Updates from February, 2015 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Barbara 21:41 on February 17, 2015 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , ,   

    SELF-PRESERVATION UNDER NARCISSISTIC ABUSE 

    by Kathy Krajco

    I don’t see how it can be so difficult for many people to see what is so wrong about denying a person (or any sentient creature) the right to use any means necessary to protect and defend themselves from abuse. All it takes is a little thought. And empathy. Just put yourself in the victim’s place and then ask yourself how it would feel to have to bend over for it. More important, ask yourself what that would MEAN.

    It’s the MEANING in things that many people prefer to unsee.

    There are many issues over which reasonable people may disagree, but this is not one of them. There is a right and wrong answer here. Those who prefer the wrong one just disregard all reasoning to the contrary with the old “Yes but….” That is invalid. Those people lose the argument hands down, because they don’t have valid answers for their opponents’ points.

    I don’t throw my pearls before swine, but here is an effort to explain for those who honestly haven’t seen enough of life yet to understand but are willing to understand.

    I warn you that this is an unpleasant subject.

    Examples speak louder than words.

    Why do you suppose that, until not so long ago, a convicted criminal in Europe had to approach his executioner, fall upon his knees before his executioner, and pay the executioner to torture him to death?

    What sick mind dreamed up that idea?

    If you research the topic, you will find a hundred details of execution rituals that drum on the same theme: in all, the victim (as he was called) was constrained by every means possible to OFFER HIMSELF UP (or to seem to be offering himself) to abuse. Why? Why did one have to kneel down before the executioner and lay his head on the chopping block in even the least cruel form of execution?

    In Europe you didn’t have the inalienable human right to pursue happiness. It could be taken away from you by the Church or State so you would have to pursue pain instead. That is why you had to give evidence against yourself. That is why you had to offer yourself to torture and execution. Refusal to would be a sin and a crime.

    How’s that for perverted?

    You were declared “out law” (i.e., outside the protection of the law) and condemned to penal servitude. That is a fancy name for enslavement to serve as an object for someone else to punish with abuse. You had to surrender yourself to abuse for that other’s “pleasure.”

    Think what that means. It means that you no longer belong to yourself. Think how it violates the instinct for self-preservation. It’s an enforced self-masochism.

    This is what our forefathers outlawed with the outlawing of “cruel and unusual punishment.” France soon followed suit with the guillotine as a humane form of execution in which the the condemned did not have to offer himself to harm.

    This is what rape is all about. It’s not about sex: it’s about power. Absolute power over another. The rapist demonstrates how powerful he is being on another by forcing the victim to offer herself to abuse. Well, he is deluding himself of course, because these are only copulatory reflexes and not the act of the victim’s will. But this is why the victims of rape find it so degrading. It is the ultimate degradation.

    Like medieval torturers, serial killers must lay awake nights dreaming up new ways to accomplish the same thing. Always the bottom line is the same though: demonstrate absolute power on the victim by somehow making the victim give themselves up to the abuse. It’s the ultimate narcissistic high.

    The black art of torture is all about this skill in making the victim offer himself (or seem to offer himself) to the instruments of torture. This is the aspect of torture that torments the victim so for the rest of his or her life.

    When you cannot resist, you at least have the comfort of knowing that there was nothing you could do. But when you have the power to put up some resistance and don’t – when you in effect say, “Here, take me and do what you will with me” – you feel like an abject worm.

    The SHAME is unbearable. No exaggeration: it drives people to suicide.

    For, what does it mean when a person accepts pain for another’s pleasure? That goes against the instinct for self-preservation. So what happens to the victim’s self? The victim no longer belongs to him- or her-self. The victim is possessed by the abuser. Like an arm or leg of his for him to use or abuse as he pleases.

    It is the ultimate degradation. The victim ceases to exist as a person. No human being with the ability to resist and a spine will submit to it. You have to (morally) break a person’s back to make them docilely submit to abuse.

    So, for the sake of the victim’s mental health, you must NEVER deny him or her the right to put up a fight.

    Denying a person under any kind of assault this right is what theologians call the sin of “extreme perversity,” otherwise known as the Sin of Sodom, which a certain kind of rape – RAPE, not sex – is symbolic.

    It violates the laws of nature and the innate instinct for self-preservation. If the victim knuckles under to psuedo-moralistic pressure to not lift hand or voice in self defense, he or she will hate themselves and become a suicide risk. That is forcing people to commit the worst breech of faith there is – with one’s very self. It’s self-betrayal, what Joan of Arc called the “most wretched treason.”

    The victim NEEDS to know that he or she did what they could to resist their abuser! Don’t EVER try to stop the victim from doing that!

    Never, never, never preach prime-time morality at the victim making it a sin for him or her to yell right back at the abuser. Though yelling back may not be wise in all cases, it IS the victim’s right. It at least lets him or her preserve self-respect through showing a backbone.

