my fathers,
Carry me home...
Carry me home.
Carry me home,
Carry me home,
Carry me home.......

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Against all odds, we found a way out of the confusion.

More than thirty years after this song was written, we finally found our way home.

And, at last, at long, long last, it will truly be home - for everyone who lives here.

Testing, Testing - Parting Thoughts

2008-10-30T22:27:00.014-04:00

Some final thoughts on the 'Gullible Goodwill' test.

The test relies on a charming, but sadly inaccurate, myth that is all too popular in recovery circles, which goes something like this:

If you are wondering if you have 'X', you can't possibly have 'X',

because nobody who actually has 'X' ever wonders if they do.

This would be very comforting if it were true [and, it would be an infallible basis for avoiding scoundrels!], but it is in fact untrue on at least two fronts.

The first front is something I'll call The General Theory of Selective Emotional Blindness. It's the notion that people who have an emotional problem are somehow blinded to that specific problem's existence by the problem itself.

By this reckoning, it should be completely impossible for anyone suffering from depression, or bipolar disorder, or PTSD, or any other psychiatric disorder, to ever fully consent to enter treatment.

Why?

Because, if this fallacy were true, none of these people could ever imagine, let alone ever be brought to believe and understand, that they are suffering from the disorders that they in fact do suffer from.

And therefore, their fully informed consent could never be obtained - because it is impossible for them ever to be fully informed!

There certainly are people who are too emotionally fragile, too vulnerable, to be faced with a specific diagnosis directly. Having their particular problem named to them could do them far more harm than good, and a caring professional will find other ways to bring them into treatment with minimal trauma and maximum understanding.

But it's also pretty obvious - I hope - that there are plenty of people on the planet who can perceive, perfectly well, that they suffer from depression, bipolar disorder, etc.; and that many of these people are doing all they can, with all their hearts and souls and minds and strength, to seek and comply with an appropriate treatment plan, because they do not want to suffer from untreated depression, bipolar disorder, etc.

So the General Theory fails PDQ.

The second front is something I'll call the Special Theory of Selective Emotional Blindness. This is the notion that people who have a personality disorder that renders them inimical - i.e., the well and truly nasty who dwell among us - are somehow incapable of figuring out that

[a] the General Theory exists,
[b] it's hogwash,
[c] but a lot of people believe it,
[d] and therefore one of the easiest ways to locate promising targets is by
[1]stating that you are afraid you might be whatever you know perfectly well you actually are, and

[2]waiting to see who insists - categorically - that you can't be, merely because you just asked them if you might be.

I am afraid that just about everyone who has read this far knows this is false based on direct experience. Predators have not only figured ALL of this out, they've written an entire playbook to take advantage of it.

Now: in place of the General and Special Theories of Selective Emotional Blindness, I'd like to offer The Stormchild Theory of Human Psycho-Predation.

[1] Human predators exist; they are not rare; their prevalence is such that most human groups and organizations will unavoidably include one or more, often in positions of dominance.

[2] Most human predation is psychologically based, at least initially.

[3] Most human predators know perfectly well that they are predatory, and they start young. [This is one of the reasons it is unwise to ignore or trivialize childhood bullying. It gets a lot bigger and meaner when it grows up.]

[4] Astute human predators also know that the best way to get close to prey is by pretending not to be predators.

[5] One of the most effective ways of disarming prey is to exploit the two myths referenced above: the predator announces that they are 'afraid they might be' what they know perfectly well they are.

Think of [5] as psychological camouflage, because that is exactly what it is. It disarms the prey both cognitively and emotionally: cognitively by exploiting the myths above, which compel the prey to reject any possibility that the predator could be a predator - precisely because the predator says they might be!and emotionally because it includes the 'pity ploy', a la Martha Stout:

"I am afraid [that I have X]. Pity me. Reassure me. Abandon critical thinking and all other forms of self-protection to 'rescue' me."

Don't do it. Resist the siren song. Offer an honest, caring but non-enabling response when invited to play the predator's game.

Your psychological safety is worth it.

Death of a Forum

2008-10-13T08:00:00.001-04:00

A frequent reader directed me to this URL

as a sad example of how online recovery groups can be targeted and savaged by predators.

I never knew this group or its participants, but it seems clear to me, from the following account, that something of great value has been destroyed -

- by abusers -

- yet again.

Grief Group
In Memoriam
June 10, 2001 – June 1, 2008

Grief Group and its planned successor, Grief Chat, have been closed permanently.

Since its inception in 2001, Grief Group has had more than 269,000 visits from grieving people all over the world. We became the Number One grief website on Google. We have helped hundreds of people weather and survive the storm of grief caused by the loss of a loved one and other traumatic life experiences. We offered a safe haven to those who couldn't find any other website where they could feel safe from bashing, flaming and attack. No other website offered such sympathetic and understanding advice, offered by those who "had been there". Members helped each other and could present their problems without being judged. Those who were with us for a while and who had recovered from their grief to some degree, turned around and helped newcomers through the same tortuous path to recovery.

GG offered diversions, such as games, a humor message board, dog chases, chats with a robot and other activities enabling grievers to take a break from their problems. Many times, we would see posts from newcomers saying, "This is the first time I've laughed in months. Thank you!"

There was more — much more — but I won't go into that because GG is now closed...forever.

I created GG when my wife passed away in 2000. I couldn't find a decent grief website anywhere on the Internet, so I built one. I clearly remember opening it on June 10, 2001, and wondering if anyone would ever visit. Seven years and a quarter million visits later, GG has answered that question.

Shutting down GG was not an easy decision. I have invested seven years of my life in it. Days, nights, often around the clock, weekdays, weekends, and holidays, I supervised GG and continually improved website programing, while blocking destructive visitors and those who meant us harm. I estimate that I have devoted 30,660 hours to actively managing our website — 30,660 hours — wow, that's a lot of work!

GG has been shut down because, although I could protect it from enemies without, I couldn't protect it from enemies within. Some of our members had hidden agendas, instigated by a few vindictive people who had left in the past because they couldn't dictate website policy for their own selfish ends. One of our members became a target when she saw through their smoke screen. Behind the scenes, they worked secretly to have that member banned so they could return in triumph. When that didn't work, the disgruntled instigators influenced easily swayed members, directly and indirectly, to continue a campaign of harassment until the targeted member finally resigned in disgust.

After that upsetting event, I closed GG temporarily while I evaluated the situation. I could not, in any good conscience, allow the continuance of harassment whose long-term goal was to force out everyone who stood in the way of a few former members' plan to return. Such an insidious power play is more characteristic of Washington politics than a social website devoted to helping grieving people.

The only sensible approach was to remove members of the "secret society" that had caused trouble in the past, and planned to continue it in the future. After doing so, I would have to closely monitor GG to make sure they didn't sneak back in with different identities and entrench themselves while they renewed their efforts at destruction. I could have cleaned house and followed that with close monitoring, but I had serious doubts as to whether I had the time available. As Webmaster, I already had my hands full managing GG. With the additional task of playing security guard, my available time would have been quickly exhausted. No — although theoretically possible, it was not a realistic option. I have a business to run and a personal life, both of which had been seriously compromised by the continuous attention GG required. Devoting more time to GG was an unworkable solution.

After much thought, I finally decided to close Grief Group permanently. That was the only realistic answer I could see. Any other route would have been doomed to failure. Grief Chat, a planned successor to Grief Group, has also been closed permanently.

I've received numerous emails pleading for GG to reopen. As much as I'd like to accommodate you, the facts just won't allow it...my decision is final.

As an accommodation, I'm leaving our automatic Email Forwarding Service online for a while. You can send a message to any member, including myself (please don't contact me to discuss this matter). Our Email Forwarding Service will remain online until July 1, 2008. To send a message to a GG member, Click Here. You do not need their email address.

To the loyal members who have stood by me and were instrumental in helping others and improving GG: I thank you from the bottom of my heart. You deserve all the success that life can offer. I sincerely apologize for having to remove Grief Group from your lives.

To those members and ex-members who have worked so vehemently to destroy others on GG in order to further their secret agendas: you have succeeded...but not with the result you anticipated. Your poison has destroyed a safe haven and irreplaceable source of support for grievers everywhere. Your toxic behavior has made it impossible for GG to continue its mission. You have killed the goose that laid the golden egg. Camelot is gone.

----- ------, Webmaster
Grief Group/Grief Chat
June 1, 2008

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

— Alfred Lord Tennyson, 1849

Edit in, March 8, 2009:

While roving the Net this past weekend, I discovered - to my delight - the net-fossil ;-) of a very candid discussion among Webmasters/site administrators who DO understand this dynamic.

You can find the details here, and I've pasted a choice excerpt from the leading post below:

Similarities between trolls and bullies:

1. Both trolls and bullies can cause enormous damage to a forum by their behaviour.

2. Both trolls and bullies usually have excellent communication skills using which they attack their opponents unmercifully.

3. Both trolls and bullies can be intimidating to any normal forum user.

4. Both trolls and bullies have the effect of creating bad blood.

5. Both trolls and bullies are hard to control without intervention right from the top - the forum administrator(s) or owner(s) because even moderators might find it hard to control them without support from others.

Differences

1. Trolls are usually isolated. They are generally short-lived in a forum. A person who signs up on a forum specifically to troll doesn't hang around in other parts of the forum and leaves as soon as the damage is done.

Bullies are more or less regular forum members who might have a huge post count and a following.

2. Trolls usually hit and run. A successful troll needs only a couple of posts in a single thread to turn it into a raging tornado.

Bullies stay on and intimidate other members by throwing their weight around and using their group of yes-people to lend force to their powerful attacks.

3. Trolls are usually identified for what they are.

Bullies rarely get identified for what they are, because they are regular members and nobody can suggest that they are ordinary trolls because they have a huge post count.

4. Trolls hardly respond to challenges. Instead they enjoy watching others fight.

Bullies enjoy fighting and run around bashing everybody who dares oppose them.

5. The potential damage done by trolls is limited to a particular topic of discussion or at most a forum.

The potential damage done by bullies is forum-wide and not related to topics, but to the personality of the bully and the kind of "respect" and "influence" s/he wields.

[Edits to qualify 'respect' and 'influence' and to be gender inclusive - Stormchild]

Testing, Testing - A Non-Enabling Response

2008-10-12T11:36:00.008-04:00

In my previous post, I noted that abusive people often 'test the waters' of recovery groups, online and in realspace, for enabling and gullibility among the participants.

They do this by announcing that they fear they may be abusive or otherwise pathological, then waiting to see if total strangers, who know nothing about them, rush to reassure them that they can't possibly be any of those things [merely because they have asked if they might be].

While this is almost always - in my experience - a ploy, there are definite cases in which a target of abuse has had 'abuser' projected onto them - by their abuser - with such force and consistency that they do indeed question their own integrity as a result.

This is one form of abuser gaslighting, where the abuser's negative attributes are projected onto the target. You, in other words, are accused by your abuser of doing to them what they actually do to you; you are accused of being the type of person that they actually are. Narcissists are particularly likely to do this, but other abusers will as well.

In this situation, it is still not helpful to tell X that they can't possibly be abusive merely because they've asked a group of total strangers if they might be.

There is, however, a non-enabling response to this question, which will offer help to gaslighted targets, and will not give an opening to abusers seeking fresh prey.

The non-enabling response goes something like this:

"Well, with the best will in the world, we don't know you - you've just arrived here.

Of course, we don't want to think that of you, just as you don't want to thiink it of yourself. We can't tell you if you are or not, because we don't know you. But, we are beginning to know what characteristics abusers have, and if you know yourself, you will know if you actually have these characteristics. Often, if someone bullies you, they will groundlessly accuse you of them.

These are some red flags you should be aware of, in your own behavior or in theirs.

How do you react to gentle, appropriate criticism [based in reality, and without name calling or other putdowns]?

How do you handle frustration and disappointment? If you have plans for the evening and find a crisis when you get home, how do you react to that? Do you pitch in to help, or do you find some way to 'take it out on' whoever is having the crisis?

Do you retaliate against people when you feel that they have slighted you in some way? What kind of treatment do you think of as 'slighting you'? Can you handle it when others receive the lion's share of attention for awhile? Can you tell the difference between appropriate inclusion of others and someone monopolizing a conversation?

How do you feel if someone you dislike experiences either great misfortune or great success? What, if anything, do you DO in response to this?

Do you enjoy gossip? Do you enjoy it more if it's about the bad qualities of whoever you're gossiping about? Do you like to start gossip? Do you like to tell A all the bad things B has said, then tell B all the bad things A says in reaction?

How do you feel about being asked these things here, by us? Were you expecting a different response?

We do care, but we have also learned that we must be care-ful. We hope this won't put you off, and we're sorry if it does; but if you can answer these questions about both yourself and whoever has accused you of being abusive (narcissistic, sociopathic), you should have the answer to your major question, based on your own experience and self-knowledge.

And that's going to be much more solid, much more worthy of belief than the opinions of people who have only just met you.

We can't tell you if you're abusive or not. We don't know you. But you can tell for yourself, if you consider these things. And we will be happy to sit with you while you consider them - that, we can certainly do for you, so you don't have to do this alone."

Then watch what happens.

If X has approached you in good faith, they may be a little surprised, but they'll think about what you've asked. What you are doing is (a) refusing to take their inventory for them, (b) asking them to do so, and (c) showing them what is involved in taking an honest inventory about this issue. You've also offered to remain with them while they do this, which is really what any healthy support group is for.

In other words, you have shown them what they are responsible for, and what you can do to help them meet their responsibilities; and the comfort you offer is comfort based in reality, rather than enabling.

They may ask questions, they may share information, or they may be put off by this. If they're put off, however, it will be because they're not yet at a stage where they feel comfortable taking their own inventory. In that case, they'll hopefully return at a point in their own journey where the group can actually help them.

But if X has approached in search of easy prey, they are going to be quite surprised by this response. You may well experience a hostile, shaming, blaming response from them, in an attempt to force the group into enabling.

If X explodes in rage, threatens self-harm, or attempts any other form of emotional blackmail in response to being asked to take their own inventory, these are manipulative and controlling responses, and you have the answer to their question. They have provided it, there and then.

[It is wisest to resist the temptation to point this out to them. If they are not acting in good faith, they already know it.]

Testing, Testing

2008-10-11T17:14:00.008-04:00

In her book, "The Sociopath Next Door", Martha Stout explains that there really is a Dead Giveaway that tells you, without question, that you are dealing with an abuser.

It happens when a person who mistreats you also seeks pity from you.

The reason that we don't recognize this as a Dead Giveaway - which she also explains - is that when we pity, our judgement is suspended; our detachment goes to heck in a handbasket.

No surprise there. That is what pity is for. It's designed to take us out of ourselves, to cause us to put others first long enough to give them the help they need.

It is the deliberate playing upon pity, the deliberate exploitation of pity, by someone who quite calculatedly is using it to disable us - in order to make us easier to prey upon - that is reprehensible.

I would like to share a variation on this Dead Giveaway, one that I find particularly popular in support groups, both in realspace and cyberspace. I call it the Gullible Goodwill Test. It's not quite as stark as Dr. Stout's Pity Ploy, but anytime you see it, you should be very, very cautious about proceeding further until you've learned more about the person who is using it.

The Gullible Goodwill Test works like this.

X appears for the first time either online or in the realspace group, and 'presents' [as they say in the trade] as distressed and overwrought. This may be real, or it may not be. The source of the distress emerges spontaneously - X does not wait to be asked, but is eager to volunteer.

You see, X has learned about sociopaths / abusers / narcissists / etc. and is horrified to think that they themselves might be one.

Almost every time I have seen, heard, or read this, it has been a ploy. X is performing a little test, trolling for enablers.

The fact of the matter is that nobody in that room / forum / chatspace has any idea who X is, or what X is like. If online, nobody has any idea if X is who and what X claims to be in any aspect whatsoever. If in realspace, the people in the room can venture a reasonable guess at X's age, gender, educational level, and probable socioeconomic status, and any really obvious health problems may also be apparent. But that's all, folks, and not even those things can be assessed 100% accurately on first glance.

There is no way to tell, with zero actual information, what kind of person X really is. The only way to know what kind of person X is - is to see how X behaves over time.

Let me repeat this, because it needs repeating.

There is no way to tell, with zero actual information, what kind of person X really is. The only way to know what kind of person X is - is to see how X behaves over time. How does X react when criticized, when disappointed, when frustrated, when they don't get something they want, when they dislike someone and that person suffers misfortune - or enjoys great success? Does X mistreat one or more of the people around them, while appealing to others to pity them?

Now remember, X has just appeared. Nobody knows the first thing about them.

Despite the impossibility of knowing X at all, at this juncture, what usually happens in response to X's disclosure is a stampede of reassurance.

People who could not swear in a court of law that X is not an axe murderer will invest hours of time and effort frantically reassuring X that X is definitely not a sociopath / narcissist / abuser, that they could not possibly be, that they should be embarrassed and ashamed for even entertaining such a blasphemous thought.

Why couldn't X be any of these things?

Because X has raised the issue.

This is misunderstanding elevated to the level of tragedy.

One of the most common tactics used by bullies and abusers to disarm their targets is a false show of repentance and remorse. Read Lundy Bancroft [Why Does He DO That?], or Tim Field [Bully In Sight]. When cornered and confronted with their behavior, abusers will try denial; they will try going on the offensive; and when these don't work, they go for the pity ploy - they dissolve into tears, proclaiming their wretched pitifulness, throwing their accuser a completely unexpected curve ball.

And the ploy almost always works. It keeps battered women thinking that their batterer really does have the kind of insight into the situation that leads, eventually, to repentance and change [almost never true]; it keeps targets of other kinds of abuse feeling sorry for the abuser, rather than focusing on the abuse.

It should be no surprise, then, that skillful emotionally manipulative abusers would lead with this, testing the waters to find out who will rush to offer pity and support to someone they know absolutely nothing about, merely because pity and support are being solicited.

Don't fall for it.

Keep a polite distance from any X who tries the Gullible Goodwill Test on you, and keep a close eye on them.

And make note of those who rush to offer X succour, because no matter how much you may love them, you need to face the facts.

They're rushing into a situation they know nothing about, and enabling a person they know nothing about. They've made a choice and taken X's bait.

And sooner or later, if and when X abuses you, whether slightly or savagely, they'll feel terrible about the situation, and they'll be overwhelmed with pity and support --

for X.

Manipulators Among Us

2008-09-27T21:06:00.002-04:00

Holy Water Salt has posted a checklist on her blog, a list of the prime characteristics of [subcriminal] psychopaths as seen through French eyes.

It's drawn from the book "Les Manipulateurs Sont Parmi Nous" [The Manipulators Are Among Us] by Isabelle Nazare Aga.

Having read through this list, I think it's likely to be extremely useful for identifying workplace abusers [all the way up to psychopathic "Snakes in Suits"], in particular.

I'd want to expand item 22, though, to explicitly add:

Never admits errors, no matter how egregious and how widely recognized the errors may be, and never apologizes for problems created by the errors or their refusal to admit to them.

[In my experience, that phony-infallibility-whatever-the-cost is one of the largest red flags that workplace abusers exhibit.]

And item 10, the tendency to divide and conquer, is characteristic not only of workplace abusers and subcriminal psychopaths, but also of borderline personality disorder - a topic I've neglected here, about which much more needs to be said. Stay tuned.

I've requested permission from HWS to reproduce the list in this post; meanwhile, you can find it on her blog here.

Responsibility and Authority

2008-09-24T17:25:00.007-04:00

I've been re-reading Martha Stout's book, "The Sociopath Next Door", and thinking about sociopathy in the context of abuse [of course].

Towards the very end of her book, Dr. Stout observes two mortal errors that can be made in human moral interaction:

the first is an overweening desire to dominate others;

the second is an equally overweening willingness to relegate all other human beings to the status of objects [I-It relating].

As I was thinking about her words, it occurred to me that the pathological desire to dominate others also has two parts.

First, there is the desire to have absolute authority;

but second, equally to the desire for absolute authority, there is the desire for total evasion of responsibility.

As I continue to think about this, it seems to me that pathological domination, in this sense, is the essential dynamic of any abusive organization [church, work, club, family].

Wherever X demands all of the authority and accepts zero responsibility, while Y is scapegoated with all of the responsibility [and given no authority with which to address that responsibility], you are seeing the core dynamic of abuse. No such system can ever be anything but abusive.

[And this, I think, solves a major puzzle for those of us who wonder why so many workplaces, in particular, do not work.]

Lundy Bancroft: Read His Book.

2008-09-07T14:14:00.003-04:00

Lundy Bancroft has written The Definitive Exposé of The Abuser's Playbook.

It's called, "Why Does He DO That?", and its focus is on domestic violence perpetrators.

However...

Everything - and I mean, everything - that Bancroft has discovered about the whys and wherefores of abuse in a DV setting also applies to abuse in any other setting that I can think of.

Elementary school; middle school; high school; universities; graduate programs; research laboratories; intramural sports; professional sports; clubs; churches; nursing stations; nursing homes; workplaces in general; the daily commute; the music industry; the media; the blogosphere; support groups; message boards; dating; marriage; divorce...

government;
finance;
law enforcement;
military justice;
politics.

I have not been able to think of a single arena in which abusive behavior occurs, where the concepts described by Bancroft cannot be applied to understand

both how

and why

it occurs.

I delayed reading this book for years, because I thought that the DV focus would be less than fully relevant to the issues I grapple with here.

I could not have been more mistaken.

Whatever your own situation, please consider reading it. Please.

Antidotes to Groupthink: Travelin' Light - And What To Do When You Can't.

2008-08-31T15:20:00.016-04:00

I'm travelin' light
Because my man has gone
And from now on
I'm travellin' light
He said goodbye
And took my heart away
So from today
I'm travellin' light

No one to see
I'm free as the breeze
No one but me
And my memories
Some lucky night
He may come back again
But until then
I'm travelin' light

Billie Holiday

Ms. Holiday might, these days, be less inclined to hope for that man's return, and more inclined to hope that a good life, with or without a good man, might be waiting for her just a little ways down the road. Cycles of abuse were not recognized as such - all too often, they were regarded as the stuff of intense romance - when she was writing and performing. For many people even today, that's still all too true.

But it is also true that "giving hostages to fortune" is one aspect of life that makes it difficult, if not impossible at times, to break away from abusive or otherwise toxic environments and relationships. I've discussed this in an earlier post at some length; I want to return to it here because it is an important factor in the ability to break away from groupthink.

Kipling wrote that "he travels the fastest who travels alone." And it's true. But it's also cruelly hard. We are social animals, and we are family animals. Beyond that hard-wired fact of life, our social, occupational, political and spiritual groupings also tend to be openly suspicious of, if not frankly hostile towards, those who travel alone [with one exception: 'eligible' bachelors or spinsters arriving in venues where they're scarce]. "Loner" is a pejorative, although, as Anneli Rufus eloquently proves, it is often undeservedly so.

This bit of social truth - that humans tend not to travel alone, and that those who don't often ostracise or otherwise penalize those who do - means that there is almost always an added layer of complication for anyone trying to escape a groupthink situation.

Obviously, if the situation in question is peripheral - such as a support group that is visited only by one member of a family, and not heavily invested in by that person - having emotional commitments to others won't be as much of an issue as it is when the situation is much more central - such as an entire family being deeply committed to a cultic church. The person who leaves the house every Wednesday to visit a healing circle probably won't be too torn or confused if she finds that venue to be toxic and groupthink-driven after a few weeks or months; with luck, she'll be exploring her concerns with a supportive family member or with friends, and won't hesitate to break away once she's sure she's seeing clearly.

On the other hand, the person whose entire family is massively involved in a Church That Eats Their Lives, with no day in the week free of some church commitment for one or more family members, is going to have a nightmarishly difficult time breaking away unless other members of her family see, believe, and understand what she is seeing, in parallel with her.

Meg, at Brisbane Christian Fellowship, has mentioned some of the tragedies that can happen when only one member of a family finds himself or herself 'outside the groupthink'. The destructive potential is profound and should be taken very seriously.

I mention this here because it is often one of the deciding factors in whether a person is able to escape. As I said in the earlier post, "When a remorseless abuser holds your loved ones hostage, your freedom is dearly purchased if it comes at the price of their welfare, or even their lives. Few people of conscience will make such a choice. To condemn these people for choosing self-sacrifice over self-preservation at the cost of others' wellbeing is, in many ways, a greater betrayal than their primary abusers have committed." This is true whether the primary abuser is a person or an organization, an abusive cult or an exploitive workplace.

There are, however, still ways to travel light even with family or other attachments to consider.

Insofar as is possible, look for signs of groupthink / toxicity before you commit to any group or organization; avoid or delay committing, if possible, when you have doubts about its integrity or 'health'. If you must commit despite having doubts, try to remain peripheral; even if a large enmeshed, dysfunctional family is involved, it can be possible to 'move to the outskirts' in some cases. You will pay some penalty for being on the periphery, if the group is overtly enmeshing and toxic, but it will usually be less than the penalty you would pay for becoming deeply enmeshed - and then seeking to escape. [Churches That Eat Your Life, however, and Workplaces That Eat Your Life, will start testing you almost immediately to see how much of 'your' time/effort/energy they can commandeer. Any sign of healthy boundaries will be met with pressure. Be prepared to push back, and, eventually, to leave; don't be surprised if they hold the door open for you sooner than you might have expected.]

And if you've previously committed, you've recognized that the environment is toxic, and it's simply not possible to disengage [for example because the toxic organization is your employer, you're over 50, there's a recession, and you have a child in college], then it may be possible to 'move to the outskirts' by investing your greatest emotional commitment outside the organzation or group, as a conscious choice. You can then endure, for a span, while you work to move your 'hostages' to safety [get the child through school and into the workforce, build up your emergency funds, find a shelter for abused women and children that will also take your pets].

Simply finding a counselor who is familiar enough with abuse situations to be able to provide support and validation, while you endure, can be a tremendous source of strength. Judith Wyatt and Chauncey Hare, in their book "Workplace Abuse: How to Recognize and Survive It", provide other helpful suggestions that can be generalized to abusive situations other than work. There will again be a penalty to be paid for 'disinvesting' in an abusive environment - anything from never being allowed a solo with the choir to never being promoted [and having others promoted on the basis of your work] - and you will almost certainly find yourself 'labeled' by the group in some manner. But with external validation and internal clarity, you can recognize abusive ploys and, often, take at least some evasive action.

If this is your situation, keep your eyes on the prize; you've made a decision to endure, and endurance is not for the weak. But also keep your eyes on the goal, and work diligently to move your hostages, whoever they may be, to safety; because endurance is only 'for a span'; no human being can endure for ever. Once your hostages are safely out of reach, you should follow them to safety, as quickly as you can.

Antidotes to Groupthink: Individuation

2008-08-23T20:52:00.011-04:00

I've spent the better part of a week searching for the best one-word term for this next antidote, and it's fitting, I think, that it turns out to be a term created by C. G. Jung.

I was searching for a term that would capture, in a positive light, qualities that are all too often dismissed as negative: a certain type of self-reliance, a degree of faith in one's own judgement and perspective, and a combination of strength and resilience that enables its possessor to reject toxic / unhealthy / severely negative-normed groups, even when the price of such rejection is isolation or other forms of group retaliation.

I was searching for a term that would include these things, yet also leave room for compassion, a desire for healthy connection with others, an ability to see one's own flaws and negative / toxic aspects, an ability to see reality without despair.

Jung's term encompasses all of this, and more. I'm going to bypass his terminology and simplify the concept as follows: individuation is self-awareness without denial or excuse; awareness of all that we do that is false, to 'get by'; all that we desire that is socially repudiated [revenge, etc.]; those qualities we possess that we would normally assign to a person of opposite sex from ourselves [strength and aggression in women, tenderness and emotiveness in men]; the qualities that we possess most strongly that we typically assign to our own sex; our desire to save, nurture, and lead, and the damage this can do to us if allowed to run unchecked. It is also an awareness of our place in the universe, an understanding that we do, indeed, have such a place, an acceptance that we, as living beings, are part of a living universe.

Full individuation in this sense is the work of a lifetime. But simply to 'set one's face' towards this goal is to turn away from the values that allow groupthink to flourish unrecognized and unchallenged.

I am not holding up a form of self-worship, here, as an antidote to group-worship. I do, definitely, regard groupthink - especially when it is deliberately instigated by a 'groupthink guru' - as a form of idolatry, an inappropriate centering of the mind / heart / soul on the group, or the guru, or both. Survivors of abusive, cultic churches will know exactly what I mean by this; it applies equally well to workplace 'gangs', criminal gangs, and middle school 'mean cliques'.

To worship a group, or its human leadership, is to imperil one's soul. But to turn from group-worship or leader-worship to self-veneration is merely to substitute one peril for another. Jung's concept of self-knowledge leads, instead, to a calm humility, with considerable humor in it. You know who you are, warts and all. You know what you value, and you know why. You also know that there are many, many things in life that are worse than being alone, either short-term or long-term. Assimilation by a toxic group will be near the top of that list; willingly doing harm to others at the behest of such a group or its guru will be anathema to you.

And, paradoxically, you will know - from the tips of your fingers to the depth of your soul - that, in fact, you are never less alone, spiritually, than when you make the choice to be alone, corporeally, rather than to buy into groupthink as the price of membership in a group.

This antidote to groupthink, in other words, is: to know your own heart, respect your own mind, and value your soul.

Antidotes to Groupthink: Honesty

2008-08-17T20:51:00.011-04:00

First, a comment about the order in which these antidotes are being discussed. I'm coming late to this particular antidote, honesty, but that should not be taken as a measure of its importance.

It's difficult to arrange these groupthink antidotes in an 'order of importance' ranking. This is because groupthink is a 'systems' problem, and the antidotes are a 'countersystem'. All of them are necessary. The whole will not work without all of its parts... even though one may not be consciously aware of all parts at the time one is deploying them.

It is usually pretty obvious whether honesty is present or absent in a given system. The values of that system will either welcome it or stifle it; in my experience this really is one of the few things in human interactions that is on/off, black or white.

I've seen systems that tried to be partially honest [Meta-Discussion vs. Groupthink illustrates a system that I believe was trying this gambit: honest about the fact that individuals outside the system had certain problems, and in denial about any possibility that similar problems could exist among those within]. Partial, selective honesty never really works; it's an illusion at best. Such a system may limp along for a surprisingly long time, but when it falls, it falls hard, and it exacts a horrific price from those who are expected to sacrifice their own integrity and wellbeing to preserve whatever illusion the group is bent on preserving. The families of high-functioning alcoholics are illustrative of this pattern; all problems but the alcoholism may be addressed, but because the alcoholism is the central problem, nothing can ever be resolved.

Selective honesty isn't honesty.

It is usually most obvious to us that a system is partially honest or frankly dishonest when we stand outside it, or are detached from it, but it is possible to detect this from within. A dishonest system will employ defense mechanisms very similar to those used by individuals to avoid facing things that are painful [for abuse and trauma survivors] or things that [for abusers] expose their underlying objectives and manipulations. Sometimes the deployment of these defenses can be quite jarring.

Examples include:

Denial ["I didn't see anything like that! You're imagining things." "Well, I think she's a wonderful person - she's always been nice to me."]

Evasion ["Let's talk about that later." "This isn't the proper forum to discuss that issue." and my personal favorite, the dodger, who agrees that this is really important and you must discuss it, but... something else, or someone else, always has to come first; and something else, or someone else, always will.]

Distraction [A form of evasion, but with attention directed to another object; changing the subject: "Well, I don't know about that, but I think we have a serious problem with the international space station."]

Displacement [Also a form of evasion in this case, but with attention directed to an activity rather than a subject: "That's very interesting, but let's golf / eat / watch TV right now."]

Attack [This can be either direct, as in "What? How dare you say such things!" or indirect, as when you are suddenly taken to task about your cooking / cleaning / failure to complete something that you completed days ago / hair / etc., in which case it serves as a more aggressive form of distraction and displacement.]

When you see a system deal with problems - and those who identify them - by turning to these forms of avoidance, you are seeing a dishonest system.

It's not always so obvious to us when we are being less than honest with ourselves, but this is the essential work of recovery. I find that a very useful flag to watch for is rapid, intense anger that flares quickly and disproportionately. [I must immediately add that this is also a key warning sign of abuse in progress; once we realize we are being abused, there's a tendency to become mightily pissed when we realize it's going on right here and now, again. However, as we learn to recognize abuse and accept our right to be angry about it, and as strategies for avoiding, preventing, and stopping it become part of our repertoire, it becomes easier to tell when our anger is justified vs unjustified self-protection; the anger also diminishes, becoming a quiet, finely tuned signal that something is amiss.]

Another useful sign is when we instantly leap to justifying whatever it is that we have done, said, etc. that is under challenge; again, however, this is also a symptom of abuse, when our abusers put us down and keep us constantly on the defensive.

A third, very insidious sign, is the inability to remain focused on the particular issue that we are trying to confront about our own behavior or beliefs. If we find our mind flying off onto anything and everything rather than the matter at hand, that's a pretty clear indication that on some level we don't want to discuss it... even with ourselves. In this case, sometimes the only thing to do is to treat one's mind like a balky horse, and try the subject daily [or weekly, in the presence of a therapist] until we're able to stay with it.

And I would be remiss if I did not include a very important alert.

There are times when the things we are not facing are things that are so profoundly sad, so destructive to us, so horrific, that we cannot possibly face them alone and survive intact. Honesty is not enough in such situations; one needs support, wise counsel, and the availability of therapeutic aids [i.e., it may be essential to face some things in the office of a caring therapist, with an antidepressant on board.] Never, ever force yourself to stay with any issue that feels this threatening - on your own. Seek support and assistance, and set a cautious pace. This is not weakness, it is wisdom and healthy self-care.

It can be difficult at times to separate healthy self-protection from unhealthy self-deception; but it is important. Here, things are not black or white; here, we may need denial to protect us from things that would half kill us, if we tried to face them alone; but with support and care, we may reach a point where we can and must face those selfsame things if we are ever to be well and whole.

As we progress in our healing, as we face and surmount each issue, we progress in honesty. It becomes easier to know when we are deceiving ourselves - and easier to give up self-deception as a strategem. As we become less inclined to deceive ourselves, we also become more difficult to deceive.

And thus is groupthink's power broken.

A Brief Sarcastic Comment

2008-08-10T17:33:00.002-04:00

I've been reading various comments on "L'Affaire Edwards" - by which I mean readers' comments to blogs and news articles.

The usual two camps are talking past one another pretty much throughout the blogosphere:

Camp One: It's their own business! Respect their privacy! It's a non-issue! It has nothing to do with anything else!

Camp Two: It's NOT their own business, nor is it private; THEY made it public. It is NOT a non-issue; it shows, at minimum, a serious lapse in judgment, compounded by dishonesty.

I fall into Camp Two, pretty obviously. But since both camps really are talking at one another rather than with one another, a bit of meta-analysis would come in handy for spectators lacking a program.

This, I hasten to add, is purely my opinion. However, I put a fair amount of credence in it.

Camp One, if you inspect them closely, will almost certainly turn out to be made up of people who are doing exactly the same thing themselves; or have done it; or are planning to do it; or would do it in a heartbeat if given half a chance.

Camp Two, likewise scrutinized, will turn out with almost equal certitude to be made up of people who have had exactly the same thing done to them, or to a parent, sibling, friend or other loved one, and have no illusions about the pain it causes and the damage it does.

In other words: any debate about behavior that can be considered abusive, will often reveal who sympathizes with the abuser. Pay very close attention: it's important.

Antidotes to Groupthink: Considered Values and Moral Courage

2008-08-09T18:35:00.024-04:00

I am working my way through a list of antidotes to groupthink that I compiled in early July. It's pure coincidence that the next two items on the list happen to be

considered values
and
moral courage

and that John Edwards has become a handy current example of someone who possesses neither of these.

Contemporary politics and groupthink go together like contemporary politicians and betrayal; it doesn't greatly matter which side of the aisle one prefers; the disease is the same, only the symptoms differ. Having said that, I want to reiterate that this post does not have its origin in L'Affaire Edwards; these items were simply next on the list, and their time is now.

Considered values - as distinct from unconsidered values - are another key component in groupthink-resistance. It is very important to emphasize the term 'considered' here; the more commonly used psychological term is 'internalized', but I find it too passive and mechanistic a word for the process.

The term is self-explanatory. These are values that you have actively considered, seriously pondered, debated, and chosen to hold. You have invested time and thought in them. They are your values, in that sense, in a way that values imposed from without - by your family, or church, or workplace, or soccer league - are not. You have genuinely chosen them, and you will make some effort to hold on to them.

One example of such a considered value would be, of course, marital fidelity. A large number of us pay lip service to this particular value, and there are many knees jerking today with regard to it - both for and against, interestingly enough. But what does it mean to make it a considered choice?

Among the things it means is that you, when you choose it, realize then and there that it is not an abstract choice, an appealing theory. It is a practical, effortful commitment. It will require a conscious daily, sometimes hourly, choice to dedicate yourself - over and over - to the person you have chosen as your spouse [and who has chosen you, equally, as theirs]. This person will need to be in your thoughts, in your awareness, in your heart, even when they are not in the room - or the building - or the state - or the country - with you. You will, at times, need to expend emotional and mental energy to keep them there. This may not always be easy, it may not always seem rewarding, it will, at times, be something you may very much want NOT to do. But this considered value, this moral choice, is not something that you can stroll around a corner and remove, like a pullover sweater or a wedding band, then reassume before you stroll back out into the main concourse of humanity again.

What I am describing is work, sometimes very hard work indeed. And in that sense, 'marital fidelity' is an excellent example of a considered value. No considered values are effortlessly maintained. That, in fact, is why it is so vitally important to consider them.

Other considered values might be:

~Opposition to bullying. At any age, in any setting.
~Opposition to bigotry. Of any kind. Beginning with race, faith, and gender, but continuing from there into more 'covert' territory. [Some of the most pernicious bigotry is occupational: 'closed shops' that only hire, or only keep, members of a particular group (e.g., Harvard graduates / Pharm. D.s / ex-Navy men / tennis players). Make no mistake: this is bigotry, and it can be extremely damaging and prejudicial to those targeted by it.]
~Opposition to falsehood - whether covert or overt.

and their positive counterparts:

~Dedication to fairness, insofar as each of us can advocate and model it.
~Dedication to equality, likewise.
~Dedication to truth - wisely and appropriately seasoned with mercy.

You can see that these are not 'floor models' - in ordinary daily life, if these are among your values, you'll be challenged to uphold them. Early and often. Beginning, of course, with yourself, your own attitudes and practices.

The process of applying and upholding your values is where moral courage comes in. This is also known as the virtue of fortitude - guts; backbone. And it is key to resisting groupthink, especially that form of groupthink that presents itself as peer pressure. A desire to 'fit in'. A longing to be approved of by the group, to have things easy, to avoid friction.

Let me be both clear and careful here. I'm not advocating contentiousness, nor arguing for the sake of argument; nor am I endorsing the kind of tiresome obstructionism that masquerades as righteousness but is in fact nothing more than drama [the sort of last-minute quibbling that occurs, for example, when the townhouse condominium board is about to adjourn and its resident busybody makes a motion that the prohibition on satellite dishes as eyesores should include those installed in people's attics, out of sight.]

Nor am I advocating a grim and humorless life as the self-appointed guardian of all virtue for miles around.

What I am advocating is that you know what you believe; know why you believe it; be able to advocate for it because you really do understand what it means and implies; and be prepared to do so when challenged, because you will almost certainly be challenged.

If you reach this point, you will discover that you are often led to examine and challenge yourself; your own unthinking reactions and responses may surprise you, and you may find your moral courage getting an intense regular workout in the realm of self-control. This is a wonderful formula for finding humility, and in true humility there is much humor and very little room for grimness to take hold.

And groupthink? Amazingly enough, it will become very obvious, and much of its power to attract - and intimidate - will be lost.

Antidotes to Groupthink: Critical Thinking

2008-07-31T20:43:00.018-04:00

Detachment, and the overarching quality of **appropriate** inner-directedness [more on this at the end of the post], provide a good foundation for becoming groupthink-resistant. But there is one skill that is absolutely crucial to successful groupthink resistance. It is also key to keeping inner-directedness **appropriate**.

This skill is critical thinking. I will say, speaking purely from my own experience, that I have not seen it systematically taught anywhere below the university level. [I'd welcome comments from anyone who has studied logic and rhetoric extensively in elementary, middle, or high school; I'd be thrilled to find out that these things ARE taught, in depth, to the very young.] But whether or not it is taught to us at an early age, it can be learned at any age if the will to learn is present; and once one has experienced the dark side of groupthink, the will to learn can be very strong indeed!

Let me take care of a straw man, now, before going further. I've been amazed at the number of people I've met in realspace who, when I use the term 'critical thinking', immediately flinch or make a sour face, followed by a negative emotional comment about 'critical' or 'hypercritical' people. The word "critical" has several meanings. To wit:

1. Inclined to judge severely and find fault.
2. Characterized by careful, exact evaluation and judgment: a critical reading.
3. Of, relating to, or characteristic of critics or criticism: critical acclaim; a critical analysis of Melville's writings.
4. Forming or having the nature of a turning point; crucial or decisive: a critical point in the campaign.
5. Of or relating to a medical crisis: an illness at the critical stage.
6. Being or relating to a grave physical condition especially of a patient ["in critical condition in the ICU"].
7. Indispensable; essential: a critical element of the plan; a second income that is critical to the family's well-being.
8. Being in or verging on a state of crisis or emergency: a critical shortage of food.
9. Fraught with danger or risk; perilous.
10. [Mathematics] Of or relating to a point at which a curve has a horizontal tangent line, as at a maximum or minimum.
11. [Chemistry & Physics] Of or relating to the value of a measurement, such as temperature, at which an abrupt change in a quality, property, or state occurs: A critical temperature of water is 100°C, its boiling point at standard atmospheric pressure.
12. [Physics] Capable of sustaining a nuclear chain reaction [critical mass].

I personally regard some of these definitions as overlapping, but that is not ... critical ... to this discussion. What is important here is that 'critical' thinking does not mean a meanspirited, judgemental seeking to put down things and people. It means a careful -- care-ful -- reasoned, objective assessment of a situation, a person, etc. grounded in an understanding of basic reasoning.

Here, to start with, is a good introductory list of common logical fallacies. You'll find 'straw man' there, but you will also find the entire Groupthink Collection: the appeal to authority [''but a Thought Leader said so! It MUST be true!"], the appeal to belief ["We believe it, so it's true"], and appeals to emotion, flattery, popularity, and a perennial groupthink favorite, the appeal to spite. If you work your way slowly through this list, you may be amazed how often you've encountered the fallacies presented here... and how often they may have been used to persuade you to 'go along' with a group or its Groupthink Guru.

But please: don't take my word for this. Read the list, think about times in your own life - at school, at work, at home, at worship, with friends - in which these very tactics have been applied to you. If you take them slowly, think them over thoroughly, and don't rush, you should be able to come up with a real life instance for just about all of them; and you can probably also remember how and why you realized that many, if not most, of them were indeed fallacies.

You've seen these tricks; we all have, many times. But if you can't articulate them, you can't adequately defend your mind against them. The good news is: this isn't an exam; I won't be asking you to match definitions to names; nobody will. The point of this post, rather, is to give you the words to describe specific tricks that are often used to influence people's thinking and actions, and to show those tricks clearly for what they are.

You don't need to be able to say "Aha, that's a combination of peer pressure, appeal to spite, and an ad hominem attack!" But you will be hugely empowered, once you are able to say "Wait a minute! Y is attacking and discrediting X because Y doesn't like him. That doesn't make X's statements invalid. And the group's threatening to exclude me if I agree with X, just because they prefer Y! That doesn't make X's statements invalid either!" -- which comes down to pretty much the same thing.

For those wanting more than this little 'amuse-bouche', I suggest an in-depth exploration of the Nizkor Project site linked to above, and visits to the following links: enjoy!
Critical Thinking.org
Debating Globalization and Critical Thinking
The Independent Thinker

****************************
Now a few more words about **appropriate** inner-directedness. In earlier posts I've commented that abusers are EXTREMELY inner-directed, and this is true. Abusers are predators. Any predator, when interacting with its prey, is inner-directed relative to that prey. This is the essential meaning of 'it's always all about him/her, never about me, the kids, or anyone else'. This type of inner-directedness in human relations can also be termed 'selfishness'.

**Appropriate** inner-directedness is something very different; and while I don't wish to belabor the point, I do feel that this bears repeating.

Appropriate inner-directedness is self-preserving and self-aware, but it also never loses sight of the existence and legitimacy of other [nonpredatory] selves.

It is self-respecting, and when necessary self-reliant [sadly, this aspect is very often called upon in a predatory work, worship, educational or family setting].

But it is not self-aggrandizing, self-exalting, self-worshipping. It values and respects the self, but does not value and respect ONLY the self. This aspect, the ability of the healthily inner-directed to value not only one's self, but other selves as well, is very important. In fact, it's ... critical.

More on Detachment

2008-07-20T19:34:00.014-04:00

As I stated in my previous post, detachment is an important antidote to groupthink. This is because it preserves your awareness as a separate entity from the group process.

Groupthink, after all, is a 'herd' phenomenon. It naturally follows that anything that allows you to remain on the perimeter of the herd, so to speak, will give you more of an opportunity to see - and thus be able to resist - groupthink. One must be operating as oneself, rather than as part-of-the-group. [This, sadly, explains why 'scapegoats', if bright and motivated, frequently have a very accurate understanding of the group that is scapegoating them. As scapegoats, they are pushed to the perimeter of the group by the group itself. Thus the group itself pushes them out of the groupthink state.]

It is not necessary to feel 'superior to the group' in order for detachment to work. Nor is it necessary to feel pity for the group. In fact, either of these responses is potentially dangerous; feelings of superiority can lead to contempt and condescension; pity can lead to inappropriate efforts to rescue or 'get through to' the group as a whole or to individuals who are still enmeshed in groupthink. In either case - acting from superiority or from pity - the results can be disastrous.

No emotional reaction to the group is needed at all, in order for detachment to work. In fact, the best emotional response to groupthink is no emotional response. Neutrality. That is, after all, the state of true - emotional - detachment.

At this point, you should be aware of a Groupthink Red Flag. Opposition to / disdain for detachment, when it is actually being practiced [as opposed to being talked about and admired in the abstract], is a major red flag. If you think about the detachment I've described above and in the previous post, it is - really - nothing more than Mindfulness. Paying attention to the here-and-now, IN the Here And Now. Setting aside emotional reactions to What Is, and Letting It Be, but also Seeing It Accurately As It Goes By.

It can be fascinating to watch someone who ostensibly advocates for these selfsame things - in theory, from a position as Groupthink Guru - react to them when they actually encounter them in practice...... being practiced by someone other than themselves... ...with regard to themselves / their group. You may hear phrases like 'humorless', 'living in your head', 'all-head-no-heart', etc. These are, of course, attempts to shame you into surrendering your detachment and re-submitting to the group, or, more honestly, to the Groupthink Guru who is shaming you.

When you hear these phrases, pay very close attention. Nobody who is genuinely committed to your emotional welfare and development will shame you for being able to detach! Only those who profit from your remaining enmeshed will try to drive you back to enmeshment.

Only those who have a vested interest in your remaining confused and easily controlled will speak against your ability to identify and separate yourself from the emotional processes that lead to control and confusion.

Next: Prerequisites for Detachment -- More on Inner-Directedness!

[& a teaser for the spiritually inclined: to be 'in the world but not of it' ... is to be ... ? :-) ]

Antidotes to Groupthink: Detachment [Teaser]

2008-07-19T21:16:00.010-04:00

With the best intentions in the world, I logged on today intending to post about detachment as an antidote to groupthink.

But then...

I found a comment from another blogger, TH in SoC, and wandered off to read his writings. Which I heartily recommend doing, by the way.

As a result, I spent my blogging time reading. So let me at least begin the train of thought, and I'll come back and expound on it tomorrow, God willing.

I mentioned inner-directedness as the first antidote to groupthink for a very good reason. The subsequent antidotes are all either related to it, or strengthened by it; you'll see what I mean as I continue developing the concept.

Detachment, I think, is the next most crucial quality to cultivate in order to be groupthink-resistant.

I mean detachment both in the commonly used 'clinical' sense, the sense in which an ER doctor is able to stand aside from suffering in order to deal quickly and effectively with it, and in the commonly used 'recovery' sense, the sense in which a person in recovery detaches emotionally from people with whom he has previously been enmeshed. And, as well, in the mystic sense, the sense in which we relinquish our desire for a particular outcome to occur...

... in all of these senses, there is a separateness established. The surgeon holds herself separate from the traumatic injury victim, not because she does not care, but because she does care, and she must remain separate in order to use her skills most effectively in the service of that victim. The recovering individual, similarly, does not detach from indifference, but from necessity, because in his case, the degree of attachment that existed previously was excessive. Unhealthy. Making it difficult to establish boundaries where they were needed. And the mystic is separating himself or herself from the attachments and desires that hinder spiritual growth.

Boundaries - separateness - allow us to observe with awareness, which is essential if we are to recognize groupthink when it arises.

More on this in the next post. But for now, consider: you can't detach successfully without being inner-directed. It's too frightening, too painful, too difficult, otherwise. [And, of course, this inner-directedness is not to be confused with the solipsism and self-centeredness of the narcissist/abuser. I'll have more to say about this later, as well.]

Quick Interjection on Inner-Directedness

2008-07-08T20:17:00.006-04:00

It has occurred to me that the Dimitri Diatribe Discussion, rather than being a digression from the theme of Inner-Directedness as an Antidote to Groupthink, demonstrates how inner-directedness is an antidote to any abuser's attempts to hoodwink their prey.

Dimitri was very obviously trying to 'put one over' on Olga, at the outset; groupthink gurus, such as Pica and Aranna in the earlier case studies, try to 'put one over' on entire groups of people. But the game is played quite similarly in both cases. Approval, and other goodies, are offered with one hand; threats and ultimata, however, are not far away, and this is made clear, one way or another.

Strongly other-directed individuals will find themselves terribly torn in situations like this - even obvious ones - and prone to repeated painful encounters with abusive persons and groups, because to be other-directed means that one's worth is largely invested in pleasing others and obtaining their approval, singly or collectively; this programming is very hard to overcome.

Inner-directedness, on the other hand, while it respects the 'other', respects the 'other' as another 'self'. To 'love thy neighbor as thyself', you must, as prerequisite, love yourself. And trust your own judgement; and know your own values; and have formed those values with thoughtfulness and contemplation, rather than simply receiving and accepting them at the hands of - others. When your values are truly yours, when they are internalized, you can hold to them even when they are mocked and derided, even when you are likewise mocked and derided for holding them.

Inner-directedness is the quality that keeps you valuing your right to be treated decently more than the prospect of getting a self-described 'complete catch' to call you back. That same quality will keep you valuing your right to think for yourself more than the prospect of being admitted to the 'inner circle' of a bully's clique.

In other words, when you are inner-directed, you're not willing to trade your integrity - or, as I prefer to think of it, shortsell your soul - for the approval of a man, a group, or a 'guru'. You can stand separate from them, and see.