    The same with any use of force. It is not a sin. It may not be wise in some cases, but it IS the victim’s right. Only very recently has the word violence been used to describe the use of force in self defense. It isn’t rightly (or legally) “violence” because it doesn’t violate anything.

    The same with resistance through divorcing the poor, little, sad and lonely narcissist, through abandoning the abuser, or through running away from home or skipping school. The victim has the right to self-preservation and the pursuit of happiness. Always.

    If you really want to help, suggest better, more effective ways to resist. But don’t ever just sit there and say, “Don’t do this” and “Don’t do that”. Buzz off if that’s all you have to say.

    In fact, by making it evil for the victim to fight back or escape in any conceivable way, the holier-than-thous clamp the valves shut on a pressure cooker. Sooner or later something’s gotta give. The victim WILL eventually snap. Then you have a suicide or homicide as a result. And the holier-than-thou bystanders who had persecuted the victim into docile submission with their immoral moralizing share a large part of the blame.

    You can tell that the holier-than-thous are insincere. Pay attention to how much wind they spend on criticizing the abuser compared to how much wind they spend on criticizing the victim. You’ll find the ratio is about 99:1.

    They preface their remarks with something like, “Well there’s is no excuse for what he did but…” and off they go on a faultfinding expedition.

    When they’re done, add up all the fault found. Who was found in? All fault found in the victim for fighting back. Not one word about what the abuser did.

    They should be examining their own consciences, not the victim’s, because what they are doing is very wrong and very, very damaging to an already abused victim. And they are serving the abuser, helping him to abuse and get away with it.

    http://narc-attack.blogspot.com/2007/11/self-preservation-under-narcissistic.html

     
  • Barbara 21:38 on February 17, 2015 Permalink | Reply  

    NONSENSE CHECK ON CODEPENDENCE 

    by Kathy Krajco

    The preachers of codependence say that you are to blame for how the narcissist’s abuse makes you feel. They say that no one can make you feel anything. That if you feel bad about abuse, it’s your fault. Specifically, you lack self-esteem. Shame on you. That makes you a victim. And it’s bad to be a victim.

    If that isn’t blaming the victim, I don’t know what is.

    I ran across this example on the web: It starts off in the title saying that no one can make you feel anything, though the writer admits it’s hard to achieve this mental armor.

    Lets say someone comes up to you and says you are a liar. Inside you know you always tell the truth, you are confident in that and don’t feel threatened by the accusations of this other person because you know youself, you know how you treat people and you don’t care what others believe about you, you let your actions speak for you. The idea is if your self esteem is HIGH enough, and you are not dependant on the opinions of others, then you would be able to blow this off and feel secure in the knowledge that you are not a liar. The power then, that this other person seems to have over you is lost because you know the truth and you have faith in yourself/ your higher power.

    It’s hard to know where to begin disentangling this mess.

    Presumably, the third sentence contradicts the second because the writer got the cart ahead of the horse and meant to say that ‘only if your self-esteem is high will you be able to know that you are not a liar, etc.’ Which is absurd. Your self-esteem can be in the pits, and you’ll still know that you’re not a liar.

    This literary spaghetti confuses mere insecurity with being brain-dead, so brain-dead that if someone tells you that you are 3 feet tall, you believe them.

    And what follows doesn’t follow: “You know you always tell the truth, so you are confident and don’t feel threatened by the accusation, and you don’t care what others believe about you.” There are two – count ’em, two – absurdities in that sentence.

    First, being honest makes you feel unthreatened by the accusation that you are a liar? That’s absurd. Being honest does not make you immune to damage by being called a liar. If you are a liar, THEN you suffer no real damage by being called a liar, because then you are just getting the reputation you deserve. That’s justice. No foul. But when you’re honest, that false accusation can make your whole past life go up in smoke. That’s damage. The threat is real, and if you don’t feel it, you are off ga-ga land.

    Second, because you know you’re honest, you don’t care what others believe about you? That’s a non sequitur. And anyone who says they don’t care what others think about them is either deluded or lying.

    Now for the self-esteem thing. First, self-esteem itself is but a feeling. It’s your emotional response to how you treat yourself. People who force you to knuckle under to abuse beat it down, because they have made you stoop.

    So, this guy is saying that if you pump up one feeling enough (your self-esteem) you won’t ever be made to feel other (bad) feelings? That’s another non sequitur.

    That’s two gigantic leaps of illogic.

    Your self-esteem, among other things, will figure into your emotional response to this false accusation or any other kind of abuse. But the main factors will be whether the accusation is true and who the accuser is.

    For example, have you ever incurred the wrath of a tempestuous little child? She stamps her foot at what you’re saying and yells, “You’re a liar!” You are not going to be bothered by that, are you? In fact, you’ll be amused and have to try to hide your amusement so as not to rub it in. Why? Because you don’t feel threatened by the accusation of a child.

    But if your boss calls you a liar, that’s a whole different thing. You are threatened by that, just by virtue of who he or she is. And you can’t make his power over you go away by just pumping up your self-esteem.

    So, the circumstances and the accuser have much more to do with your feelings than your self-esteem does. If you need fear that this accusation is going to be spread all over town, you are off in ga-ga land if it doesn’t evoke a very strong negative emotion in you.

    And any sensible, thinking person knows all this, so where is this half-baked doctrine coming from?

    What’s more, if it is a FALSE accusation, you will be all the more angry. Correction, you will be outraged, because your sense of shame and your sense of justice are being outraged. Yes, your sense of shame, because (contrary to this sloppy thinking) shame isn’t guilt: shame is something others put on you. It wounds the innocent far more deeply than the guilty. Indeed, the most damaged are the most innocent.

    Note that this preacher of codependency even says that you don’t counter the false accusation. You just let your actions do the talking. In other words, you act like the offense didn’t happen.

    If that isn’t aspiring to victimhood, I don’t know what is.

    I’m a firm believer in the victim rising from the dust as soon as possible and thundering with both fists in the air.

    What’s so horrible about admitting that other people’s treatment of you can make you experience negative feelings as well as positive ones? Is that too scary, or what? Isn’t it narcissistic to be in denial of that fact? Why do people need to feel in control of their feelings? And notice how it all comes down to power in the end. Why do people feel the need to be more powerful than their abuser? That too is exactly how the scared-of-his-own-shadow narcissist thinks.

    He NEEDS to control others because he is terrified of a world in which he isn’t more powerful. He NEEDS to feel in control of his feelings because he is a big baby who can’t take them. He too regards feelings as weakness, so he represses them. Deludes himself about them. He too pumps up his self-esteem. Or, he thinks he does. He just pretends he has high self-esteem and represses awareness of his low self-esteem.

    I don’t think the cure for narcissistic abuse is to become like the narcissist who abused you.

    Some feelings are pleasant, and some are unpleasant. Some, like anger and sorrow are emotional pain. Of course we don’t like feeling them. At least if we are normal we don’t. But does that mean they are intolerable? That they should be feared?

    I know that fear is the first thing to go when you “descend into Hell and rise again.”

    Owned and acknowledged, feelings are not harmful, just painful. And they pass if you don’t keep them buried in your subsconscious. In fact, those unpleasant emotions are good for you in a way. They MOTIVATE you to do something about the theft or abuse. Without those feelings we’d all be pathetic wimps.

    Numb ones betraying ourselves by going around and acting as though it didn’t happen.

    For how far codependence theory has run amok, see:
    Codependence and Is It Wrong to Be a Victim?

    UPDATE: Note that those who “believe in codependency” always talk as though a person’s feelings automate his or her conduct. But this obviously isn’t true. At a very early age, we learn to stop being impulsive. That’s a character trait of childhood that normal people leave behind. We learn to keep the rational mind in control of our behavior, even when angry. So, what is wrong with these people? Have they failed to learn this? Are they still so childish that their own behavior is driven by their emotions? Listen to them. They talk as though they have no idea that a human being has any self-control. They equate feeling angry with losing your temper and acting out to do something bad.

    Their unnatural solution is to numb their natural feelings instead of to just grow up and practice self-control of their words and deeds.

    http://narc-attack.blogspot.com/2008/03/nonsense-check-on-codependence.html

     
    • somethinggoes 23:06 on February 17, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      Touche’! My husband would intentionally say things to hurt my feelings and then tell me I was weak because they upset me. He’d quote the psychobabble he gleaned from his myriad of self help books. Apparently happiness is a state of mind and I was ‘choosing’ to be depressed or unhappy by letting his name calling affect me. I was the one with the problem. He actually had me questioning my own sanity.

      Like

    • somethinggoes 23:44 on February 17, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      I have to agree. My husband would intentionally say things to hurt my feelings and then tell me I was weak for being upset. He’d quote the psychobabble gleaned from his myriad of self help books, telling me happiness is a state of mind, not circumstance. By allowing his name calling and belittling to affect me, I was choosing to be unhappy. Therefore it was my problem, not his. He actually had me questioning myself and my sanity. We’ve been separated for several weeks and only now am I able to see what was happening.

      Like

    • Brent Blonigan 21:04 on February 26, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      Melody Beatty was the person that promulgated the nonsense around codependency and that this was a process addiction warranting professional and/or peer support. She sold a lot of books and made Hazelden a lot of money.

      Like

c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel
%d bloggers like this: