My mother wants to know why my sister and I don't speak.

My mother was cruel to me, and I was cruel to my sister.

(But I remember laughter and happy conversations that stopped when I walked into the room. Suddenly everyone had something else they needed to do.)

I don't want to have to fix this. (I have reached out to her and she has never reached back. Something else to do. I know when I'm not wanted.) I want to walk away. If I wasn't broke and living on charity, that is.

Rachel @1:

Witnessing. Economics are real, and distort our relationship choices in real ways. And it's often the people with the fewest options that need to take account of them.

Goodness, is it 2am already? Here I am in the back of beyond, where we haven't quite gotten there yet. The server must be somewhere else. How strange. Hummingbirds outside the window, not once but twice in one day. Along with the owls, a good omen. I heard a whole flock of pigeons take flight right over my head. (this is what I'm doing instead of sleeping, instead of drinking). What does "take account of them" mean? Account of options? Or something else? How long does it take to stop being lonely and start being a loner?

The servers are on the east coast of the US. Where I am in Europe, it's already morning, and I'm going to be late for work.

Take account of economics, in the sense of paying attention to and being limited by financial constraints.

Argh. Mozilla just crashed and evaporated my lengthy, carefully edited, discussion of my college and post years.

I'm not going to rewrite most of that, but I'll note two things: The magazines and funding appeals I get from Harvard go straight into the trash -- they did not earn my support in any way whatsoever. And the subtle dysfunctions in the Boston-area Pagan community were a significant part of why, when I left Cambridge (20+ years ago), I dropped most of my other connections with the area.

Mmm. There are deep, deep reasons that church professionals study family systems theory. So much of the way people are with each other - the kind and gentle as well as the cruel and thoughtless - scales through all sizes of groups, from the most intimate to the most public. To my eye it has almost a fractal self-similarity, now that I know what I'm looking for.

And, as a footnote, my family of origin turns out to have been vastly more dysfunctional than I ever realized - I just didn't know that's what dysfunction looks like. Ha.

Rachel, witnessing.

I've been undoing an reflex I developed as a child-- the gut level belief than I was emotionally in the wrong if my emotions didn't match those of the people around me.

This belief didn't affect my behavior, especially when I was young-- I shielded and resisted, so I seemed like and was a moderately unconventional person.

But then, I took down/lost some of my shields-- people were more interesting, but I was also more vulnerable to the idea that I was wrong because I wasn't emotionally in sync.

I don't think this was exactly what my mother was trying to inculcate, except that it kind of was. On the one hand, she thought my emotions should match hers, and on the other, in some basic ways, she was afraid of people though she also thought she could be right and they could be wrong.

#8, Nancy Lebovitz: the gut level belief than I was emotionally in the wrong if my emotions didn't match those of the people around me.

This belief didn't affect my behavior, especially when I was young-- I shielded and resisted, so I seemed like and was a moderately unconventional person.

Yeah I grew up with that belief too. Only it did affect my behaviour, notably in believing the people who told me I was feeling the wrong thing and they were right and I was "just overreacting", ultimately leading to staying in a relationship I didn't enjoy because no he wasn't really being crappy to me, I was "just overreacting" and had to like it.

I did some resisting and some ignoring when I was younger, and from that learned that I was deliberately contrary, doing things opposite or wrong solely to do things different than "the norm" (even when in reality sometimes I didn't know what the norm was and sometimes disliked what the norm was), that I was extremely stubborn (even though I more recently figured out that I actually have a hard time saying no), and that I was weird and nobody would like me because of that. The first two mainly from my parents and the last from, um, everything around me. Ultimately I (mostly) learned to hide my interests and appear as boring and conventional as possible.

Lately I've been trying to figure out what I like and want and feel for myself. Being around other people muddles that.

But being around people who think I'm interesting instead of weird (weird-as-criticism, the way I grew up with; "I'm weird and that's why I'm awesome" was somewhere between a sarcastic joke and the emotional equivalent of "making a virtue of necessity") when I slip and let something past the barrier is something I'm still trying to get my head around. The concept of other people being interested in what I have to say! The concept of people actually *wanting* to spend time with me because I'm interesting and funny! These are strange and new, and also a little bit scary because I feel like I have to keep living up to that. And of course I hide how much it scares me because that isn't a "normal" or "acceptable" emotion, of course I'm fine with it, I'm not overreacting at all why do you ask?

(Oops, formatting fail that I didn't see in preview. Both of the first two paragraphs should have been in italics because they are quotes.)

#8 Nancy Lebovitz
I've been undoing an reflex I developed as a child-- the gut level belief than I was emotionally in the wrong if my emotions didn't match those of the people around me.

Oh my, this. If I was upset when she wasn't, why was I making such a big deal out of it? And if it wasn't something she was personally invested in, why should I care/be excited/make her listen to me talking about it? (of course, when she wanted to talk about *her* interests, I was horribly rude not to be fascinated with every word she said...)

Also, if there was any difficulty in communication - any confusion, any misunderstanding, any terms used that the other person didn't already know - it was automatically my fault and a Very Bad Thing. Even/especially when it was because Mom was "listening" by multitasking and hearing approx. every third word I said. [She was an elementary teacher, and when you're surrounded by a crowd of 9 year olds, you have to do this. Survival skill. But NOT appropriate for a one-on-one conversation with an adult.]

Double bad if it was a word she didn't know, 'cause then I was being a "snob."

Awesome Spouse has been working for *years* to convince me that a) communication fails happen, b) they're not automatically the end of the world and c) they don't have to be someone's *fault* who then has to do penance for them.

I walked away from my family of origin (mostly) as soon as I was able. Would that I had understood that they would follow me (in my mind) unto this day. Had I understood that this would happen back then, I don't know that it would have changed my decision. I hope it would have changed my expectations.

The problem is that one takes a certain shape to survive the dysfunction. It then becomes hard, once one escapes, to avoid recreating the dysfunction so that one's shape fits in the new context.

...for me, at least.

Nancy Lebovitz @8: the gut level belief than I was emotionally in the wrong if my emotions didn't match those of the people around me.

Yup. Installed self-censoring so the victim self-controls, and cedes their personal power to the Authority.

I was probably well into my fifties before I managed to mostly de-install this one.

Chickadee @11: Oh my, this. If I was upset when she wasn't, why was I making such a big deal out of it? And if it wasn't something she was personally invested in, why should I care/be excited/make her listen to me talking about it? (of course, when she wanted to talk about *her* interests, I was horribly rude not to be fascinated with every word she said...)

Me three. Except I learned (the hard way) early on to keep my opinions to myself. My mother was so determined to "bring me up right" (and not even in any moral sense—just "mental 'health'") that if she even suspected an opinion/attitude/reaction that differed from what she thought it should be, she'd go in after it and "fix" it. Fortunately, I eventually sussed out that "fix" meant "get the answer she wanted/expected." So I'd mostly just go limp on her and resolve not to get caught thinking for myself again. With equivocal success.

For too many things, in order to hide them from her, I had to hide them from me. Because if she even suspected a bad/aberrant/"unhealthy" attitude, out came the scalpel and forceps.

Fortunately for me, I also sussed, early on, that for the most part, she was full of $#!†, and/or just plain wrong. So I found I could safely disregard her assertions about how the world/I ought to be. But I still had to navigate the mine-field that was my family dynamic until I finally got out of there.

I didn't really start to get right with myself until I finally started living by myself, without roommates, at age 29.

It took me quite a while of beating myself up to realize that a lot of what was going on was I'd see someone express a strong emotional opinion and (frequently) feel that I was wrong for not having the same emotion.

I wasn't just beating myself up out of self-hatred-- there's actually a self-protective element in there even if it isn't optimally efficient.

I'd see the opinion, and go into "I'm a piece of shit, I'm no goddamn good, if I were any goddamn good I'd kill myself".... and a big chunk of that is "See what an awful person that person with the strong opinion is. They hate me. They make me feel bad. I'm not giving in to anything they want."

Of course, some people who are expressing strong opinions really do want to override dissenting opinions and emotions. I'm kind of like that myself, and I don't think it's particularly unusual.

Nancy: "I'm not giving in to anything they want."

Which, of course, is a crucially important capability. Nice to be able to get there without flaying yourself alive, though. :-)

Rachel, witnessing.

Another Quiet One, #6: That realization happens to a lot of people. It's one of the things these threads are for, to let people see that their experiences may fit into a larger, recognizable pattern.

Rachel, witnessing. BTDT -- it doesn't really get easier.

Re: The "ugly" church. When I decided I wanted to convert, I went online to find out what parish I was in. Turns out where I am has two parishes, and I could pick which one I wanted to go to -- so I went to each website...

Our Madonna of Modernity* was built sometime during the 1960's and looks like an Art Deco flying saucer. Having met some of the parishioners in my neighborhood, I did not feel comfortable going there.

Our Lady of Lourdes, however looked like a proper church (Romanesque, not Gothic, sigh) and had a Perpetual Adoration chapel. Since Bernadette was the first saint I actually had read about and since I'd wanted to do Adoration since reading the Outlander books, I figured I'd gotten a sign as to which to choose.

I love my parish, and enjoy going to Mass each week -- something my teenaged self would never have believed possible.

*Name changed to protect the architect

#15 ::: Jacque

I have a good bit of won't power.

****

One of the more general questions is "How do you come to notice what you're doing all the time?" I'm talking about the things which either seem obvious or which go by so fast it takes a lot of calming/focus to notice that they're happening at all.

****

#16 ::: Lee

One of the larger patterns I've wondered about is whether some of my mother's weirdness about people was actually immigrant stuff. Her father and all her grandparents were Jews from Eastern Europe, so issues about fitting in weren't necessarily just about personal or family dysfunction.

the invisible one:
The concept of other people being interested in what I have to say! The concept of people actually *wanting* to spend time with me because I'm interesting and funny! These are strange and new...

And you continue to take stunning photos.

...and also a little bit scary because I feel like I have to keep living up to that.

No, you don't have to live up to anything. All you have to do is show up and be you; you already know how. This was a major revelation to me.

Jacque:
...once one escapes, to avoid recreating the dysfunction so that one's shape fits in the new context.

An excellent description of the trap.

Nancy Lebovitz @18: "How do you come to notice what you're doing all the time?"

Heh. Yes, indeed. A couple of hacks: notice what happens right before the thing you're wondering about happens. Also: find a way to slow it down, so you can actually watch it go by. (Shift rep system, frex.)

I haven't spoken to my adopted brother or sister in 20 years, since the day we buried our father.

I pretend that I'm okay with this. I know that my adopted grandmother, who is a huge part of their lives, is toxic. I know that they, too, are toxic. But when my daughter was born eight years ago I tried to make peace--and was rebuffed, rudely and without any communication at all.

On the one hand, I'm glad my daughter doesn't have to deal with that toxicity, with the weight of all the awful things that happened in that family beyond the lighter load I carry.

On the other hand, I remember laughter and camaraderie. I remember sheltering the two of them from our mother, and the love I felt for them then. I remember dancing and camping and Disneyland. And I miss them.

I've replaced them with friends who are like brothers and sisters. But I still miss the brother and sister I grew up with.

#21 ::: Jacque

I think it's also helped to ask myself what I'm doing, without expecting any action based on the answer.

Michael R. Johnston: Witnessing.

witnessing, as always. This long conversation is still such a pool of sanity. Almost all the answers seem hard! Very realistic.

Jacque @ 12: The problem is that one takes a certain shape to survive the dysfunction. It then becomes hard, once one escapes, to avoid recreating the dysfunction so that one's shape fits in the new context.

Ah, aptly put. I think this is how some of these old bad patterns follow me, like proteins that I fold myself into.

I came across a poem recently that made me think of these threads: Megan Falley's The First Time I Met His Mother. Especially the line just Uncle Lenny, a joke. In OUR family we can take a joke, she warned.

Stefan S #25: lyrics for the poem, because the Youtube auto-CC is hopeless.

This. So many times this.
Lucia Lorenzi "Sometimes the greatest moments of empathy come from realizing that we cannot walk in another's shoes - and dealing with that tension."

Mom's solution was to assume that her experience is universal, and to get offended when you tried to differentiate. So many others do the same thing on a lesser level. But each experience is different - and empathy is still possible.

Stefan / David: Woof. So much that gets said between the lines.

Just above that piece on David's link, I found this, which also resonates:

My college theater professor once told me
that despite my talent,
I would never play Kate to any man's Petruchio.
We put on shows that involve
flying children
and singing animals
but apparently no one
has enough willing suspension of disbelief
to buy anyone loving a fat girl.

(There's more, but that's the verse that jumped out at me.)

Hello! my people of the dysfunctional families -- of origin, and sometimes of choice!
I left the One True after my brother's funeral, when I realized the sermon chosen by my mother's priest was outlining the rationale of the abusive and manipulative family system in which I'd been raised. "This is the logic of the abuser," I thought. And then, "oh!". My brother loved me, I loved him, we *were* our family, and while I'm kind of used to this new relationship we have where he is dead, it still breaks my heart.
Five years later I met a good man, and it took him probably three, maybe four years of watching me try to stay in relationship with my also-broken parents before even he agreed, it wasn't there. It was time to stop throwing myself in the dyke.
It was very very hard, but freedom is very very good.

Just witnessing for everyone.

There are a ton of conversations I'd like to be taking part in on Making Light, but RL is keeping me much too busy right now.

Anyway, just witnessing. I hope these threads are helping everyone.

I'm not writing under my normal nym mostly so that if the person I'm talking about googles, he won't find this rant.

I'm feeling used.

Apologies for the wall-of-text:

I knew a guy, 20 years ago. Nice guy; one of my close circle of friends. Quiet type; loves chess. I'll call him X.

Fifteen years ago X had a psychotic break. I'm talking full-on, diagnosed paranoid schitzophrenia. He showed up at another friend's house screaming how they were demon-worshipers and vampires. Since those people had an infant in the house, they were naturally terrified.

After considerable handwringing (friends have NO standing; even parents have a hard time getting an adult into supervised mental treatment) we finally got X to his parents in Michigan. He's been in Michigan, under treatment so far as we know, for the last 14-1/2 years.

About five months ago, X walked out of his Michigan apartment (the rent of which is paid to the end of the year) with nothing but the clothes on his back, and his wallet. He didn't even take his cell phone. He declares that the apartment was making him sick. He took the train back to the Chicago area, where he proceeded to live on the street for at least two months. Eventually, X walked up to a friend's house (the same friend, as it happens, that he called a demon-worshiper) and rang the bell. The daughter (who was the infant) answered the door; exchanged a few words, called her father. Who immediately said, "sorry, we don't give charity" and shut the door on X. The daughter said, "wait, he said you know him; his name is X." Friend chased after X, apologized, and then contacted all of X's old friends for help. (For obvious reasons, friend didn't want X hanging around.)

My spouse donates time fixing computers at a big shelter in Chicago. We got X into that shelter. We helped him arrange for services. They're trying to find placement in a single-room-occupancy for him. In the meantime, X (who doesn't seem badly impaired to my non-educated eye, although he's been off his meds for six months or more) refuses to learn the transit system, so every time X gets fed up with the shelter (which is at least once a week) my husband has to come into the city, pick him up, and he ends up sleeping in my basement or with friends for a few days until we can talk him into going back into the Chicago (where all the services are.)

We've given him hundreds of dollars in clothes, food, and actual walking-around money. (Thinking about it, probably close to a thousand dollars by now.) This despite the fact he has disability money, which he tells me he's successfully transferred to a guardian that works with the shelter in Chicago.

We let him sleep in our house (which I am *very* uncomfortable with; see previous psychotic break description.) He displays the responsibility of a ten-year-old.

Maybe it's the mental illness. Maybe I'm being unfair. But I've had it up to here with X; I never volunteered to be his parent. And at the same time, I feel guilty, because, well, mental illness.

Am I a horrible person?

#12, Jacque:

The problem is that one takes a certain shape to survive the dysfunction. It then becomes hard, once one escapes, to avoid recreating the dysfunction so that one's shape fits in the new context.

That sounds familiar. Or sometimes, instead of recreating the dysfunction, finding a similar dysfunction because it fits your current distorted shape. But either way, it doesn't allow you the space to untwist yourself.

#19, Jeanie:

And you continue to take stunning photos.

No, you don't have to live up to anything. All you have to do is show up and be you; you already know how. This was a major revelation to me.

A concept I've been working on lately is that the whole thing about improving, raising the bar, learning and getting better over time is generally a good thing but does not need to apply to every single thing ever. I have been consciously and deliberately telling myself that my daily photos are only a photo of anything interesting each day and I don't have to make them better every time and I don't have to make them objectively professional quality and I don't have to top myself each time I post a photo. In hindsight I think that's one of the reasons I stopped writing a blog I started a few years back, that feeling of needing to make each post better than the last eventually overwhelmed me and the feeling of not being good enough to do that made it hard to continue. Then I found the book "when I say no I feel guilty" and one of the points in it I read yesterday was that we all have the right to say "I don't care" - specifically that I don't need to meet some judgement of progress or improvement, that I am allowed to say to myself this is good enough for what I want to do.

Counterintuitively, being willing to take and post pictures of roadside weeds and rusted abandoned equipment because I deliberately decided that I don't care about meeting the pro-level photography (and fancy equipment) norms of 500px has led to some of the pictures I like the most. Unfortunately the site has now set it up so that photos without categories and metadata still show up in the new photos page and the stats on views and likes are intruding into my silent posting habit. Trying to ignore those. Also, roadside weeds are pretty!

Anyhow, I'm trying to figure out the showing up and being me part. More to the point, the "being me" part. That terror of other people's judgement is hard to shake; in many situations I still shrink my opinions so small even I can't see them and go along with the expectations around me.

I'm trying to find the shape that is me, trying to untwist from the shape I took in prior bad situations.

Not me:

No, you're not a horrible person. Not remotely.

This is a golden opportunity to demonstrate to your daughter how this guy is far, far past your energy to cope with.

If you're scared, then you'd better believe she is too.

Perhaps you, your husband and your daughter could sit down and talk through this together?

Reassuring her by taking steps to protect your family is another agenda worth running.

Jeanie, sorry if I was unclear; the daughter isn't mine; it's of the friend X first made contact with, after fifteen years. That daughter is eighteen now, and a black belt -- hell, the whole family are black belts -- so if X did turn up there again, she could likely handle any problems.

I have no kids, so at least there's not that issue. But part of it is that, I have no kids. I didn't sign up to have kids. I don't want a "kid", especially one who is roughly my age.

Physically, X is quite tall, but rather frail (living on the street for months will do that), so he's unlikely to be a serious danger to myself or my spouse. Plus, I have a sword and I know how to use it... But that does NOT make me comfortable with X sometimes sleeping on a blow-up mattress in my basement. (I keep the sword next to the bed on those days.)

Hope this clarifies...

Not Me #34: Not Me: You have offered great charity already, but this person sounds like a bottomless pit -- someone who will absorb anything you give him, without changing. If anything, your help is letting him avoid dealing with the public aid he's already gotten. I'd advise you to talk with his guardian in Chicago, and any other appropriate figures there, and start bringing him back to the shelter ASAP after he shows up at your door.

the invisible one #32: I'm getting some of that with my drawing, which is a problem. (I'm currently partway done with cards for my (twin) nieces, having stalled until the day before we're flying up to Boston for their Bat Mitzvahs. (Also see: family gatherings, stress thereof. At least Mom is being mostly helpful these days....)

Not Me, #31: No, you're not being a horrible person. You have damn good reason to be uneasy about this situation. You're not X's parent, and you're not a medical professional, and frankly, X is using you.

Here are my own credentials on this topic. A long time ago, I had a good friend, let's call him Y. I met Y when I was in college, and we became very close -- never lovers, but chosen-sibs. I fought my parents for my right to have him as a friend (long story, irrelevant here). We stayed close after I graduated. He was my now-ex's best man at our wedding. I would have trusted him with my life.

Some 10 or 15 years after college, Y was living in a poly household with 3 other friends of mine. They started mentioning that he was having "odd spells" -- periods of a few days when he didn't seem entirely rational. Long story short: those odd spells got more and more frequent, and eventually the person who owned the house kicked him out, and he came to us (my now-ex and me) and asked if he could stay with us for a while, until he could find an apartment and get his life sorted out. He said "a few weeks".

I was a little dubious, but... it was Y. I'd known him for close to 20 years. He'd done me a lot of favors over that period (and I him -- nobody kept score). I said okay. At that point I'd been laid off and was job-hunting; my ex had a job and was gone during the day, so I was the one who saw the most of Y.

He was different. Don't ask me to describe how, but it made the hair stand up on the back of my neck. I found myself being "vewy, vewy qwiet" when we were both in the house. And he was cycling in and out of reality on about a 10-day loop. It got bad enough that at one point I borrowed an abnormal-psych textbook from a friend who was taking med classes, and I was going down the list of symptoms for paranoid schizophrenia going, "Check... check... check...".

The day it all came to a head was when he sat down and told me, very seriously, that the text in my Bible had changed. The text in some of my SF books had changed. He knew why it had changed -- it was because They knew he was going to be reading those books, and so They had substituted new copies with the changed text in them. He was hearing his former GF's voice talking to him from the radio, and that was because of Them too. I never did get a clear idea of who They were supposed to be -- possibly the former boss who had tried to have him killed (he said), possibly not. But most importantly, I wasn't real. Nothing around him was real. He knew it wasn't real, because he had discovered that he no longer needed to eat, or drink, or breathe. I said, "You're breathing -- I can see your chest moving from here." He said, "That's just because I'm talking to you. I'm not breathing."

There was more, but I'll spare you the rest. Suffice it to say that he scared the ever-lovin' shit out of me, and I picked up my purse and RAN out of the house, and didn't come back until my ex got home from work. At which point I said Y needed to find somewhere else to go NOW, because I wasn't going to spend another night with him under my roof. (Or another day alone in the house with him, but I didn't say that.) So he made some phone calls, and packed up his stuff and moved in with his married sister. He was also back to being lucid by then, and tried to tell me that all of that weird-ass shit that had scared me was just a hypothetical conversation, the kind we were all used to having in the SF Club. I was furious -- that felt like a betrayal of everything we'd ever shared.

Less than 2 weeks later, we found out that he'd hijacked a car at knifepoint and gone looking for some guy in the next town that he thought his former GF was dating. (Nobody got hurt.)

Do I feel bad about having kicked Y out? Yes, even after all these years. But not as much as I feel relieved that I did it before he had his own psychotic break. It was obvious that he needed more help than I could provide.

I think you're in a similar situation with X -- he needs more help than you can provide, and he's not going to get better as long as he's got you and your husband on the string. And I think you may also be letting your "supposed to be nice and helpful and stand by your friends" conditioning override the back of your brain telling you that Something Ain't Right Here. That's a good way to end up getting hurt more than financially.

You and your husband need to sit down and have a serious discussion about this. And my recommendation is that you distance yourself from the situation and from X.

Thanks, Lee and David and Jeanie.

That helps. It really truly does.

The Goddamn Tapes are telling me that I'm being an awful person for even thinking of cutting him off. So your collective insight, and espcially, Lee, your personal experience, is a great spine-stiffener.

Thank you. Thank you all.

Not Me, you are not a terrible person or a terrible friend for seeing a boundary. Even if he had no other resources, you would not be a terrible person. He has other resources and wants to rely on you instead. You don't have to give him what he wants.

Not Me, Lee: Within not-too-many centuries ago, before medicine started extending its grasp into psychology, people like this were often thought to be possessed -- that a spirit or demon had moved in and was tormenting the person, or had replaced their personality entirely.

There is this much truth to that idea: Someone who's having a psychotic break is in some sense, not the same person who their family, friends, aquaintances knew and may have loved. The same body, sure, and with most of their memories -- but their personality, their character, often their goals -- those have changed. Sometimes they come back temporarily or permanently, but while they're in that "maddened" state, you simply can't trust them or depend on them in the same way that you did to the original person you knew, and you do need to reckon for your own safety.

With modern medicine, we know that sometimes we can get the person back; sometimes wholly, and if not, at least partly -- enough that they can take up the threads of relationship again. But that's not a matter of unconditional support, because their self is broken, and they can't really receive your love in the same way that a sane person can. Indulging their delusions or putting up with their erratic behavior, is not helping them.

They need treatment by professionals, and "doing your best by them" means getting them into the proper treatment, and convincing them to accept it. Sometimes, that needs to be "by fair means or foul", including crossing their wishes and abridging their personal freedom. That can be painful, because it feels like you're forcing your will on them... and you are. But in such cases, that's what you need to do for everyone's welfare, especially theirs. And if you can get them back, they'll usually recognize this, and likely thank you for it.

And, speaking of psychiatric excursions, I just went to my development's laundry room, and was informed by nearby children that "there's poop in there". And indeed, somebody appears to have shat on the floor, and spread it around to boot. I've called emergency maintenance (the main office being closed), but I suspect this means someone else is having their own crisis with a loved one.... :-(

Not Me, David Harmon #39 is right, and also well informed and compassionate. A few years ago my son, at 24, went from being an employed college graduate with lots of friends and a girlfriend to being That Guy in the Street in a matter of months. It *is* like demon possession; the person becomes unrecognizable at times and certainly not better. Families have absolutely no power, at least in California, to compel treatment or anything else when the person is over 18. I'm not even allowed to know his diagnosis. My son was a kind and caring person, but he isn't any more. It seems to be part of mental illness that the person becomes utterly self absorbed, possibly because they are living in their own universe. You can pour energy into it endlessly. Most schizophrenics never become violent (we just hear about those who do in the news), but trust your gut. You've been kind, you've directed him to services. Take care of yourself and set limits.

Not me at 34:

No, you were clear. I read through several times before posting and still managed to slip in that confabulation.

MJH @41:

Part of some mental illnesses, maybe, but not all. (Or, at least, mentally ill people can be self-absorbed, but so can "healthy" people.)

I'm putting this here because it is almost certain that there are people reading this thread who have mental illnesses, including depression and PTSD.

Vicki, thanks for the correction. You are absolutely right. I spoke too broadly.

And then there are those who approach dysfunction as A Way of Life. We're dealing with a broad selection of those in our office right now, under circumstances that result in them being a higher percentage of the clientele than usual.

Pop the popcorn and enjoy the show. ::rolls eyes::

Not Me: I've got a friend who is the legal guardian for disabled adults--that's her profession. She's had several clients who schizophrenic over the years, and it sounds to me that you are talking about one who has learned to manipulate the system. (I'm not saying that he is faking it. He's just figured out how to make the world conform to the way he sees it, to a certain extent.) If you can talk to X's guardian, she or he may be able to help you disengage--because I think you need to do that.

You are not a horrible person. You are in a situation you aren't trained to handle, and I suspect that the best thing you can do (for yourself, your family and friends, and ultimately even for X) is to back away. Now.

Thanks, Mary Francis, and everyone. I really appreciate the support. You guys rock.

And because you guys rock, I've managed to mostly mute the Goddamn Tapes.

Working on setting hard boundaries now.

@ Not Me

You are definitely not being a bad person, and I say this as someone who recently needed to set some of the same boundaries you're thinking about. (Like you, I'm being a little cagy here.) I agree that you're being used and that your friend has issues that you can't fix, so don't listen to any bad tape!

I was with the book "when I say no I feel guilty" most of the way (broken record with no need to give a reason is a technique I've heard of before!) although "agreeing with truth" when criticized made me uncomfortable because repeating criticism (true or not) eventually got me believing that crap with Crappy Ex, but the dialogue for negotiating a change to sex life kind of freaked me out. The example was of a man broken-record-ing at his wife about wanting to do something she wasn't comfortable with and not taking no for an answer, and asking for then demolishing her reasons for not wanting to do it.

Which is just argh. Guess what my sex life with Crappy Ex was like?

Why was "because I'm not comfortable with it" not acceptable? Why was it that in other example dialogues such as the person saying no because they weren't comfortable lending out their car supported, but in this case it was not?

That queasy feeling while continuing to read, hoping that at some point the author will point out that this is an example of badness, and not seeing it all the way to the end, followed by the author saying that the wife's giving in was the good result. :(

the invisible one @49: That's horrifying. To me, the *most* important place for "I'm not comfortable with that" to be accepted at face value would be in intimacy - not the least. Has the author never heard of enthusiastic consent? Is he so steeped in rape culture as to not realizing he's perpetuating it?!?

#50 ::: Chickadee

When I Say No I Feel Guilty is from 1975-- paperback edition 1985. The past is a different country. No, the author hadn't heard of enthusiastic consent.

Nancy Lebovitz @51: Ah. Technically I'm old enough to have heard of the book, but it wouldn't have been on my mom's approved list by any stretch of the imagination. :P

Two eras divided by a common language.

I knew it was an old book going in and was prepared for sexism. One of the "very common" conflicts for married couples was the wife deciding she wanted to get a job instead of being a housewife, for example. I can deal with that, even if I roll my eyes when one of the husband's arguments against his wife getting a job was that he would feel guilty because she was working two jobs (the paid one and the house cleaning one) and he was only working one. Because both of them working one and a half jobs and sharing the housecleaning duties was inconceivable, of course. (At least he acknowledged that taking care of the home was a job! That's more than many do.)

On a slightly less specific level, after being unhappy about the above, I thought a bit more and realized that (at least in my first reading of it) when the assertive person is saying no to something they can broken-record their no and refuse to give a reason no matter what the person they're saying no to asks about why, but when the assertive person is asking for a thing and getting a no, they can broken-record their want and press for reasons as to why they're getting a no in order to dispose of said reasons.

Does somebody here have more experience with assertiveness and know how one reconciles these two lessons? They seem entirely contradictory to me. I'm trying to figure out if I should ditch and unrecommend this book, or if there's more I need to learn about the topic to understand what's going on here.

The concept of not needing to give reasons for your no is something I had learned about already; Captain Awkward is big on that method. I had taken the inverse to be true as well though, that if somebody said no then to not press for reasons because they don't owe me a reason any more than I owe them one.

It's not just about "assertiveness", it's about privilege, and power, and the claiming of all three.

Who gets to demand reasons, or refuse to give them? Who gets to expect that the reasons they give will be accepted without argument? A while back there was mention of "a woman's prerogative to change her mind" in light of consent issues, that plays in here too. Likewise "crimes" such as vagrancy or "loitering with intent" -- who gets to explain themselves to a cop?

The book explicitly acknowledges that when there's a big power differential (such as when dealing with the police or when you feel physically threatened) no, you don't do the assertiveness thing that it teaches.

It's about dealing with equals, or those who should be your equals, such as friends and spouses. My question is also about dealing with equals or those who should be equals, not about dealing with police officers.

Yes, privilege is a huge thing and people with less frequently have their right to say no without giving a reason disrespected. I am more than familiar with that. That is not my current question.

when the assertive person is saying no to something they can broken-record their no and refuse to give a reason no matter what the person they're saying no to asks about why, but when the assertive person is asking for a thing and getting a no, they can broken-record their want and press for reasons as to why they're getting a no in order to dispose of said reasons.

When the assertive person is doing the former thing, they are on their own emotional territory, defending their own boundaries, and this is a useful thing. When they're doing the latter, they're not on their own territory; they're invading the emotional territory of another person. Persistence there is not appropriate. An assertive person who does that is behaving badly, using their assertiveness as a weapon.

The solution, which is hard, is to be assertive back (even temporarily), to tell them that you do not want to discuss or argue about your refusal, because it is yours and you do not want to be persuaded out of it. (Depending on the nature of the assertive person, the word "bullied" may be a useful one to deploy here.)

If a person will not respect a clear request to stop pushing a boundary, they're being a jerk. They're using their assertiveness to do it, but the assertiveness is not to blame. Being a jerk is to blame. If no other solution works, they may simply not be someone you can be in a relationship with. Learn that early and pay attention to it. (I know one person here who sets a small boundary—please don't telephone me; I prefer text messages—to test if new partners/friends are boundary-crossers. Someone who crosses that boundary will likely cross others, later, and may not be suitable for a long-term relationship.)

Unfortunately, I think that assertive people often have gotten away with being jerks more often than non-assertive people, just by overriding and ignoring the corrective feedback that young people get as they figure out whether to control or let loose their inner jerks. But I do not think that every assertive person is a jerk.

I work with a very assertive person, who has all of the innate delicacy and inborn sensitivity of a steamroller with a breeze block on the accelerator pedal. But sometime before I met him, he figured out that he was being a flaming asshole, and decided that he'd be a better person surrounded by people he liked more if he changed his ways. He's become one of my favorite colleagues, because he combines an assertive, blunt demeanor about positive things with a genuine willingness to completely reform his behavior if he's doing things wrong. So it is possible.

So the second lesson, pushing for reasons, is a bad use of assertiveness? That kind of throws out half the advice in the book.

Trying to get a sense of how much of the advice is useful and how much is harmful. I've seen it recommended often enough (with no warnings about certain sections the way The Gift of Fear comes recommended) that I went looking for it.

TIO #56: The problematic example you give in #49 is specifically a husband steamrollering his wife, which smells to me of gender privilege -- especially in that time, and from a male author. For the example in #54, you don't specify whether it's the wife who's meant to be standing up to the argument you rolled eyes at. If so, I'd be more willing to forgive the first example as "less awareness of such things in the past".

#59, David Harmon:

Yes, the example in #49 was very much that, and it disturbed me a lot.

The example I mentioned in #54 was one of the kinds of sexism I expected from the book based on its copyright date. In that example, the wife was the assertive subject and was asserting that she wanted to get a job in the face of her husband's objections.

The two lessons I am trying to reconcile (or figure out if one of them is harmful and should be discarded) is not related to the two examples, but to the two general patterns I described below the example.

TIO #60: Oh, I see (I think). For that, well Abi's covered the context level perfectly well. For the close focus, I'd just consider "assertiveness" as a social analogue to strength or intelligence -- a power that can be used for good or ill.

I think it also represents an attempt at dominance, but I'm currently foggy with exhaustion and not too sure of that, except that there's clearly some relation between assertiveness and dominance.

the invisible one @54: Does somebody here have more experience with assertiveness and know how one reconciles these two lessons?

When it comes down to it, Person B's right to want what s/he wants is trumped by Person A's bodily autonomy. Period, end of discussion. (IMnsHO.) Hierarchy of needs, and all that.

How would I handle this conflict, were I Person A? Well, we've run into a variant of this at work. How do we resolve it? "I've answered this question for you three times. If you don't like the answer, I'm sorry, but there's nothing more I can do for you."

Mileage, of course, varies.

abi @57: When they're doing the latter, they're not on their own territory; they're invading the emotional territory of another person. Persistence there is not appropriate. An assertive person who does that is behaving badly, using their assertiveness as a weapon.

Almost. There's a term that's slipped out of the discussion which I think might be useful here: In my understanding, when one is defending one's own territory, one is being assertive. When one is invading another's territory, one is being aggressive, not merely behaving badly. And, yes, the aggression is a weapon. And not uncommonly an expression of privilege.

the invisible one, #49: Well, that's a classic example of a visit from the Suck Fairy!

Note that at the time the book was written (thanks, Nancy!) there was no such thing as marital rape, and it was considered a wife's duty to satisfy her husband sexually; this also applied if she said no to something and he went out and had an affair in order to get it, which was then considered the wife's fault. That's the mindset which produces the sort of crap you saw.

and @56, remember also that for many people, the husband/wife relationship is a power-differential one where privilege comes into play, not a relationship of equals. If the book is saying one thing but demonstrating the other, believe the demonstration WRT the author's POV.

Jacque #63: My problem with that definition is that sometimes the territory is disputed!

Within our own society, Abi speaks of "emotional territory" and "boundaries". But those are often matters of ongoing negotiation. I think there are natural boundaries there, which are "most easily defended", but I still can't be sure that my idea of my boundaries will match up with, say, my mother's idea of my boundaries. Things get even less certain when you go past "existential" boundaries to lines of privilege and authority.

More fundamentally, in our liberal modern (segment of) society, it's a given that each person's body is wholly their own territory. Nor will I argue otherwise... but that axiom wasn't, and still isn't, universally granted. We condemn a social order for its absence (Lee #64), while the other order would condemn us for the absence of an incompatible axiom ("What do you mean a husband doesn't have a right to...".) At some point we come down to saying "this is the law of my tribe/world, and I'll stand and fight for it".

Going back to the topic, assertiveness is one of the ways we fight over all sorts of boundaries, "asserting" our lines even against opposition. And there generally is opposition, because people, like nations, tend to reflexively defend even flimsy claims of territory.

Teaching the public how to be more assertive (as this book did and does) promotes an equalization of "armament" in such struggles. And thus the book's methods can be used to defend a border that the original author might not have recognized. ("Take that, Suck Fairy!" ;-) ) At some point, a later edition of the book might acquire an apologetic footnote....

Re assertiveness and the "broken record"

It seems to me that the broken record on the "no" side is most useful in defending one's boundaries from someone who has previously indicated that they are boundary-challenged and that if you offer any opening, they will take more than you offer.

To question another's boundaries, or state your wants, ISTM broken record is only useful when you're dealing with a bureaucracy/organization rather than an individual. Because basically the purpose is to make yourself enough of a polite nuisance that they will find a way to respond to you. And really, that's not the way you want your personal relationships to work.

In stating your wants to someone else within a relationship, it seems to me that communication is the key. And therefore continued repetitions of the same thing are not at all useful, unless your purpose is to wear the other person down until they comply with you. Sometimes this is the best approach with young children, but even there it's best used sparingly. If you're talking with a spouse, then before you get more than a few repetitions into the discussion, I think both sides should be exploring the size and shape of the boundary, not in order to break it down, but in order to see whether there is some position that meets the needs of the one without overriding the boundary of the other. Neither "I asked for X and she said no so I'll just keep asking" nor "I asked for X and she said no so I'll never ask for anything remotely like it again even though it's important to me."

Also to be considered: does the person repeatedly stating a want for X really want X, or do they just want their partner to give in?

I think the assumption in the book is that broken-record is appropriate for stating wants when someone is denying you something to which you are fully entitled. (Maybe that's why I jumped to it as applicable to bureaucracies.) But, as others have said, the cultural line on full entitlement in marriage has shifted since the book was written.

On the repeated-asking thing, I honestly don't know if this is helpful or not, but my husband waged a year-long campaign (many years ago). About once a day, apropos of nothing we'd been talking about, he'd say (or mutter, or whisper, or declaim to the cat) "I wanna boat." Then he would continue with whatever the conversation in progress was actually about, saying nothing more on the matter. He never pressed.

It was a running joke. But also a serious request. And after about a year, I decided that this was important enough to him that despite my reservations, if he could find a boat I thought we could afford, he could have his boat...

(We sailed that boat for ten or fifteen years, until it just became too expensive to keep it in the harbor.)

OtterB #66: Also to be considered: does the person repeatedly stating a want for X really want X, or do they just want their partner to give in?

I think that's the difference between negotiating goals/needs within a peer relationship, and negotiating dominance/control/authority.

#61, David Harmon:

The book makes the argument that assertiveness is not about dominance; manipulation (which assertiveness is intended to cut through and counteract) is about (indirect) dominance. The examples may not always support this argument in the way the author seems to think they do, but it seems to be a reasonably valid argument and several other examples did support it.

#62, Jacque: "I've answered this question for you three times. If you don't like the answer, I'm sorry, but there's nothing more I can do for you."

That illustrates something I've been also wondering. The author doesn't really explain how to handle an interaction where both parties are assertively doing a broken record of "this is what I want" and "no", respectively, and how to handle a negotiation (which is where such an interaction should go, as I understand it) where both parties are speaking assertively. The examples are of a person being assertive speaking with a person using anger, fear, withdrawal, or emotional manipulation, instead of assertive statements, whichever side of the discussion the assertive person is on.

#63, Jacque: In my understanding, when one is defending one's own territory, one is being assertive. When one is invading another's territory, one is being aggressive, not merely behaving badly.

That is a very useful distinction. The difference between being assertive and aggressive has always confused me, compounded by the way the same behaviour is deemed one or the other depending on who does it (very gendered, among other axes of privilege).

#64, Lee:

The more I think about it, the more I think that the author did believe a marriage should be a relationship between equals -- but, in a "man with lots of male privilege who supports this relatively recent women's lib thing but doesn't really get it" kind of way. There are definite blind spots but the demonstrations of equality are there, if unevenly so. There are example dialogues supporting a married woman who wants to have a job and her own income, and an unmarried woman choosing whether or not to have sex with a boyfriend without slut-shaming (or prude-shaming) her choice, even if the language around them are rather outdated. It also acknowledges (some) social expectations and how hard it is to go against them.

Alas, you can't grep paper so I can't find it again, but one of the passing comments that stopped me in my tracks was a warning to women about men who talk the talk of equality but also say that the woman in a relationship should be a stay at home mom: that the talk of equality that man offers is just talk with nothing to back it up. And of course the reason it stopped me so hard is because new ex did exactly that, shortly before he dumped me. It was, you see, very important to him that his kids have a stay at home mother. Not a stay at home *parent*, though, which would have allowed a negotiation.

#65, David Harmon: the book's methods can be used to defend a border that the original author might not have recognized

Yes! :)

#66, OtterB: To question another's boundaries, or state your wants, ISTM broken record is only useful when you're dealing with a bureaucracy/organization rather than an individual. Because basically the purpose is to make yourself enough of a polite nuisance that they will find a way to respond to you. And really, that's not the way you want your personal relationships to work.

Oh, yes, that makes sense. The examples of commercial interactions are mostly about persisting in the face of staff trying to make you go away so they don't have to honour refunds and the like. The examples with the assertive person on the company's end involve making sure the customer complaint is appropriately dealt with without the employee getting flustered. (Those are listed in a table of contents; I just re-read one of them and the customer was fairly assertive about what she wanted and the employee was assertive enough to explain when she could be helped and not get flustered himself. So there is *some* two way assertiveness demonstration, although the assertive techniques the customer used aren't pointed out.)

Sometimes [repetition] is the best approach with young children, but even there it's best used sparingly.

That's one of the examples. "You don't have to like it, but you need to do it." I'm not sure, but I think I would have preferred that approach over the one my parents took. At least it acknowledges that the kid might not like something. I got "do you want to do [chore]" and any answer other than yes was a joke because I had to do [chore]. Not liking something was either ignored, dismissed as overreaction, or laughed at. "Rebellious teenager" me was answering "no, but I have to do it anyway because that's not actually a question." Which was also a joke. Hilarious. :p

If you're talking with a spouse, then before you get more than a few repetitions into the discussion, I think both sides should be exploring the size and shape of the boundary, not in order to break it down, but in order to see whether there is some position that meets the needs of the one without overriding the boundary of the other.

Is that the thing called compromise? I've heard of compromise but haven't figured out how to find it. I'd like to learn how. Life with parents was "because I'm the parent, that's why" and "you're so stubborn you never listen"; life with Crappy Ex was "compromise means doing things you don't enjoy" and "you always have to have your own way, can't we do things my way for once?". (Note that the preceding "for once" was, to my memory, most of the time. I know memory is unreliable, but.) I pretty much only know withdrawing and doing my thing my way without telling the other person (which was probably the source of "you're so stubborn" and "always have to have your own way") or folding and doing their thing their way even though I don't want to. I don't like either option.

#67, Cassy B.:

At this point in my life, I would find that approach seriously annoying. At least it was about a thing you could enjoy, even if you had reservations.

At previous points in my life, I might have done anything from telling him to buy it himself with his own money then refusing to use it myself and sulking (because assertiveness, I had none!) to completely folding followed by having "but you enjoyed the last thing you initially objected to, so we should do this totally unrelated thing that you object to now because you are always wrong look at the evidence" used against me. Of course, I was in a relationship with a person who *would* use that against me, so there's that.

*Kicks the server to shake loose the ISE.*

Hm, that didn't work. Trying again.

Um, me at #69: "Is that the thing called compromise?" is a serious question, not a sarcastic one. I just realized it could easily be read that way.

I have a vague notion that compromise is a solution that satisfies both parties, or as is often joked about, dissatisfies both parties equally. But the relationships I've had seemed to use a different meaning of the term and I never actually learned how to find a workable compromise, only, as described above, the all or nothing response.

TIO: I never actually learned how to find a workable compromise, only, as described above, the all or nothing response.

This was what it came down to at the end of my marriage: the fallacy was thinking that we could find a compromise. The situation involved me being willing to change, and him being willing to go along until I found how to change to accommodate him.

I finally had to tell him: "You left it up to me to change my life to be happy. The only way I can see to do that is to leave you. Bye."

He still can't figure out why I couldn't manage to be happy in a way that kept him happy too.

Some things aren't possible. It's a trap to think that if we look carefully enough we can make them so.

the invisible one @69: I got "do you want to do [chore]" and any answer other than yes was a joke because I had to do [chore]. Not liking something was either ignored, dismissed as overreaction, or laughed at. "Rebellious teenager" me was answering "no, but I have to do it anyway because that's not actually a question." Which was also a joke. Hilarious. :p

I eventually called my mother out on this. Unfortunately I think it was once I was no longer living in her home and therefore once it was practically irrelevant. But I think that at the point I did, she was able to recognize why I might have objected to her phrasing, which is nice.

"Is that the thing called compromise?"

Yes, I think so. I have also heard of this thing and am not entirely sure how to find it. My current partner, if I want to do a thing that he is not happy about, will sometimes say "do what you want," and as far as I can tell he actually means this. At least, he hasn't yet used any of these things that I then did as the basis for supposedly-justified resentment with a time gap. I continue to be astonished and disbelieving that he actually means this, albeit somewhat concerned that perhaps he is letting me walk all over him (which would be a definite role reversal from prior relationships). But I don't think that's compromise. Nor do I think "when there is a conflict between his standards of cleanliness and mine, I end up conforming to the union of his standards and mine" is compromise. hmm. (I'm not very unhappy about it yet, which means that I should try to address it before I am.)

David Harmon @65: My problem with that definition is that sometimes the territory is disputed!

Yeah, I was thinking about that overnight. That in rape culture, men's territories include the "right" to women's bodies and attention. So, yeah.

In practical terms, and legal status notwithstanding, I think a good rule of thumb is "your right to swing your fist stops where my nose begins."

me @62: "I've answered this question for you three times. If you don't like the answer, I'm sorry, but there's nothing more I can do for you."

Reading Captain Awkward refreshed my memory; the interpersonal, non-work-related variant of this is: Try 1. "No." Try 2. "No." Change of subject. Try 3. "No." Leave the room. If it goes beyond that, then it's time for "Dude. WTF?"

the invisible one @69: Thinking about it, if both parties are broken-recording, then assertiveness is not in play. Rather, this begins to fall into manipulative territory, I think. I.e., neither party is actually responding to the other; rather they're both just blindly asserting their own position. Not actual communication is happening.

how to handle a negotiation (which is where such an interaction should go, as I understand it) where both parties are speaking assertively.

If both parties are acting in good faith, the next step is unpacking and clarifying the needs/wants that both are trying to achieve. Cf. OtterB @66: See also: Getting to Yes.

And, yes, as David points out above, privilege is very much a factor.

Is that the thing called compromise?

Erm, well. My understanding of "compromise" is that you get some of what you want, and I get some of what I want, at the price of us both losing some of what we each want.

The GTY approach is more about identifying the actual needs being pled, to see if a more satisfactory solution can be found for both. The great example they give: Persons A & B have an orange. They each want it. The off-the-shelf solution is to cut the orange in half. Neither gets a whole orange, but both get half an orange.

But what if A wants zest for their cake recipe and B wants orange juice? Then the optimal split is completely different; A gets the peel, B gets the pulp, and they both get all of what they want.

Another example: optimal housework split can look like "everyone does every chore, sometime." Or it can look like "A does dishes and laundry" all the time and "B does bathrooms and vacuuming" all the time, with a side of "A and B do beds together, because it's easier and actually fun that way." And possibly a slice of "We both find washing windows utterly abhorrent, so we'll grit our teeth and split it down the middle."

Negotiating these splits involves each party being able, or at least being able and willing to figure out what their actual need/preference is, and being willing to say that with words. And, likewise, being able/willing to listen to and accommodate the other's needs/preference.

I once watched a marriage come apart because, basically, both parties were mind-reading (wrongly) the other, and reacting badly to what they read. I didn't have to wisdom to offer back then. Had I to do it over again, I would have knocked their heads together and yelled, "Dudes! Use your words!!" Because as far as I could see from what they were telling me, they were each fighting completely unrelated conflicts.

The invisible one #69: The book makes the argument that assertiveness is not about dominance; manipulation (which assertiveness is intended to cut through and counteract) is about (indirect) dominance.

I think this starts to lead down to word definitions. It's easy to get mired in arguments about those, but here's my stab at it:

"Dominance" describes a status quo where one side "usually" gets their way. It's famously not limited to human interactions, and may be universal to social animals. It's also very context-dependent. (Territory is one of those contexts, and it's worth noting that among humans, "roles" are territory.) Dominance can be based on a variety of intrinsic, situational, or interpersonal factors. Assertiveness is just one of those factors.

I'd consider "assertiveness" as attempting to get your way at the "conversational" level of negotiation. It's both a talent and a skill -- that is, some people are naturally better at it, but it can also be learned or trained. There are rules that depend on social norms -- in our current context, tactics such as threat, force, or trickery break out of the conversational level, metaphorically overturning the gameboard.

Those social norms mark a line between "discussion" and "fight", but that's not as bright a line as we might like. A dog or cat may well consider a growl or swat respectively as "fair play", and even some humans seem to take a bit of physical intimidation in stride. I think the key there is that it can't be a "trump" move -- so, a brawler type might wave his fist at his buddy in an argument without protest, where if he did that at me, I'd call foul. In the extreme case, we get "war is the continuation of diplomacy by other means".

Compromise: I'd define that as finding a solution which is at least tolerable to both parties -- either or both may not be happy with the result, but they can both live with it. A compromise isn't always completely equitable, but if it's too unbalanced, then it won't actually be tolerable. (Not just humans, but even other animals, react poorly to unfairness.)

I'm not naturally very good at compromise, but I've learned a lot over the years. Besides the autistic-spectrum thing, I was handicapped by a seriously overbearing mother -- I had to learn both how to stand up for myself, and then again how to give way gracefully. (Sometimes I still stumble over the latter.)

PS: The "Getting to Yes" idea is about doing better than minimum-standard for compromise. Creativity and insight can pay off big that way.

Here's something I think of as an example of compromise. He wants to go to a movie that is totally Not Your Thing, and you don't feel much like going out at all. You say, "You go on, I'll stay home." He says it's not as much fun without you. The two of you start looking at movie listings, and settle on something that sounds okay to both of you. He doesn't get to see the movie he originally wanted; you don't get to stay home. But also, he gets to see a movie with you (which seems to be the point, for him) and you don't have to watch a movie you know you're not going to enjoy. So both of you give something and get something. That's compromise.

This is not the same thing as give-and-take, which is when sometimes you do what one person wants and sometimes what the other person wants. In a healthy relationship there's some of that as well, but it's not the only way of dealing with conflicts.

BTW, the response to "but the last time you did something I pushed you into, you ended up not hating it, so you should let me push you into this other thing now" is: Past performance is no indicator of future performance. That's a stock-market axiom, but it's also very applicable to other areas!

Yet another useful reference: the Power and Control Wheel (PDF), from the National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence. Good, brief descriptions of both physically and emotionally abusive behaviors.

Assertiveness: the following is a mix of sets of assertiveness rights, also called simply "basic human rights", from two or three places. I think the ending of "and so do you" is important. Because that, for me, is the difference between assertiveness and aggressiveness. Someone who insists on these rights for themself while denying them to another - such as a partner - is not being assertive, they are being aggressive/dominating.

I have the right to be treated with respect and consideration - and so do you.
I have the right to ask (not demand) that others respond to my needs and wants - and so do you.
I have the right to set my own priorities as to needs - and so do you.
I have the right to refuse a request without feeling guilty or selfish - and so do you.
I have the right to be "human" - to make mistakes/be wrong sometimes - and so do you.
I have the right to have and express directly my own opinions and feelings, including anger - and so do you.
I have the right to express my talents and interests through any ethical channel - and so do you.
I have the right to be treated as a capable adult and not be patronised - and so do you.
I have the right to be independent - and so do you.
I have the right to have other people respect my rights - and so do you.
I have the right to ask others to change behaviour that continues to violate my rights - and so do you.

dcb #79: I think the ending of "and so do you" is important. Because that, for me, is the difference between assertiveness and aggressiveness.

Hmm. I like that. It could be definitional, subject to the "majesty of the law" test.

(I am "a new crop from the pseud farm" because I honestly do not remember what name I posted under for any previous DFD. I realise this means previous comments are not connected. That's OK.)

Some people leave and go on. Some people stay and go on. Probably most people have done each of those at different times. I've been thinking a lot about this lately, so this DFD post is uncanny in its appropriateness.

It's hard when one's family was part of the founding of the church. Things get particularly tangled, and the disapproval of a parent can be felt as -- or be presented as -- the disapproval of God.

It's hard to leave some things and not others. It's hard to sort out which is which. It's hard to know what I do want, as distinct from what I'm used to wanting or think I should want or was told that of course I wanted, or any of that.

Recently (i.e. the past couple of years) I've had some contact with my family. Not a lot, but some. Funny how some feels like a lot. Or at least enough for now. Anyhow, it's uncomfortable and tentative a lot of the time but it's important to me right now, and it's what I'm doing. Knowing that I don't have to, though, makes a lot of difference. Knowing that I can (and have!) set and kept boundaries makes all the difference. I'm still cautious when I contact them, and I'm careful about what state I'm in when I do. And that's appropriate.

Sorting out my relationship with God (about which I'm not going to go into detail here; just know that it's a real and important thing for me) has been sometimes terrifying, sometimes hilarious, and full of discovery -- and every bit as hard as dealing with the family stuff. Possibly the intertwinings guaranteed that it would be.

"Walking away and staying away was the right decision." and "It’s a hard path, because so few of these situations are free of good things or the hope of good things to come." are resonating powerfully for me right now, even though the situations I'm thinking most about did not involve staying away totally. But that second sentence is proving particularly useful in putting certain things in perspective and being able to take a deep breath right now, and I'm grateful for it.

The next part of the journey looks like it involves dealing with the medical issues of parents and making decisions about care and housing. I'm scared and full of complicated feelings, and hoo boy are there complicated relationships with other family members who will be involved. We'll see how it goes. Wish me luck?

a new crop from the pseud farm @81:

That's a tough tangle of issues to grapple with. And you're right to point out that the dichotomy between staying and leaving is an oversimplification.

Witnessing, and listening if you want to talk further on these matters. If it's been a good few threads since you last posted, don't worry about the old identity; we can just go from here.

a new crop @81, good luck. Sounds like you have a lot to work through, but it also sounds like you've made serious progress on working things through.

Lee @77

I like this example a lot. I tend to give in when I want to spend time with someone which leads to me slowly drifting away from that person to the point where I rather not see them than tell them that I do not like doing whatever they are proposing. I've got a lot better in not doing this but... it still happens.

abi @ 82: And you're right to point out that the dichotomy between staying and leaving is an oversimplification.

Oh! That wasn't what I meant at all. I was liking how you framed them both as ways to go on. That was what touched me enough to make me really want to post, actually.

Cassy B. @ 83: Yeah, it's been a long road, but I'm a good piece of distance along it, so that's something.

a new crop on the pseud farm @85:
I was liking how you framed them both as ways to go on. That was what touched me enough to make me really want to post, actually.

I'm glad it was of use. I've always admired the spectrum of ways people deal with their difficult families here. So much courage, even in the difficult times.

I really am wishing you strength and courage in dealing with this next phase. Having the people who hurt you dependent on you, needing your help now, having to walk the careful path between getting sucked in again and doing too little...yeah, hard ground. Please post more here if the community can help, even just by listening.

If you're willing, if our theologies are compatible enough, I'll pray for you. (And it's OK to say no, or let the topic drop! I don't pray for people without their permission. And even then I pray for strength and courage and joy, not outcomes that would override their own agency.)

The discussion of assertiveness here prompts me to mention a model of conflict resolution that I was recently introduced to - it's called the TKI, and it basically poses five methods by which people can resolve conflicts. All five have legitimate uses and applications, although the premise is that people often tend to have a preferred mode or modes that may not be effective in all situations. So if you learn about how to engage each mode effectively, you can become better at picking the one that is the best fit for your situation.

Anyway, the 5 modes are Competing (one winner), Collaborating, Compromising, Accommodating, and Avoiding. You can position them on a matrix with the X axis being Cooperativeness, aka how much you value your needs over that of the other party, and Assertiveness, aka how much you are willing to fight for the outcome. The link above has a graphical image, but if you note that High Assertiveness/Low Cooperativeness is the Competing quadrant, and Low Assertiveness/High Cooperativeness is the Accommodating quadrant, you can probably figure out where the others fall. (With the note that Compromise is in the center point of everything).

I think it can be a useful model to at least consciously weigh, in a given situation, how important my needs are and how much I am willing to fight for them, and then pick a useful mode. Sometimes it's easy to fall into familiar patterns that aren't likely to get me where I want to go.

One of the difficulties in considering how to deal with current family stuff is that I do not drive. My aging parents live six hours away in a rural area. The closest a train gets is an hour away, and the closest a bus goes is a little further than that away. Since I don't drive, getting that far and renting a car does no good. There are no such things as taxis there. (When we practiced driving in high school, we could not practice using stoplights, because back then, the nearest one was thirty-some miles away.)

Another wrinkle: the thought of going there and then being dependent on getting rides from the other nearby family member sends me into cold sweating panic.

I got out for reasons. I had little to no contact with them for a long time for reasons. (My parents' response to my coming out was to offer to pay for electroshock therapy. That's not the only reason I had for getting out, but it's a good sample.) My relationship with the other nearby family member, a sibling, is too complicated to explain; suffice it to say that they're still very connected there and have a very different experience of our parents. The relationship between the two of us is distanced and often painful. The one who left and the one who stayed....

So, yeah. And the one who stayed wants me to come there and gently help lead the parents into some decision-making. Or something. Possibly to enact some family tableau of togetherness wherein I mend my ways and repent for my distance and everybody is happy then and birds sing and the sun shines. I don't even know. Perhaps I am being unfair to the one who stayed.

"Perhaps I am being unfair to" is how most of the worst mental loops start, so I'll stop for now.

Anyone else whose escape artist route involved coming out, I'd especially like encouraging words from. Right now I feel like the Failure Offspring. And that's even before the stuff I'm NOT out to them about. They don't know me, but then, they mock and disdain people like me, even if they don't know it's me they're talking about when they quote their Fox News quotes.

Ugh. Going to go wipe my eyes and do some work.

[abi @ 86: Prayers would be fine. Thank you.]

a new crop @88: Sympathies and witnessing.

a new crop @88, witnessing and prayers.

I can see why you don't want to put yourself in that situation without independent transportation.

These suggestions are to be considered brainstorming in case any of them suggest something that would work for your situation; disregard if helpy. Could you take a friend whose role is confined to driving and is not required to get involved with the rest of the family discussion? (Would somebody like to go take pictures of fall foliage in a rural area or something?) Is there a cousin or a relative on another branch of the family tree who might help this way? (You said you didn't want to be dependent on nearby family members, so that's probably out, but is there someone else who got out and occasionally visits that you could coordinate visits with?) Could you hire the teenage child of a neighbor or an old high school friend to be your driver while you're there?

Best of luck with it.

a new crop @88:

Seconding OtterB @90 here. If the thought of going there and then being dependent on getting rides from the other nearby family member sends [you] into cold sweating panic, then it's totally a bad idea and you are entitled to refuse to go under those terms. If you need arguments for the weasel brain, note that in a cold-blooded, hard-headed, practical way, you'll be a more effective advocate for whatever your parents need if you're not feeling trapped.

Whether The One Who Stayed wants you to come out there to be the returning prodigal or not, you're telling us (and yourself) that you want to be able to be The One Who Not Only Left But Is Leaving Again Right Now, That's OK, I Can See Myself Out. Trust that.

And if The One Who Stayed needs you, perhaps they can help you find a way that your transport is independent of family control. (Then maybe double-check the arrangements.)

[I'll say a word where words are said.]

a new crop, #88: In My Extremely Opinionated Opinion, "I don't have transportation" is a perfectly good reason to remain at a safe distance. The operative word there is "safe", as in "better safe than sorry". When you have escaped a trap, it's absolutely normal not to want to walk back into it! I would advise telling your sibling that you'll do what you can from where you are, but you are not available to be physically present. That's not being unfair, it's being realistic.

a new crop @88: my family transportation issues are less intense, but I get mental hives when asked to be dependent on someone's transportation mercy with no obvious and affordable out. Trust that your internal alarm system is responding to something real, even if it also seems to be freaking out excessively. (Somewhere in the past, there's probably something that looks the same on the surface, but contained hidden badness. At least for me that's true.) Or if it's a certain kind of bad brain-weather day, the alarm system will be freaking out at anything and everything, no matter how normal and harmless, and that's a thing one can learn to recognize.

Electroshock as a response to coming out...I wouldn't want to be literally trapped in the countryside with them either. Even if that was in the dark ages where it could legitimately be loving intentions expressed through outdated and disturbing notions of therapy. And if it was not that far back...they should count themselves lucky that you merely left, and still talk to them.

Are the aging parents plus sibling in good enough shape for them to do a day trip over to a town with a bus or train station? If the point is togetherness or decision-making, that could be a solution.

a new crop@88: Holding you in the light. I don't have any suggestions that haven't already been said, but I wish you whatever strength, creativity, and inspiration you need.

a new crop: I'm a non-driver too, but happily I've always been able to live places where not driving is merely a PITA rather than a nightmare. (Likewise most of my family lives in big cities.)

I agree with prior posters that it would be perfectly fair to say "nope, can't do that". One possible option would be if you can get the parents to move to a more urban area. This would obviously be a major upheaval for them, but if your family really wants you to be the one taking care of them, then yeah they'll need to give something up.

a new crop, here's another thought: It might be worthwhile to ask your sibling exactly what they think you coming out there to talk to your parents will accomplish? And push until you get a solid answer, more than just vague, "well, I think it would do some good" or "it needs to be the whole family". The Voice In The Back Of Your Head is providing all kinds of scarily plausible scenarios, and not without reason! It might be that if you can pin down exactly why your physical presence is considered so essential, it won't be as scary as you fear. Or then again, it might -- but at least then you'll KNOW. Either way, you need more data; don't let yourself be stampeded into doing anything until you get it.

a new crop: nothing practical to add to what's already been said re. e.g. having a friend-with-car along. but witnessing, and sympathies.

New Crop, trust the internal alarm -- I'm another who sees lack of transportation as a valid reason for not going. I wouldn't go into that situation without having someone with me, and a friend that drives would work.

Witnessing and praying for you.

New Crop, don't go. They know you'd be trapped; they want it that way. Don't go. Tell the truth "I'd be trapped." And don't let them persuade you to "discuss" it.

As for me: I read all of these threads, but never say anything. I managed to deal with so much of it years ago (mainly by never going back).

But about ten years ago, my husband and I had terrible, terrible problems. We had been married "under the care of the Meeting" but when we needed that care, it was not there. I stopped attending Meeting, so it would be more pleasant for him, then he stopped, then after years of hard work we found some solutions, and we have never been back.

I still miss it, but I will not be going back. I feel like a Quaker still, but I have no Meeting. Kind of being a runner, but having no legs.

new crop

Witnessing. Your situation sounds unpleasant. Just to clarify something, when you say "electroshock therapy" do you mean "aversion therapy?" Under the circumstances you describe, that's how I understood it.

Also, I do understand your dislike of being alone with the parents and the rest of the family... if I'm not being hlepy, could all of you meet at a hotel in a larger city?

If you don't mind me asking, how long ago did you leave home?

new crop: I too, witnessing, and I support what others are said. (My escape didn't involve coming out, but I did end up moving several thousand miles away and across an ocean after college.) If you have no way out of being isolated there, you can't safely go there. I didn't start driving until my late 20s, so I've got a good sense of how much that matters when you're in a remote place.

And speaking of folks trapped by their family, has anybody heard from "ma larkey"? The last posts I saw from her were pretty worrisome.

Alex R. -- Electroconvulsive Therapy is still in use...

Just wonderful, pardon me if I don't consider a manually induced seizure a good idea. However, there are only five conditions that it's used to treat, and being homosexual ISN'T one of them.

Hearing that it's OK to not go into what feels like a trap is

... making it easier to breathe? Yeah. That, just for starters. Thank you, everybody who's spoken.

Alex R. @ 100: Lori Coulson is correct that I meant ECT (electroconvulsive therapy). It was not a rhetorical offer being made, either; they were ready to start making phone calls and scheduling. That was in 1982. I had left home before then. The coming out was on a visit back to tell them I was getting divorced. I figured they'd already be so mad at me that I might as well just make it a twofer. So I came out to them, too, even though that didn't have much of anything to do with the divorce. (I'm bisexual.)

From then on, it was variations on "We love you. Have you changed yet? Are you fixed yet? Are you still going to hell? We're worried about you. Don't you want to spend eternal life with us?"

OK, they didn't say the last sentence out loud. But.

And actually? Kinda not, if that's how they're going to be. (Though I believe that that's not exactly how hearafterness works -- and anyhow, that's a digression, and this is Dysfunctional Families Day, not Dysfunctional Theologies Day.)

They're very sincere, though. Which so doesn't help, when it comes to the awful parts. Add the dysfunctional religious stuff to the major medical neglect and it's quite a potent mixture -- though they did ask forgiveness for the major medical neglect, a few years back. It astonished me. They meant it. And it's one of the reasons I keep up some (admittedly limited) contact at all.

This shit is complicated and hard. I am sure that is not news to anybody. :-7

a new crop, #104: Well-meaning abuse done "out of love" is the hardest kind to deal with. If someone had done that to you because they hated you, there would be no cognitive dissonance -- you'd just walk away and be done with it. But when they did it because they genuinely loved you and wanted you to be happy -- even though it's no less abusive from that motivation -- it's complicated and hard, as you said.

And because of the religious issues, it also gets into the whole morass of Forgiveness, which was discussed at length in an earlier thread. You might want to go back and re-read that one.

Glad you've decided not to go back into the trap. Still witnessing.

new crop: I'm sorry, I can't resist:

Would this be an option? Okay, maybe not. :-)

In my case, I walked away cold, with far less provocation. I'm impressed that you're willing to talk to them at all.

I survived Thanksgiving dinner with my parents. (Canadian) Even enjoyed most of it. :) Of course, Mom pulled a big one right as we were leaving, which resulted in me saying "OK, fine, we're leaving now, goodbye." *sigh* But enjoyed most of it!

Friend's right - people like my mom are on their best behaviour if you don't see them for three months. :/

Next up: Christmas.

This thought about Managing People Or At Least One's Reaction To Them was sparked by Chickadee:

Repeating experience: I'm delivering compost to our local recycling hub. I roll up to the check-in window, to report what I'm dropping off so the woman on duty there can log it into her system. I open my mouth, and before I can speak, she says, "Plastic bags?" Well, the compostables I'm dropping off are in plastic bags, yes, so her question is not completely nonsensical.

But I find if really irritating:

1) I open my mouth to tell her what I've got, but she interrupts me to guess. And,

2) She guesses wrong. Every. single. time.

3) We go through this every. damn. time.

Now, granted, she sees a lot of people come past that window every day. But I'm pretty distinctive, what with my custom trailer overloaded with my bags and bags of compost and all. The other people who work that window on other days remember me, even when they haven't seen me for months. They even remember that what I typically bring in. And even so, they ask, "So what have you got for us today?"

Having finally noticed how much this lady's behavior annoys me, I finally figured out a way to preserve my own equanimity:

So yesterday I roll up and stop. I wait. She looks out the window at my trailer. "Plastic bags?" she asks, puzzled. I sit there and wait for a second until she finally looks at me and starts listening:

"No. No plastic bags. Compost." It takes her a minute to parse that. Then she finally says, "Oh. Okay, thanks." (Still looking puzzled.)

I roll on, satisfied: 1) I've successfully predicted the coarse of the interaction. 2) I have prevented her from interrupting me and speaking for me.

I'm contemplating saying something to her next time this comes up. But given the track record so far, I have no confidence whatsoever that it would have any effect, or that she would even remember it.

It's interesting: successfully predicting her probelmatic behavior and coming up with a successful work-around is almost as satisfying as having induced her to alter her behavior. At the very least, it puts me in a place to respond choicefully, which all in all is an entirely satisfactory outcome.

Chickadee, #107: Yay for (almost) stress-free holiday visit! Now you are beginning to see the fruits of your efforts toward changing that relationship.

Jacque, #108: it puts me in a place to respond choicefully, which all in all is an entirely satisfactory outcome

Yes. It gives you more control over the interaction, which makes the whole thing much less frustrating. You didn't feel so much as if she was jerking you around. And you did in fact change the nature of the interaction (albeit only slightly), which is the first step toward getting her to change her behavior.

It occurs to me that she might be one of those people who are face-blind, and so literally doesn't recognize you from one trip to the next. I can't say for sure because I'm not there, but that does present itself as a possibility.

Lee @109: indeed! Yay! Though I now have a *wicked* sore throat (hopefully will not move down to chest, as such things are wont to do for me). :( I am convinced it is because Mom gave me her germs. She refuses to blow her nose (*snifflesnifflesnifflesniffle*), or cover her mouth for the resulting explosive sneezes, during cooking because then she'd have to go wash her hands. Meaning she was explosively sneezing all over the kitchen. Turning away from me doesn't help *that* much, Mom! It was driving me nuts at the time, especially given how she reacts when *anyone else* does the same thing. :(

Regarding Jacque @108: I know someone who's face-blind. It's a real handicap for her at times! But it doesn't prevent her from recognizing distinctive vehicles...

Anyhow, back to school work/exam prep. Thanks to the recent change in meds, I am no longer fuzzy-headed and dizzy, but still also not anxious and depressed. :) Yay for fine-tuning dosage! :)

Slightly unpleasant realization yesterday... after the back of my mind was thinking about some of the "funny family stories" my family has, I realize that my mom's sense of humour runs toward the trollish. (Not the current usage of frothing misogynist threats, but the older usage of deliberately saying outrageous things to get a reaction.) Mostly directed at people being annoying with the intent to make them go away.

So, I guess that explains a few things about why I had a hard time figuring out that I actually did have a sense of humour, and learning the difference between actual laughing and appeasement grin + uncomfortable laugh. Those stories are still filed under "funny" in my brain.

In related news I finally managed to suppress the appeasement grin and uncomfortable laugh when my dad made a couple of his crappy jokes while I was there for Thanksgiving, the sort of "jokes" in the racist, ablist, or otherwise othering vein. Not encouraging him is a start.

Then at a friend's place I got a hug on arriving and I'm sure she saw my reaction because she said "I'm a huggy person" and why would you say that to somebody who looked happy about getting a hug? I managed to avoid the hug on leaving by strategic placement of my body in relation to the other people leaving at the same time so she couldn't reach me. I still haven't figured out how to tell people to not do that. My old reaction is to brace and accept it. My new reaction that I'm trying to develop take more time to get out in front because I have to think about it, and nobody gives me enough warning for me to deploy them. I have met exactly three people in my entire life who saw *and respected* my desire to not be hugged or touched, and two of them made a fuss about how they were going to not hug me.

appeasement grin + uncomfortable laugh

Yes! It can take a while to find one's own compass on these things.

Not encouraging him is a start.

Not encouraging him is an excellent start!

On the topic of avoiding hugs, Captain Awkward has a whole category on the topic.

Yes, that's about the advice I'm trying to implement. It takes time to get those words and actions retrieved from the "this is the script I want to use" archive and queued up though, and by then the hug has already happened. Maybe I should try to stop bracing myself and accepting, and let the unhappy show even more. More awkward, but less preparation required. (Surprise hugs end with me rigid and looking terrified. This has happened.)

Well, as the Cap'n points out: you are not the cause of the awkward. You would, at most, be hanging a lampshade on the awkward that is already there.

invisible one, if body-language examples are helpful, here are two. My crowd has a broad range of hugginess, so we grew cues. One is for the departing person to stand there with arms open saying "anyone want hugs?" and wait to be tackled. Another is for huggers to telegraph by approaching with open arms slowly enough, or with a pause, for potential huggees to counter-signal or make it a light hug as they prefer.

Jacque: yeah, and as pointed out many times on CA, the person who draws attention to the awkward is often blamed or shamed for it even when it's not their fault. I'm working on being ok with that.

Bodhisvaha: My problem is with the people who don't do those things but just come hug me. I'd have no problem with not moving in for a hug with somebody who offered but didn't encroach, or who offered but backed away when I didn't smile and respond in kind. Those would be ideal. The latter has happened to me exactly twice, and it wasn't at all casual. Instead there was the fuss of "oh you don't want to be hugged! ok I won't hug you! Look I'm not hugging you!" (The third instance I mentioned above of having my "don't touch!" reaction respected was not a hugging situation. That was also the only one that didn't have the fuss around it.)

a new crop @ 88 and 104

Witnessing.

Another possible solution to your "going home" problem. Do you and The One Who Stayed have call waiting on your phones? If you do, you can create a three-way conference call with your parents. That way you can be in on the decisions without traveling to them. You can use the "I have no way to get there" reality to keep your physical distance while helping the parents make a decision. You won't be trapped. You will be in on the decisions. If the real reason is to trap you... they're S.O.L. You've met their stated expectations of "helping Mom and Dad change their minds."

Call Waiting/Conference calling on land lines: Dial the first number and get the person on the phone. Press the "flash" button once and wait for the dial tone. Dial the second number and get that person on the phone. Press "flash" a second time to link the calls. (My sisters and I use this once a week to keep in touch with each other and our mother. We've have up to eight people daisy-chained together using this method.)

Call Waiting/Conference calling on cell phones differ by carrier and device. That is something you'll have to google.

This next bit is probably very hlepy, but my parents are very devout so I'm familiar with the mind set. If it were me, when it comes to the "We love you (don't you want to spend eternity with us?)" conversation, I would be so very tempted to answer the vocalized "are you fixed yet" bits with "I've tried, and I've prayed for help. God told me 'I made you this way, accept it' so I did." At some point, the devil and/or hell will get dragged out. At that point, asking them "do you really believe that the devil can enter God's church?" might get you some breathing space. Or it just might start a religious debate. Like I said, this bit is probably very hlepy, so feel free to ignore it.

It's just that I get angry when people use religion as an excuse to abuse others.

the invisible one @116: yeah, and as pointed out many times on CA, the person who draws attention to the awkward is often blamed or shamed for it even when it's not their fault. I'm working on being ok with that.

That's another level of attempted control, so I'm for damn sure not be okay with being blamed or shamed for lampshading an awkward. I will return to sender with a calm look followed by, "I didn't start it." This does require feeling safe and comfortable with the idea that managing their emotions is not my job.

Likewise, people who make a fuss about not hugging you: they've overstepped, you've objected, and now they're dealing with their own anxiety, self-talk, Goddamn Tapes about having overstepped. That's their Stuff, too. Sometimes it helps me to just think at them a benign, motherly, "Yes, dear. I know you're anxious. There, there," to manage the mirror anxiety this provokes in me.

Being okay with and braced for dealing with that, OTOH, is something I actually manage occassionally. This, in turn, requires having my anger on tap, and exercising choice in how, how much, or if I express it. Which, as they say, is a work in progress.

I think we're saying the same thing. I didn't mean accepting the blame, but accepting (and expecting) that the other person is very likely to react by blaming me and it isn't my fault so I don't have to feel bad about it. So far I haven't managed to predict these predictable responses far enough ahead to brace myself for the expected blaming. The thing last weekend with the hug, I'd met the hugger only a few times and wasn't expecting that she felt like good enough friends to greet with a hug, so I hadn't prepared myself in time to do anything other than fall back on my old "brace and try to hide my discomfort while returning the hug" reaction. But then I also hadn't expected that she felt like good enough friends to invite me to her place for the event in the first place.

Being able to step back and understand that I don't have to manage other people's reactions or hurt feelings (such as if I set a reasonable boundary!) is *hard*. One time with New Ex he did something that required apology, and went straight into self-flagellation. I had a really hard time suppressing the urge to assure him that he wasn't a horrible person. All I wanted was for him to not do the thing again. (Prior to discovering CA, I wouldn't have even thought about not immediately reassuring him.) I mentioned that to him in some form and I can't remember exactly his reaction but as I recall he thought it was weird that I wasn't reassuring him. Or maybe that it was weird that I was having a hard time not reassuring him. That it was weird, at any rate. I don't know that I ever got an actual apology.

Victoria @ 117:

The Call Waiting idea is a good one, although unfortunately there are tech reasons it won't work for this particular situation. But the suggestion was useful because in thinking about it, I realized things about how pressure is applied in our family and how requirement of physical presence is used for that. (The examples that come to mind are bringing up an imaginary chorus of "And you still have anything to do with these people? Why?" so I deleted them. I'm thinking of keeping the chorus, though.)

The religious stuff got a smile from me, though it's too complicated (and too identifying) to explain exactly why, but thank you for that too.

At this point, the pressure's not on me, and I am glad of that. The external pressure, anyhow. When the internal pressure come up, I tell it that arriving in person to be part of a Hello Parental Units This Is A Surprise Discussion About Handling The Ends Of Your Lives is not likely to end in the Hallmark moment my sibling wants, and that I'm not signing up for it.

Thank you all who are witnessing, spoken or not.

the invisible one @ 116:

Witnessing. And TOTALLY agreeing with this:

Being able to step back and understand that I don't have to manage other people's reactions or hurt feelings (such as if I set a reasonable boundary!) is *hard*.

a new crop @ 120

You're welcome. I'm glad I could at least give you a smile. Be sure to keep the chorus. I have a couple of related ones that I've actually been known to sing out loud.

My family has pretty much learned not to touch me (some of them misused that privilege when I was young.) But I had a friend return some years back who I had not seen for about 30 years. I was standing out in front of the building holding my pride and joy, a miniature trebuchet. Friend parks, comes out of the car, identifies me, rushes over and sweeps me up in a big hug before I can protest--and finds they have gotten an armful of trebuchet into the bargain. I don't recall if the lesson was learned for good, since said friend moved to another state...but you should have seen the look on their face that day...
I wish I'd gotten into trebs a couple of decades earlier. A long-lost aunt arrived and slobbered all over me, and I think I wound up saying "Please, I can't swim that good!"
Seriously, I have at times been able to forestall such excesses by taking hold of both the person's hands and saying something friendly, but I'm not always quick enough and I don't think I'm the only one. Learning continues [I hope.]

Hugging behavior is weird. I think it communicates radically different meanings to different people, even among those who "do" hugs. Since each hugger/huggee may go away thinking and feeling something completely different was expressed, that of course means that much of the time hugs *don't* communicate.

Last year something happened which completely threw me. At a quasi-social event, somebody who had been vastly pissed off and furious at me told me (paraphrasing slightly) "Of course I'm OK with you!" and unexpectedly gave me a big hug. I was taken aback and remained fairly wary, but a month or so later I had decided they might actually have meant it and I finally relaxed a little. It then turned out they were not at *all* OK with me and blew up at me for calling on the phone to pass on some information they had asked me for, which was apparently outrageous behavior on my part.

I can understand lots of reasons - many of them rooted in dysfunctional family origins - that one might want to pretend everything is fine when it actually isn't, especially in front of other people. I would be perfectly fine maintaining a public facade of "things are OK", with an understanding that they actually wanted to have no contact at all with me.

What I wasn't counting on and still don't fully understand is why anybody would voluntarily expand on the official "everything is OK" by volunteering a big hug on top of it, if their real feelings were "This is a creepy horrible person who's out to get me and violate my boundaries." As I'm not going to contact them to ask, all I can guess at this point is that to this person a hug must mean and communicate something very different than it does to me. To them a hug may have felt socially obligatory, and required to make things look right, whereas I took it as spontaneous and heart-felt. (I certainly wouldn't hug anybody I felt deeply suspicious of.)

Clifton #123: Regarding that last person, you are assuming they actually have a consistent attitude towards you. To me, that person sounds "emotionally unstable and uncontrolled", in a strict literal sense: Their behavior toward you is dominated not by by prior/current events, but by their internal state ("brain weather").

Note that's two layers of problem: A lot of us here (including me) are emotionally unstable, but we've developed (sometimes overdeveloped) our self-control, specifically so as not to inflict our own mood swings on other people.

Regarding hugs: I am happy that back in my ~college years, I learned how to hug people I care about (basically family) but since then I've realized that I really don't like being hugged by people who aren't that close to me. There are a couple of other people who get to hug me anyway because I've seen it's "a thing" for them¹, and some non-ordinary situations where it's "socially mandated", but mostly, non-family get a pre-emptive handshake.

¹ That is, arguing about it with them would be more hurtful than it's worth.

I have extremely mild sensory input issues, and if someone gives me a hug that I don't expect, it can really push me off center for an hour or so. If I'm prepared for it, I can tolerate it in a social setting from someone I don't know, but I don't enjoy it.

Example of Hug Done Correctly:
I have recently returned to work at a place where I was previously employed. They are very happy to have me back, and I have gotten several hugs from coworkers who are glad to see me. In every case, the hug has been done in the following pattern: Handshake is extended and accepted. Noise is made about being glad to see other person. Left arm is extended out from the body in offer of hug, but without any forward motion to make it obligatory. I step forward; other person steps forward to meet me in the middle; there is a brief arms-only hug; we step back. Totally fine and with the option to bail at any point in the process.

I am not comfortable hugging certain members of my extended family, so I don't unless specifically asked. My daughter knows to ask if I want a hug (and usually I do) and understand that when I say "AAAH; GET OFF MOM NOW" that I'm not rejecting her; I just need to not be touched.

All that to say "Hugs are complicated and should be entered into with thought and care." Sadly, some people don't do so, but I don't think the hugee should ever feel bad about not wanting contact.

One year, I figured out that head-butts were the most appropriate sign of friendly affection and inclusion for a particular group. I learned a great deal about physical affection from my cat.

There are times I wish people would treat me with as much respect as they treat a cat.

By which I mean, I'd like it if people didn't touch me without permission, and if they did and I enforced my boundaries (with claws! I wish I had claws) the offender gets told "what did you expect?" instead of me getting told "but they were just trying to be friendly!"

the invisible one: I wish I had claws

Well, you know, it is almost Halloween.

Hmmm, not sure why I do this, but I have ALWAYS asked if someone wants a hug or back/neck rub and waited for confirmation of same BEFORE laying a finger on them...

I wonder if it comes from having been a very small child and being swooped down upon by various well meaning relatives?

When I'm not so physically or emotionally overwhelmed that I can't spoof neurotypicality, I'm comfortable with being hugged. Though if I were to choose purely from my own comfort, for what actually makes me feel warm and happy rather than what serves my social needs (gives others the contact they need to feel my affection for them), I'd hug fewer people than I do.

(Relatedly, the Dutch do warm, affectionate handshakes really well.)

But when I reach a certain level of physical or emotional overwhelm, I cannot bear to be touched. The kids find it difficult, sometimes, when I'm upset and their impulse to hug me, but they can't.

Lori Coulson #129: I wonder if it comes from having been a very small child and being swooped down upon by various well meaning relatives?

... and also applying the Golden Rule to that experience. Not everyone manages that part... :-(

David -- thank you, you made me smile. I know my habit of going down on one knee to get to eye-level with a child came from that experience, but I'd never really thought about that being a catalyst for other behavior!

David Harmon @131: ... and also applying the Golden Rule to that experience. Not everyone manages that part... :-( Exactly. There are those who say "X was done to me and I hated it so I won't do that to anyone else" - and often extrapolate from that to other things as well - and those who never make that step, or go for the "I hated it but it made a man of me so I'll do t to those in my power because it's the only way for them to become men" approach (ugh).

David @131:

Is the Golden Rule "Do unto others as they have done unto me" or ..as you would have them done unto you"? I'm sure both lessons get learned, by different people.

Buddha Buck #134: It's supposed to be the latter, with various formulations (some predating the New Testament).

"Do as you have been done unto" is the default, also known as ordinary social learning. It's overriding that default which is hard.

#128, Jacque:

Oh, I will have claws for hallowe'en. My fingernails are already kind of dangerous, and I'll be cutting them to a point for the day of.

Unfortunately having claws doesn't help with people respecting my right to not be touched or disapproving of the person doing the touching. Because I'm not a cat, I'm a woman.

#135, David Harmon:

I guess that makes a third variant, do unto others before they do unto you, ordinary antisocial learning? :p

Or, self defence in some dysfunctional situations.

Just found a powerful article about suffering, the impulse to find reasons for it, and how that damages the necessary process of grief. It's big on the value of witnessing, or rather, being in the experience with the sufferer (so more intense and personal than witnessing, perhaps).

A good read for me right now, because reasons. Might be useful for others here.

abi #137: Yeah, things don't necessarily happen for a reason... and when bad shit does have a reason, that reason is often hostile rather than redemptive.

That said... it's possible to do some salvage, by making a pain into a reason to take steps against its cause (far more things have causes than have reasons). The classic example is cancer survivors (or the families of non-survivors) appealing to others to contribute toward research. Mutatis mutandis against other illnesses, such as Pratchett with Alzheimer's.

I remember a video from a guy who'd lost his family to a house fire, caused by batteries shortcircuiting in a drawer... so he did a PSA on how to store your batteries safely. A small thing against his tragedy, but it's something, his own little attack against the dragon Entropy. And I remembered what he said¹, because his pain showed, and gave power to what would otherwise have been some trivial little bit of advice.

¹ Rubber band them together, oriented in the same direction. I will add, put the bundles in separate plastic bags.

David Harmon @138:

It's possible to do some salvage, and some people find it helpful to do so. But there's a crucial distinction between possible and required.

And more importantly, there's a material difference between the sufferer finding some meaning or use in their suffering and outsiders asserting that there is meaning as a way of not confronting the full experience of grief. It's a control issue, partly: who gets to define the sufferer's experience? (And then we're into the infantilization of people whose experiences are not mainstream.)

People are complex; experiences are complex. Simple rules don't apply, except for the rare occasions where they do. The article gets into it pretty well, making clean distinctions between requiring or expecting people to behave in a particular way and allowing them to do so as part of the spectrum of experience.

Re. abi @137: A good piece. However, caution about reading the comments.

Abi #139: And more importantly, there's a material difference ... It's a control issue, partly: who gets to define the sufferer's experience?

Agreed on all counts.

abi @137: oh...thank you. Signed up to the feed for that one. It is so rare to find anyone who is willing to admit that it just plain hurts, and that hurting doesn't automatically lead to good things.

Why is there pain? We don't know. We probably *can't* know. Maybe pain is just the price that the cosmos pays for being the infinite and infinitely unfolding multiverse instead of something else. Or instead of not being at all. Maybe pain is the price of creation, relying on devastation for raw materials.

And because there is pain, we have to respond to it. We do our damnedest to salvage something from the wreckage. Sometimes we succeed beyond all expectation.

abi@137: Thank you for that. Pondering...

Bodhisvaha @142: Why is there pain?

Pain is a signal that something is wrong. Broken, missing, out of balance, out of place, misaligned....

It's a crucially important self-protection mechanism. (Witness the problems when pain is absent, as with diabetic neuropathy, &c.)

Problem is, pain is stupid. If the wrongness is unfixable, pain too often has no off-switch.

Jacque, #144: I think you're talking about physical pain, while the rest of us are talking about emotional pain. Which is still a natural reaction, but on a somewhat different level.

Personally, I rather like the formulation in Diane Duane's "Doors" books -- that pain and death are the result of the Lone Power having tricked the Maiden into sealing the Universe shut with entropy inside it. So now we're all stuck with it until the whole thing runs down and she can start over.

Entropy is part of the physics we need to live.

I think Duane retconned her idea of entropy being just plain bad in one of the later books, but I don't remember the details.

I couldn't figure out the right word to wrap up all the things I wanted to wrap up while leaving out the correct other stuff. Pain, evil, wrongness, decay... Entropy is close but kinda cold, unless you've read something like Diane Duane's Wizards books. (Nancy, I think you're looking for the third or later Wizard books where the annoying little sister is the big hero.) I was groping towards something like maybe you can't have any change at all without there being both good and bad change. Perhaps it would make more sense if I were drunk. Or if everyone else was drunk.

It's back to the salt mines for me. Anyone remember my soap opera with the landlord? Not over yet. The second case went badly because the judge was being a biased idiot; therefore Partner and I requested an appeal. It took 25 pages and a 3x4ft poster to explain the case and how the judge had screwed up. We made a cogent enough argument that they didn't dismiss it out of hand; instead they are going to have a hearing. Which kind of hearing isn't clear: is this the stage for determining that they did in fact screw up? Or is the stage where they do a fresh hearing for the case itself? I need to know, to produce the correct evidence binders...for the third or fourth time...

Nancy Lebovitz #146, Bodhisvaha #147: Not exactly a retcon, that (rather, a erqrzcgvba) but in any case I'm not sure the Lone Power is merely the existence entropy as we know it -- it's also the idea of standing for destruction and decay rather than against it.

The thing is, in our own world "matter that defends itself against entropic processes" is still a decent definition of "life" as such. That's a pretty fundamental opposition.

The theodicy of the Young Wizards books and the Doors books are subtly different, but it's been long enough since I read the latter that I can't give you details.

There's a line in the YW books which acknowledges that entropy is necessary for our kind of life and our sense of time. One of the seniors speculates that the Powers were planning some better energy-management scheme, but the Lone Power pre-empted it.

(I fanficced that backstory: _Tropesis_, http://archiveofourown.org/collections/yuletide2012/works/598948)

Dammit, my husband is apparently one of those clueless privileged white guys. As in, he wouldn't be offended if a bunch of nonwhite people dressed up as stereotypical whites for an office party, so Hispanics shouldn't be offended if a bunch of whites dress up in sombreros, mustaches, and headscarves for an office party.

Are there any comedians who have a good routine about this? I think that may be the best way to explain. Print tires and bores him unless it's about a topic he is really into.

He just sat there with a baffled expression repeating, "But...what would offend me?" in the exact same way multiple times, and I'm afraid I snapped at him. I am too tired and too sick to try to explain in the face of him suddenly putting on a teenage duh routine. So a link to a good skit about microaggressions or something like that would be much appreciated.

J #150: Not a skit, but a comic: Over at GoComics, they recently re-ran¹ the 1985 Doonesbury sequence about Lacey visiting Palm Beach, and her black assistant encountering their laws regarding "domestics". Something along those lines comes to mind, especially Lacey's attempt to discuss matters with the natives.

A separate idea: Has he any more distant ethnic background that could be exploited?

¹ They put up a lot of "classics" for Doonesbury these days -- offhand, I don't know whether it's getting censored way more than he used to be, or if his output has simply become erratic. Given how long Trudeau's been doing the strip, I wouldn't at all blame him for dropping back to "occasional and whenever" scheduling.

David Harmon@151

I think what he's been doing for a while is having a new Doonesbury on Sunday and "Classic Doonesbury" the rest of the week.

(Before that there was a period where it was entirely "Classic Doonesbury" with no new ones at all.)

For th

J, #150: Ah, but would he be offended if a bunch of non-whites dressed up as "stereotypical white people" for a party and proceeded to make the kind of outrageously racist statements that Republican politicians have been coming out with? Because that, not just the dressing-up, is the equivalent of what he and his co-workers are doing.

J @ 150:

The other thing you might try is to say something like "You don't have to understand why they're offended. What you need to know is that, even though you don't get it, that costume would hurt people. Do you want to be the kind of person who hurts his coworkers for a cheap laugh?"

@Vicki: At least he's not the one doing it; it was a news story he read to me because it baffled him.

Anyway, something's bobbed up in my memory recently and persistently enough that I think I need to check it here. PLEASE NOTE that the following DID NOT happen to me. TRIGGER WARNING for rape.

I had a college classmate who was from a small town where the cops were, to put it bluntly, power-mongering pussy-chasing gun-fondling man's men. Her mother was good-looking, single, and celibate: strike one. She herself was good-looking, drove around in awesome old trucks that she restored by herself, yet inexplicably would not fall for the "I pulled you over for speeding in order to ask for a date" routine: strike two. Nobody in the family had any money or political clout: steeeerike three.

So she was asked out by the son of a well-to-do local business owner, things progressed, and they were engaged. He gave her a gorgeous diamond ring. He gave her the title to an awesome sports car. He gave her his solemn assurance that he had no problem with her desire to remain a virgin until marriage. Then, not long before the wedding date, he jimmied her bedroom window, raped her with a knife across her throat, kissed her, and left. This was the night before he was due to leave on a trip. What really stuck in her mind, she told me, was that he was so calm about it. Like, this was just what men did to their brides to be.

They couldn't go to the cops--that would only have made things worse. They couldn't just leave: with what money? They did not have the community support that would have been necessary in order to name and shame the rapist outside legal channels. Saying anything to anybody would have ignited a whole mountain of flaming manure that would have rolled right down on them.

"OK," her mother said, "let's not say a word. Let's just make a point."

So when Mr. Knifey got back to town, he found out that his whatever-she-was-to-him and her mother had stripped her sports car for saleable parts, towed the hulk to a popular lookout, smashed it with hammers, then lit it on fire and rolled it down a cliff. (Technically illegal, hardly ever prosecuted.) All without explaining a thing to the many, many eyewitnesses.

He never went near her again.

Frankly, knowing what I know about that town in those days, I think her mom had the right idea. But this is the part that has been bobbing around in the bafflement zone of my brain recently: I told this story to a licensed psychologist and she said that her behavior was beyond the pale. I think she even used the word monstrous. Not his. Hers.

I guess what my weird burpy memory wants to know is whether there really are shrinks who talk like that. I've had some bad ones, but this one looked right past rape at knifepoint to clutch her pearls at somebody disposing of her own property in the interests of her future safety. Luckily she wasn't my therapist! Have other posters encountered anything like this? Hoping for no.

J #155: There are certainly some seriously fucked-up shrinks around. As you clearly realize, the one you spoke to is completely off the wall.

An important thing to realize is that in the US, there's not much in the way of meaningful accreditation for psychotherapists. In American usage, someone calling themself a "psychiatrist" must have an MD plus specialty training, but otherwise in many areas, pretty much anyone can call themself a "therapist", "counselor", or even "psychologist", much less "life coach" or suchlike.

"Licensing" and certification is by states, and some or all of the terms above might or might not imply degrees such as a Masters of Social Work, or a Masters or PhD in Psychology, or just a state-sponsored course of training. Similarly, the supervision varies wildly, from Chamber-of-Commerce style rubber stamp outfits, to guilds or professional boards (which can actually review complaints and certifications, and pull licenses for misconduct).

David Harmon no. 156: ...That might explain why this particular psych was teaching a course called Business Communications at a community college. Thanks!

J @155: Luckily she wasn't my therapist!

Jesus, no shit! If she was, I'd recommend a strong note to the local licensing board. I desperately hope that her clientele has never included victims of any kind of violence. She smells heavily of the "what will the neighbors think" school of values. And so deep into rape culture that consent culture would probably be incomprensible to her.

Have other posters encountered anything like this?

Not in this specific way, no, but scan back through the DFD threads, and you can find all sorts of horror stories. In my personal experience, the most personally disempowering was a counselor who, when I went to her with my struggles with getting through the day and keeping up with my life (basically, time management, and prioritization issues, but I didn't know that at the time), came out of the gate with, "What, you get the same 24 hours a day every body else does."

But, with Sturgeon as my measuring stick, in the immortal words of Han Solo, "I dunno, I can imagine quite a lot." There are reasons why, frex, all Colorado therapists are required to hand out fact sheets stating that (a) it's against the law for therapists to have sex with their clients, (b) that it's never an appropriate form of therapy, and (c) here's the number and address to report to if you have any concerns about your therapist.

So, yeah, I have no trouble imagining someone of this degree of cluelessness. See also: what David said.

I'm curious: what's her age range? Her socio-economic demographic? Where is she from?

J @157: That might explain why this particular psych was teaching a course called Business Communications at a community college.

Thank Ghu for massive favors...!

@Jacque: 50s or very early 60s, looked like a hippie who'd gone back to the business world except that she didn't want to let go of her long straight hair, from someplace on the West Coast with the general beach-view accent. I haven't seen her around recently, so I suspect she has moved away. (Whew!)

Jacque @158: That fact sheet... oookay. That says SO much.

Regarding therapist regulation where I am (Alberta): AFAIK you have to have a counselling degree here. Not that it always helps... (see my first two therapists!) but at least it's a baseline.

Also, the organization that my first therapist worked for has in the past couple of years come to recognize its institutional dysfunction and work to change it. Relevant to this, they have, in the words of the admin, "recognized what a disastrous joke the counselling program had come to be" and (despite *intense* resistance from the people who think Everything's Just Fine) are working very hard to fix it.

Also, from someone in psych at my local U, the counselling psych degree now has a lot of emphasis on recognizing that someone who's depressed (or suicidal) doesn't necessarily present as a puddle of nonfunctionality on your floor. They might, in fact, appear to have it all together, be properly dressed, and have an excellent "public face" - but have gotten up the courage to expose the hidden face and ask for help. And don't you DARE tell them nothing's wrong go home and quit whining. (my first two therapists, essentially) I think this followed a rash of highly publicized suicides on - three on campus, and several in the Red Deer school system -, where *nobody* had any clue they were depressed - excellent public face - which made even the most clueless realize that depression isn't the stereotype.

abi, I don't know if I'm being too political or general for this thread.

When I think about that therapist, I think about the middle class (?) training that you don't "take the law into your own hands" by using force, and I wonder whether that's in play. Destroying the sports car is symbolic violence, but it's a very strong symbol.

A discussion of things therapists should learn about the military as a culture, including a mention that therapists are generally opposed to violence and therefore have a hard time connecting with people who are violent as part of their profession.

Ugh, bad therapists. One reason I know I will struggle with finding a new counsellor (once I can afford to) is my one and only previous counsellor who was wildly unhelpful. I mentioned it before, but among other things, she said that women give sex for love, and men give love for sex, so I should have sex with Crappy Ex to get the love that I wasn't feeling in that long-decayed relationship, in which I was guilted at if I didn't give him sex twice a week already. (I didn't have the words "gender essentialism" at that point, nor did I recognize that as sexism. I did however recognize that it was vastly unfair that I had to give even more in order to maybe get, while Crappy Ex would get in the hope that he would give. And since I've only ever been interested in having sex with a person that I love, half of it felt true enough to me, and since I'd already long internalized the messages later recognized as the false "women who want things instead of giving everything are selfish" and "if something bothers me I'm overreacting" I didn't protest the unfairness of it very hard, if at all.) She also probably spotted the anxiety (but didn't name it to me so I could look up resources) and stopped there and didn't spot that I was upset about actual crap treatment by Crappy Ex and tried to help me not be upset because I was just overreacting. Also in Canada, and she has a Masters and PhD in counselling psychology and is a registered psychologist. At least her website doesn't claim she can treat abuse anymore. I seem to remember that it used to.

In other news, ack I really don't need this right now. A new friend (by new I mean a bit over a year) who asked me out after we first met and who I declined and who was an awesome guy and never mentioned it again and we're now good friends, is now also a person who I am starting to feel attraction for. All my reasons for not getting into a relationship still apply, except one: the initial "somebody is paying attention to me!" reaction has long worn off, thankfully, so I'm pretty sure I actually do like him instead of puppy brain begging for love from anybody who looks its way.

But one of my other reasons for not getting into a relationship is that while I've identified some habits and behaviours I learned while with Crappy Ex as things not to do in a healthy relationship, I don't have anything to replace them with. Without a different behaviour to replace them with, when I'm in a situation I'll have to revert to the old unhealthy behaviour because I literally don't know what else to do there. And a counsellor is probably my best bet for figuring out and building new behaviours to fill those gaps.

*If* I can find a good counsellor, to help me with an area where if I knew what good looked like I probably wouldn't need help with.

J @159: That's (betraying my own prejudices here) ... kind of mind-boggling....

Chickadee @160: "nothing's wrong go home and quit whining."

It never ceases to astonish me that, say, Captain Awkward who (so far as I know) has no training in the field, and is basically a helper as an avocation, has more of a clue with the idea that the individual is the expert in their own life than many of the "trained" "professionals" in the trade.

WRT the link at Nancy Lebovitz's @161: I've only read the first couple of screenfuls, but: fascinating stuff. And the writer is wonderful.

Where do you find this stuff? You are forever bringing in brilliant little rainbow mice of fascinating insight and dropping them into our bowls. How the hell do you do that?

And on a similar note, J, did I mention how deliciously your little annecdote @155 is written?

the invisible one: I admire your insight and the restraint that moves you to hold off getting involved with Friend until you feel better equipped to.

I'm also impressed that you've identified undesirable dysfunctional default behaviors, and that you want to find/create functional replacements! This, to me, bespeaks a splendid level of wisdom! Go, you!

Meanwhile, while you're looking for a counselor, a suggestion:

I very often find behaviors I want to fix/replace, and I've had a modicum of success, though the process is nearly always slow and innefficient. (Though I suppose "efficiency" is relative, and might sometimes be satisfactorily achieved with, like, "at all." Anyway.)

I have two hacks for that: 1) I ask Making Light: "Who else here struggles with [issue]?" and "Who here can successfully [skill]?" Both forms can provide a lot of data and tricks to try.

The other is to Google the concerns in question. Google has gotten remarkably good at parsing questions like that, and I've come up with information on all sorts of stuff that way. The limiter is the state of the art. With (frex) things like getting to bed on time, there does seem to be "common wisdom," which is what shows up (metaphorically and literally) on the first three pages of results. It can take some digging, as well as rephrasing and refining of one's question, to find insight that isn't "obvious", as far as the zeitgeist is concerned. But, with persistance, it can be done.

So, anway. Maybe something to entertain yourself with while you sift through counselors.

the invisible one: Also, the root of your Google search phrase is often in the question itself. In your case, if I knew what good looked like becomes, Google: [what does good [topic] look like] or [examples of good [topic]]

#163, Jacque: It never ceases to astonish me that, say, Captain Awkward who (so far as I know) has no training in the field, and is basically a helper as an avocation, has more of a clue with the idea that the individual is the expert in their own life than many of the "trained" "professionals" in the trade.

Maybe that's exactly why. Those who are trained experts may be more prone to believing they are the experts and those without training are not. And sure, they're the experts in, say, psychology. But they are not the experts in somebody else's life, or what somebody else likes, or what triggers somebody else but helps a different person, or...

I have two hacks for that: 1) I ask Making Light: "Who else here struggles with [issue]?" and "Who here can successfully [skill]?" Both forms can provide a lot of data and tricks to try.

Who else here struggles with neglecting most of what they enjoy in life in order to do what a significant other wants to do, whether or not they're interested in SO's activity or SO even has something they want to do?

I think that's probably the biggest one. My mom joked about me going on a solo trip "to find [my]self" the summer after Crappy Ex dumped me, but she wasn't entirely wrong. I am *still* trying to figure out what I like, what I want, what my personality is, and especially how to hold on to those things when in a relationship. Seems they only start to make an appearance when I'm single for a while.

You know how I call myself invisible? I'm not invisible right now, but I noticed that I vanish when I'm in a relationship. (Interestingly, I noticed that habit long after choosing the name for other not-being-seen reasons.)

The times when I've done that, it's because, on some level, I feel like the partner won't want to spend time with me if I push for doing stuff I like. Which, while not necessarily is a red flag (after all, interests don't have to align 100%), may certainly be an amber one.

What has been a red flag in me is the inability to say, "Well, you go ahead and do your thing. Let me know when you're done, and we can see if there's something we can do together later." This means that I'm chosing out of fear for losing them, rather than simply a choice between viable options.

Yup, it's the "red flag in me" version of that. Losing whatever relationship I have, regardless of whether I'm happy in it or not (and at one point with Crappy Ex I was telling myself that I *was* happy, dammit, while crying) has been The Worst Thing In The World.

Whether or not my feeling of a partner not wanting to stay with me was accurate or not when it first comes up with that person is unknown to me. It has happened more than once that the person assured me that they weren't angry or frustrated or annoyed or whatever it was that I saw and feared that they were gearing up to leave me, only for them to reveal later (such as on breaking up) that they had been those things I saw for an unspecified amount of time while still denying it. I don't know if I was jumping at shadows and that annoyed them, and I don't know if I was doing or not doing, or being or not being some thing and that annoyed them, then I saw that and my worry about that annoyed them more.

I know that a couple doesn't have to spend all of their waking hours thinking of each other and doing everything together. I don't know how to believe that and live that and act on that and maintain my own hobbies and activities separate from a relationship while in a relationship. Complicated by being told (mostly by Crappy Ex) that what hobbies I *did* maintain (such as writing and especially NaNoWriMo) meant that I was ignoring him (unspoken: and being selfish, so so selfish) if I happened to be doing that hobby at a time other than when he was playing computer games and ignoring me on his terms.

I don't even really know how to reliably do that with friendships, and have been keeping a lid on my feelings of being rejected just because a friend has done a thing and didn't invite me, because they don't have to invite me to everything to still be a friend and it's not appropriate for me to dump those feelings all over them.

There's a lot of different stuff going on there that all seems to be stuck together, which, I'm sure, is complicating the management thereof.

1. Losing a relationship is The Worst Thing EVAR.
2. Seeing somebody thinking about leaving while they're saying that they're not—and then they turn around and leave. "Do I believe what I see, or what they say?" "Oh, turns out what I saw was the correct thing." Sounds to me, from what you say here, that your Spidey Sense is pretty accurate.

Running my Captain Awkward emulator, I'd go with: the first time you notice it, it's probably real. (Whether they were lying when they say they aren't leaving, or just weren't aware that what they were saying was at odds with what they were feeling is a sub-thing.)

3. Also sounds like partner being "frustrated or annoyed" with you = leaving you...?
4. Again, CA: If they are annoyed with you, and why, that's for them to articulate. If you ask, and they deny it, and then later act on that annoyance, that's on them: you gave them then chance to clear the air. They didn't take it—and also didn't have the spine to make a chance on their own initiative. It sounds suspiciously like you expect yourself to be able to read their minds...? (Though expecting them to say what's true about them is not, um, unreasonable.)
5. Figuring out how to have your own compass (hobbies and interests) while simultaneously being in a relationship.
6. To be fair: if one is focused on [writing] one kinda is (by definition) ignoring other things, such as a partner. That a partner is not okay with that (or can't figure out how to deal with that) is a separate thing. Especially if said partner then turns around and focuses on [game] (effectively ignoring you) and expects you to be okay with that. Can you say, "double standard"?
7. Managing feelings of rejection when friends do things without you.

Does that about sum it up?

Tell me: do you have a place in your brain for feeling a feeling without necessarily expressing it? From your last sentence above, it sounds maybe like the way you avoid "dumping" your feeling "all over them" is that you avoid feeling the feeling in the first place...?

WRT the It happened for a reason discussion, something occurred to me over the weekend.

Religious belief is often a big perpetrator here, but I think, really, the bigger one is our culture's narrative norms. You're reading a novel / watching a movie/TV show, and Our Heroes are in this fix because the author put them there. And they're in this particular fix because the author needs them to solve these particular sets of problems / have this specific personal growth / get past these particular obstacles so that they can, in the end, get to this particular resolution.

I think our fictive norms influence our thinking much more than we realize. Like when things are going along too well, and we find ourselves waiting for the other shoe to drop.

The only time in fiction (other than riding off into the sunset before the final fade) when things go well is when it's a set-up for things to go well and truly pear-shaped.

Yes, everything is stuck together :(

If I believe them when they say they aren't annoyed then my perceptions are wrong and not to be trusted; if I don't believe them then I am suspicious and why don't I trust them? Yeah, the problem is them not using their words when they are annoyed, but the damage also spreads to me.

3 links back to 1, via the need to do everything together all the time.

6 is definitely a double standard. I know it's a double standard. It's infuriating and unfair and deep down I still feel like I'm selfish for wanting something, and childish for being mad about how unfair it is because life's not fair.

I thought I was only going to ask about #5, but all that other stuff is apparently so intertwined it immediately got dragged in.

About feeling a feeling vs. expressing a feeling... I'm not sure. I can redirect expressing that feeling into my journal, or here. If I can't do either of those and I can't tell the person about it, then... I don't know. I think I try to put it away for later, when I can. So maybe the answer is no, because if I don't either express it or put it away for expressing it later, it swirls around incoherently and doesn't resolve and sometimes gets worse. And sometimes "later" is undefined and hasn't happened yet. Sometimes I don't realize that I'm having a feeling until anywhere from hours to days after the thing happened.

It doesn't help that I've had a very hard time keeping up with my journal on my current work schedule, so figuring out what I'm feeling has kind of stalled for most of the past year.

A while back I described some of the processing I do as pulling containers of toxic waste out of a swamp, untangling them, and exposing the untangled things to sunlight to de-toxify them. A possible analogy is that I don't have space in the swamp to do that without pulling those things all the way out of my head into words (private journal or otherwise) to do the untangling.

Not a pleasant image, but that's how it feels a lot of the time.

Note to mods: Yes, I'm aware I've been waxing loquatious lately; I've been home alone sick for much of the last week, and am apparently still starving for social cookies. Hopefully the logorrhea will abate soon, as I get restocked....

the invisible one @170: If I believe them when they say they aren't annoyed then my perceptions are wrong and not to be trusted; if I don't believe them then I am suspicious and why don't I trust them?

Well, I think we can dispense with this one pretty quickly: believe your perceptions. ::dusts hands::

Yes, it's not that simple. :-) Nor is it easy.

deep down I still feel like I'm selfish for wanting something

It's a values issue. What would have to change for you to feel that wanting something is just, like, normal and healthy? Even when the person you're with wants something different?

The pulling bins out of the swamp visual is very apt, especially the part about needing extra swap space to get stuff laid out so you can actually get a clear look at it all, and see how the pieces relate to each other. Also, that this requires time is consistent with my experience.

(I'm currently having minor successes with tackling small-chunk Questions, and being able to shut down a Session mid-Question, but I'm a ways from having a useful hack to offer.)

Strangely, though, the thing that really helped me get my needs on tap was sitting and drawing while listening to music I really love. I later realized this this is actually a form of meditation.

Apparently what that does is create enough space that the back-brain can chew through this stuff without interference from the conscious brain and, while doing so, get some of the cables laid so that the processed information is ready and available when the need comes up. And the need triggers access to the information! (Surprised the shit out of me the first time it happened.)

Meditation, more generally, is about practicing noticing what one is experiencing from moment to moment, identifying it, and then letting it go. Also, strengthening one's "muscles" for pulling one's attention back to The Thing. And The Thing can be anything from a phrase, to a sight, to a sensation.

Oh my. Seconding the rec for the link at Nancy Lebovitz's @161 because, aside from whatever insights lurk therein (and there are many), it's simply a damn fine read.

the invisible one@162: among other things, she said that women give sex for love, and men give love for sex

I still have a dittoed handout from my high school with several discussion questions on it, one of them being whether the above was true. My bet is there was some pop psych book about that time that was saying such a thing, but I've never run into it. (Huh: just found the saying ascribed to Donald Symons, who according to Wikipedia was one of the founders of evolutionary psychology -- WHY DOES THIS NOT SURPRISE ME?)

I finally figured out what's going on: the simple act of scraping together the little family info I have on hand after the one person who had access to more cut contact is reawakening my Stuff, specifically my Stuff about families and relationships. I'm veering between feeling guilty for being so needy and weird, and feeling angry for the way other people decided how I thought about things.

Example of the first: Everybody else knew from early on that we had an older half-brother, but I only heard about it in my late teens, as part of a suggestion that I stay with his family on the way to my freshman year of college. What?! Another sibling?! Why didn't I ever hear about this?! "Well...um...I guess we thought you wouldn't be interested." Because the child who repeatedly asked about the grandparents she never saw wouldn't be interested. But maybe I was just being too needy and inquisitive.

Example of the second: The time I heard about a massive [my maiden name] family reunion almost a year after it had happened. Because "I wouldn't have gotten much out of it." Well, maybe not, what with having PTSD courtesy of late members of said family, and being all spectrum-y about crowds. But I never even got to make the choice.

Riding the seesaw, riding the seesaw...

HelenS, #162: As a concept it goes back considerably further than that, because it's really just a fancier expression of my mother's "Why should he buy the cow if he can get the milk for free?" But that doesn't invalidate the idea that there was some very popular parlor-psych book around that period which got the idea into a lot of people's heads in that particular form.

Notice also the transactional nature of the relationship so described. This isn't a marriage (or any of the less-formal relationships which lead up to it), it's institutionalized prostitution.

Oops! That was supposed to be addressed to HelenS @173. Looks like I got my hands slightly mis-positioned.

Lee #175: it's institutionalized prostitution.

Sorry, but I beg to differ. Prostitution is very much about exchanging sex for material goods. Trading love for sex may range from non-optimal to dysfunctional, but prostitution it ain't. And the saying does encapsulate a classic tradeoff in relationships, between (stereotypically) gendered differences in value.

The stereotype in question is women valuing caretaking and affection behavior, against men valuing, not just the direct physical pleasure, but not having their sexual desires rejected.

David H., #177: men valuing, not just the direct physical pleasure, but not having their sexual desires rejected

Unfortunately, that makes it even creepier, because it feeds straight into the concepts of "there is no such thing as marital rape" and "women MUST be sexually available to their husbands at all times, whether they're in the mood or not". And there are still people pushing both of those ideas even now.

[MAJOR TW on that link for rape advocacy! I didn't link to the original source, but the quotes at the link are plenty bad enough.]

#171, Jacque: Well, I think we can dispense with this one pretty quickly: believe your perceptions.

And own the suspicious. :)

There are other things that make me suspicious in relationships which are very common. Like, say, courting behaviour. Based on past experience: he's just going to ignore me once he's "caught" me, so all this attention and affection and activities and interaction is only temporary. (Oh, and unhelpful counsellor also said something about how men were all about the chase and didn't know what to do once they'd caught a girl. I can't remember what her advice was for me to do about that.)

Of course, suspicion doesn't make for a very good relationship.

It's a values issue. What would have to change for you to feel that wanting something is just, like, normal and healthy? Even when the person you're with wants something different?

At this point, I don't know what still has to change. I expect it's something deep in the unconscious, because I know that everybody gets to have needs and wants, and I know that figuring out how to handle different needs and wants is part of a relationship, and I know that "compromise" doesn't mean putting aside what I want and being told I always have to have it my own way so why can't I do what he wants for once. *Believing* that, as it applies to *me* as well as everybody else, is a different matter.

Swap space, yes. My journal, or here, where I can write this stuff down, that is my swap space. I hope that one day the swamp will be cleared enough that I can deal with my feelings inside my head sometimes, instead of only in writing. At least I have a place to write it down, now. I didn't start keeping a journal until I had lived alone long enough, and had a computer with a password known only to me long enough, to feel safe doing it. (Despite living alone for years, my computer is still password-locked and probably always will be. I don't have my journal located in a hidden directory anymore, however.)

Strangely, though, the thing that really helped me get my needs on tap was sitting and drawing while listening to music I really love. I later realized this this is actually a form of meditation.

Hm. Maybe my colouring book can help with making that sort of space. I do find it calming, but I don't use it regularly or for extended periods of time. My drawing skills are low-ish and require lots of focus and conscious thought, and drawing is not particularly calming right now.

the invisible one @179: And own the suspicious. :)

Yes! Sorry! I missed a crucial bit, there.

chase and didn't know what to do once they'd caught a girl.

Women as "game" to hunt. ::shudder:: Yeah, that's a suitor I think you can safely toss back into the pond (to mix my metaphors).

Of course, suspicion doesn't make for a very good relationship.

But it does point at the flip side of the coin, which is what you're after: trust.

*Believing* that, as it applies to *me* as well as everybody else, is a different matter.

And, beyond that, taking it for granted. Yeah, I'm pretty much there, but it took a long time to build. Interestingly, these DFD threads (and also reading lots of Captain Awkward) has been hugely instrumental in strengthening those habits for me. So: UR DOIN IT RITE.

Despite living alone for years, my computer is still password-locked and probably always will be.

Well, you know, that is, in general, not a bad habit to cultivate.

Maybe my colouring book can help with making that sort of space.

Ooo! That sounds like just the ticket! My arty brain sez "Mmmmmm, coloring books...!"

the invisible one @179 Maybe my colouring book can help with making that sort of space.

Seconding this. 10 or 12 years ago now, I declared a "Mom's mental health weekend," left the kids with my husband, and rented a cabin in the woods for 3 or 4 days. I spent the time relearning what it was like to ask "What do I want to do now?" instead of "What's on fire?" There was nothing dysfunctional in the background, but I'd had 8 or 9 years at that point of 2 kids 18 months apart, the younger with special needs, husband traveling for work and then unemployed, a move halfway across the country, a job of my own ... I was pretty sure I was still in there somewhere, but I had entirely lost sight of what that meant or how I might be different from the pre-parenthood me. So every time I was ready to do something different, I asked myself, "What do I want to do now?" And I listened for the very faint whisper of an answer. Take a walk by the river, read a book, take a nap (there's a decadent indulgence), go out to eat, eat something I brought with me. This was not complex, but I was completely in the habit of disregarding what I wanted.

One of the things I took on that trip was a coloring book of geometric patterns and package of lots-of-colors markers. And it was lovely to do something nice and orderly and aesthetically pleasing. I didn't have a meditation practice at that point, but I've developed one since then, and think there are commonalities.

Also, witnessing. You are doing something hard. Don't beat yourself up because you don't find it easy.

#180, Jacque: Yeah, that's a suitor I think you can safely toss back into the pond (to mix my metaphors).

Problem is when I don't know how to tell chase-courting from affection that will be sustained. He is paying attention to me! He is enthusiastically doing activities with me! then later those activities are too far, and not actually that fun, and not convenient, and leave him alone this video game is important to him. So I am suspicious. I want to trust. I don't know how to tell when which one is the reasonable reaction.

And, beyond that, taking it for granted. Yeah, I'm pretty much there, but it took a long time to build. Interestingly, these DFD threads (and also reading lots of Captain Awkward) has been hugely instrumental in strengthening those habits for me. So: UR DOIN IT RITE.

Here and CA are what taught me the concept that those things are reasonable. I guess I have to practice it often enough to believe that it applies to me. But then that seems kind of circular; acting in ways I don't believe to develop the physical and mental habits that can sustain a belief. Or something? The whole faking confidence until you become confident has taught me that I'm good at faking it. Or maybe it was just an extension of faking not being upset to avoid being criticized for overreacting. Nervous, upset, a lot of the same physical effects.

#181, OtterB:

That cabin in the woods retreat sounds blissful. I both wish I could afford it, and fear what might come up out of the swamp if I don't keep myself busy. It would probably be hard, scary, and (hopefully) (eventually) valuable.

Nancy Lebovitz @161: Thank you. That puts into words and light a lot of the friction between me and my partner, who is ex-Navy. I sort of want to see if I can take that course (if it does not require proof of doctor-ness to do). I think it could help.

the invisible one @165: I don't exactly lose myself in a relationship, but I tend to err towards adopting some of their interests rather than trying to share my own. I also become much less genderqueer when in a relationship (which have thus far all been with straight men). I used to become much more subsumed than I feel in my current relationship, though. Progress!

the invisible one @182: My current partner was initially very sparing with the affection. This made me insecure as all hell about whether he actually, you know, liked me, like as a person, but now I am reasonably sure that he is affectionate because he likes me, as opposed to because he is trying to get something out of me. (This is a mixed blessing.)

#183, hope in disguise: whether he actually, you know, liked me, like as a person

I had one guy tell me he couldn't tell whether I was interested in him or not. (This was the first guy I'd actually been attracted to, too! Most recent ex, not Crappy Ex.) He may have found this made him more insecure.

I guess learning to fake not being upset and fake being confident and hide the things I like so I didn't get mocked for them got overgeneralized to not showing much of anything related to an opinion. Including, apparently, the opinion of "I like you and think you're awesome and hot," which was my opinion at the time he told me this.

OtterB @181: Don't beat yourself up because you don't find it easy.

Much too easy to forget this one!

the invisible one @182: Problem is when I don't know how to tell chase-courting from affection that will be sustained.

Ah, the old, "What will know it when I see it?" problem. I got no help for you there. 'Bout the only thing I have to offer is: good looks is not an indicator. :-\ (This, now that I think about it, would be an excellent CA question.) It's possible this is something one can determine only over time.

maybe it was just an extension of faking not being upset to avoid being criticized for overreacting.

I have some real issues around "faking it." I've spent too much of my life developing the capacity to be me that being something else (even if for my own "benefit") feels like a deep betrayal of myself. For me, I guess, valuing my needs is more like a skill I practice: recognize that I've got rights here, too, and bring those to the fore of my mind. "How does that change the decision?" Carnegie Hall, and all that.

the invisible one @182 fear what might come up out of the swamp if I don't keep myself busy

That's a legitimate concern. I wasn't treading sensitive ground that time, so didn't have a problem, but I have had issues other times with unleashing a boatload of negative emotions. You're wise to be wary, and perhaps to line up support when you get to that point.

You can do some swamp cleanup just getting rid of blown plastic bags and styrofoam cups. Not everything has to be dealing with the barrels of toxic waste to be worth doing.

maybe it was just an extension of faking not being upset to avoid being criticized for overreacting

IMO one signal to consider is whether the faking is making you larger (claiming a larger space for yourself and growing to fill it), smaller (pretending parts of you don't exist), or just hollow (claiming a space that doesn't have much connection to the real you).

#185, Jacque: Ah, the old, "What will know it when I see it?" problem. I got no help for you there. [...] It's possible this is something one can determine only over time.

I'm kind of doubtful that it's even possible to tell ahead of time, unless one has access to reliable information about the other person's behaviour in past relationships.

Of course my behaviour in past relationships isn't very appealing (to me! or to anybody else I'm sure) and I'm trying to change it.

'Bout the only thing I have to offer is: good looks is not an indicator. :-\

As in, people who are pretty? No, not related to whether or not they will be good in a relationship. But given that I've never even had a celebrity crush, pretty faces aren't really a factor for me.

(This, now that I think about it, would be an excellent CA question.)

Dunno. Questions with specific details that lend themselves to scripts and specific actions that can be taken seems more the style of that site. Also I asked something similar a while back and never got a response.

For me, I guess, valuing my needs is more like a skill I practice: recognize that I've got rights here, too, and bring those to the fore of my mind. "How does that change the decision?" Carnegie Hall, and all that.

I am apparently terrified of being "selfish" because my very first thought was trying to figure out what rights I had the right to insist on and make decisions based on, and worried that I would go "too far" (how far is too far? In whose opinion? I remember your NLP notes and try to apply them!) and claim rights that I may or may not have while ignoring other people's rights which they totally have. Because, of course, a person for whom everything is about them and their rights to the exclusion of everybody else is dyfunctional to abusive, so me claiming some totally reasonable rights is heading right for that. (sigh)

I think I will try explicitly asking myself those questions. What rights does a person in this situation have? What options does that open up? How does having those rights affect my decision? And importantly, reminding myself that somebody who tries to stop me from maintaining my boundaries is not my friend and I have the right to not talk to them anymore. (And that last one *really* stirs up the worry about being the dysfunctional self-absorbed person because apparently I don't really understand the difference between maintaining boundaries and saying "if you don't support everything I do or if you ever disagree with me you're wrong and I won't talk to you ever again lalala not listening". Dammit, I know there's a difference. I just don't know where it is.)

#186, OtterB: IMO one signal to consider is whether the faking is making you larger (claiming a larger space for yourself and growing to fill it), smaller (pretending parts of you don't exist), or just hollow (claiming a space that doesn't have much connection to the real you).

Oh.

I think I have some thinking to do about that. I never thought about it in those terms, and I am having a reaction right now and I need to figure out what it is.

the invisible one @187: I'm kind of doubtful that it's even possible to tell ahead of time, unless one has access to reliable information about the other person's behaviour in past relationships.

I, strangely, am fully confident that it is possible. I am, however, dubious about whether it will every be possible for me.

It has been my observation that people are downright supernatural in their ability to identify their "type" (down to particular classes of dysfunction), and will do so repeatedly. Their "type" shifts as they themselves change, which changes the dynamic they search for.

By implication, it has to be possible to sort for (frex) "trustyworthy." And, actually, now that I say that, I realize, I already do: the way I'm currently configured, certain classes of "optimal function" actually ping my radar as "uninteresting."

But that's another one of those things that takes time and evolution to get to.

claim rights that I may or may not have while ignoring other people's rights which they totally have.

Some of this can be mitigated by recognizing that other people's rights are actually other people's responsibility to claim. It is also possible to respect other people's rights while simultaneously respecting one's own. Makes it easier, actually, because then it becomes more of a "respect" practice than a "boundary" practice. If that makes any sense.

so me claiming some totally reasonable rights is heading right for that.

Urm. I think it depends a lot on how you go about it.

Dammit, I know there's a difference. I just don't know where it is.

Yeah, there is a difference. Will think upon a good example.

Hm. Try this: as you think about the respective rights, are they (in your mind) coming towards you, are you going towards them, or are you both stationary? Roughly, if the first, they're challenging your rights. Second, you're challenging their rights. Third, you're each working on your own rights.

Anyway, that's what it looks like inside of my brain.

Lee #178: You've jumped here from trust negotiation first to mercantilism, and from there to use of force. I have to infer that a major piece¹ is missing from your model of negotiation within a relationship.

I am in no way saying that a relationship means² that the woman always "should" be ready for sex. But the gender-role aware symmetry for that is: the man shouldn't always have to be ready to provide "affection" (Unconditional Positive Regard, emotional support, attentive caretaking, etc), any more than the woman should.

However, it is commonplace and socially supported to negotiate increased provision of those respective roles, as part of the natural exchanges within a relationship. Thus any number of articles in the popular press offer tips on increased sexual range for women, while the corresponding articles for men offer remedial lessons on such points as emotional caretaking and support, attentive empathy, and "long-term attention" (e.g. remembering important dates).

BTW, over the next few days I will not always be responding promptly in this and other discussions, as I am taking a trip down to NYC.

¹ That is, a different piece from the ones I'm missing. :-/
² I am using the gender stereotypes here, but this does apply for any gender combination, wherever one partner is more focused on affection, while the other is more focused on sex.

The articles in the popular press reflect the common heteronormative understanding, which is distressingly similar to that of Donald Symons. My feeling is that if sex or love are transactional at all, it's that people trade sex for sex and love for love, sometimes simultaneously, sometimes not, and I also think that sexual relationships are not completely siloed off from other relationships and do not go by wildly different rules. I think spouses should be hugging their spouses at least in part for the same reasons they hug their friends or family members (indeed, I think spouses *are* generally considered friends and family members, though special cases of both).

Jacque, #188: the way I'm currently configured, certain classes of "optimal function" actually ping my radar as "uninteresting."

Did you intend to say "sub-optimal" there? Because that's the only way that sentence makes sense to me.

There was definitely a point, way back before I met my now-ex, when I consciously realized that (1) I was consistently being attracted to guys of a particular personality type, and (2) those relationships were consistently breaking up over a couple of specific issues that kept becoming problems. After that, even though I could still feel the pull of that personality type, my actual interest in pursuing relationships with guys who had it virtually disappeared.

David H., #189: Note that in these last few exchanges I haven't been talking about relationships in general, but specifically those which can be described by the model of "women give sex to get love, while men give love to get sex". IME that is absolutely not even close to the way a healthy relationship is structured! Nor is it anything I see among my friends who have happy, stable relationships (not to mention my own). And it is transactional/mercantile, and makes it very difficult to regard your partner as an equal instead of a commodity. My claim is that when you start from that position, it becomes distressingly easy to proceed down several different paths none of which will end well.

Which is not to say that I've never made an error in negotiating something within a relationship! But honestly, I think we're looking at an example of GIGO here -- when you start with something that messed-up, the results aren't likely to be pretty.

Lee #191: One last comment before signing off to prep for the train: Few relationships will be only that, and a relationship limited to that will not be healthy -- nor will a relationship limited to any other single theme or pattern of interaction!

But like many stereotypes, this one exists for a reason -- it's based on gender differences in both "standard social training", and various factors underlying those gender roles. The brief catchphrase is hardly meant to represent "everything you need to know", but it does still encapsulate a "found thing" in everyday society; a theme within many people's relationships, which is so commonplace that simply denying it altogether is counterproductive rather than liberating.

#188, Jacque: It has been my observation that people are downright supernatural in their ability to identify their "type" (down to particular classes of dysfunction), and will do so repeatedly.

I would wonder what I was choosing in my past relationships, but for one thing: until about two years ago when I realized what was happening, I literally dated anybody who asked me, unless I was already in a relationship.

Not many people asked.

So... I can't really say I was choosing anything. Except maybe that my obliviousness filtered out all but the guys who preferred the chase? I wasn't "playing" hard to get, it just took actually asking me out to get my attention, I suppose.

Urm. I think it depends a lot on how you go about it.

That would have been an example of a jerkbrain...

Try this: as you think about the respective rights, are they (in your mind) coming towards you, are you going towards them, or are you both stationary?

Unfortunately right now any attempt to stand up and take an amount of space for myself that I wouldn't blink about somebody else taking up registers to me as encroaching on other people's space. I've spent too long shrinking myself in a lot of ways. I have taken up my own space in a couple of other ways and I suspect those are what people see when they think I'm confident and able to stand up and stuff.

#191, Lee: Did you intend to say "sub-optimal" there? Because that's the only way that sentence makes sense to me.

After I read it the way you did, I re-read it to mean that's one way a dysfunction-attracting filter works. Not sure which was intended, but given the discussion it could be either. Or another phrasing for the latter meaning is "nice guys are boring, bad boys are interesting"? Which could lead to a string of high-drama relationships of varying toxicity.

#162, me... I say he never mentioned it again but now I'm wondering if my obliviousness is not seeing something. At group events he ends up migrating toward wherever I am. There have been occasional comments that could be compliments of a sort I wouldn't expect from a friend. Other stuff like that.

But then, I don't really know how to have friends, so I don't really know if he is doing the friends-hoping-for-more thing or if that's how he does friendship. What friends I have had in the past tend to either be situational/group based acquaintances who I don't see outside of the shared activity, or a single person that I glom onto really hard and want to do everything with all the time, and nothing in between. While declining all relationships I am trying to work on my model of friendship because the "everything on one person" model is pretty similar and maybe I can fix that at the friendship level and have it carry over to the romantic level.

Lee @191: "the way I'm currently configured, certain classes of 'optimal function' actually ping my radar as 'uninteresting.'" Did you intend to say "sub-optimal" there? Because that's the only way that sentence makes sense to me.

No, I meant what I said. For example, a guy who's calm and trustworthy, and pays me good attention: zzzzz.... A guy who's time I have to fight for: ziinnnng!! ::sigh::

even though I could still feel the pull of that personality type, my actual interest in pursuing relationships with guys who had it virtually disappeared.

This is true for me also. With the net result that I've been completely single for...ghods, twenty years now. And we won't even go into the guys who seem to be attracted to me....

Okay, it's Evaluation Time herebouts again. Expected are the problematic parts of the self-evaluation, "Goals for the upcoming year." The true answers are variations on "Since the scope of my work is extremely limited, to a field I was bored with decades ago, and I have no latitude for initiative, my real goals have nothing to do with my actual job." I'll come up with some bullshit answer. Probably plagiarize something from a previous year.

No, the chief problem is that boss is supposed to give me a copy of the completed form to sign after boss has filled out their evaluation of me.

Three years running now, this has not happened.

(This leads me to wonder: did the evals ever even get filed with HR? Or are boss's opinions of me so heinous/so glowing that boss doesn't want me to see them, for fear of some [consequence]? Altogether, it feels very strangely passive-aggressive.)

I am very sorely tempted to hold this year's form hostage until boss coughs up.

Anon Amos (195): That sounds remarkably frustrating. Since the evaluations are supposed to be filed with HR, would it be possible for you to ask HR to show them to you? They can't be secret if you're supposed to sign off them after they are completed.

Hah, whew! Finally landed on my desk. Maybe mentally threatening Dire Consequences did the trick! :-)

::rolls eyes::

They can't be secret if you're supposed to sign off them after they are completed.

Is it ironical or just plain weird that I've never been asked to sign the completed forms...?

...except that two are duplicates, so I'm still missing the most recent year. ::facepalm::

Anon amous: and do their contents reveal any motivation for not revealing them? The thing is, AFAIK a company doesn't legally "have" to show an employee their evaluations... But if they don't do so, or don't give the employee at least a basic chance to say "that isn't true", it can open them up to serious liability later.

Well, from the two I've seen, boss basically regurgitates what I've put in the self-eval, and changes first person to third.

And, according to staff policy, I'm supposed to be signing these things before they go to HR.

Which is part of what leads me to wonder if HR has even seen any of them.

In the grand scheme, it doesn't really matter, as long as there are no negative reimbursement consequences. It's just...weird.

Making faces at the Internal Server...

I just had an unexpected illustration of how the language of aggrieved privilege can crop up in unlikely places.

Context was a FB discussion of the Southern habit of addressing random strangers as "sweetie" or "honey" or other such endearments. I said that I really dislike fake intimacy, and promptly found myself embroiled in an argument that was absolutely squicking me out, and I couldn't figure out why.

Until I did. The other person (white and female AFAICT) was using exactly the kind of language that a smarmy dudebro would use to defend crap like putting his arm around a female co-worker, or a woman at a con who he doesn't know very well. "It's not intended that way" and "but this is just the way we are" and "you should be more tolerant" and and and.

It was one of those "once you see it, you can't un-see it" moments, and I'm putting it here because other people might also run into situations where that kind of argument is being deployed and not understand why it's freaking them out.

Lee #202: heh. The "honey" stuff bugs me a bit too, but I'll give people more slack for that than for the touchy stuff. And especially when it's someone talking upward the privilege heirarchy, because that's actually an equalizing tactic.

But there are also just usage differences. Moving down to Virginia, It took me a while to stop hearing a casual "thank you so much" as sarcastic overemphasis, because up North it wouldn't be casual -- even "thank you" tends to get abbreviated to "thanks", so "thank you so much" would imply above-and-beyond.

Anon Amos #200: since my prior attempt was apparently eaten: So, they're not slagging you, but not giving actual feedback, either.

I imagine the forms probably did go to HR, because otherwise why bother rewriting your self-eval?

Some consolation: It's not just me boss does this too. At least two coworkers report the same phenomenon.

Which maybe boils it down to bad paperwork housekeeping. Which is consistent with boss's habit of keeping THOUSANDS OF EMAILS in their inbox. And (not surprisingly) missing a lot of incoming emails.

I'm sure boss does something well, being the deputy Honcho, and all. Be damned if I can figure out what it is....</snide>

I think someone asked whether my link @ 161 in which the military explains its culture was free and available to the public, and the answer is yes-- it's got funding till 2018.

David Harmon@204

the forms probably did go to HR

Or at least they were intended to go to HR. Not necessarily the same thing.

http://realsocialskills.org/post/131042408032/detecting-imperius-curses

Nancy Lebovitz #208: Oh yeah... the scary thing is that people can do this sort of thing without "meaning to"; both my mothers are quite overbearing, and my birth mother in particular has a long-standing habit of steamrollering contradiction in just this way -- interrupting my deliberations, and when I do make a decision, she wants to "keep discussing it" (which she's lately tried to lampshade as a gender difference).

But it is possible to learn to resist this sort of thing. In particular, with my stepmother over the last week's trip, I realized I've gotten a lot better at cutting off her interruptions. (In her case, I think it's more about impatience, she's really not a deliberative person.) I still need to practice this more with Mom....

NMancy Lebovitz @206: Is it permitted to take if one is not any kind of health or mental health professional? In theory, I suspect I could put fake information where the registration for the website asks for Org and Dept but that would be lying and lying is bad...

(I sometimes describe my D&D-type alignment as "Lawful Scared": there are Rules, and if you break the Rules, that is Bad, regardless of whether anyone cares or will notice...)

me @210: *Nancy... </tyops>

#210 ::: hope in disguise

I'm not sure. I read a military explanation of military culture a while ago which was simply available. It may have been something else, or they may have changed terms.

You could ask them. VHATRAIN@va.gov
URL:

Nancy @212, I emailed them and got back instructions on how to make a VHA TRAIN account. So apparently they don't mind if non-professionals take the free course. Hurrah and thank you :)

*impostrous† feelings quieten*

†What is a good noun form of the adjective for 'like an impostor'? For that matter, what is the adjective? 'Impostrous' seems clearly incorrect but communicates meaning; OTOH it leads smoothly to 'impostrosity', which, while it handily conveys the felt-by-the-self sense that to be an impostor would be monstrous (i.e. Wrong and Bad, see me@210), is quite unwieldy and I do not actually want to encourage those connotations in myself. /me ponders

"Impostrous" (Characterized by imposture; deceitful) is indeed in one of my dictionaries, with "imposturous" as an alternate spelling. My spell-check, on the other hand, does not recognize either of them.

For those who, like me, don't usually follow the open threads here, good news! ma larkey is still around, and doing decently. :)

Note to the gnomes (and to ma larkey): if the cross-linking is considered inappropriate, please remove this comment, and apologies.

first note
second note

And dcb is back up and running again, 5 months after breaking her ankle. So that's two pieces of good news!

To all here: May your Thanksgiving be as safe and happy as possible.

Internal Server Error. *grump*

Some family members have done their ritual, post Paris attacks: "We're so worried about you! Are you safe?!"

My stance has been close to frigid. A laconic "I'm fine, we're all fine."

One of these feelers came with a cute little ribbon bow of "You should stay in touch more!" Well, that broke my patience, and my desire to remain polite. I wrote back, "Well, that depends? What would you like to talk about?" with a series of topics that could be good correspondence material if they could be arsed to think deeply enough to get interesting answers.

No reply, yet. (Of course.) But now, I'm grumpy because I just wish they didn't decide they had to poke for the umpteenth time. It's all just such a farce and they refuse to see their own role in it. I came this -><- close to reminding them that staying in touch is a two-way street. At least I know that *I* am done with carrying water and doing emotional work for this bunch.

At least no trees were killed in this whine of mine. Thanks for the eyes/ears/hearts...

Crazy(but somehow saner when she's not dealing with family, funny that...)Soph

crazysoph @219: Witnessing. Sympathies.

Can we please stop gaslighting our kids?

Summary: Children have the right to feel angry, scared, bored, or frustrated. Forcing them to fake being happy under stressful circumstances is a variety of gaslighting -- and it's one which our society pushes heavily, especially around the holiday season. Giving kids permission not to be happy all the time, and tools to help them manage their negative emotions, results in healthier kids who are also (surprise!) happier overall.

I also like that it specifically mentions the "you have to let Uncle Ernie kiss you" issue.

Lee: I could say (rant?) volumes, but we'll take it as read.

crazysoph @219: witnessing and sympathies.

Jacque @222: yep, me too. :(

In personal news, I just got into a group therapy thing (a LOT cheaper than one-on-one, and I do well in groups), which will hopefully help me to get to the next step in dealing with the residual toxic waste from the enmeshment (with Mom) and all the toxic tapes that Mom installed.

Right now, I have SO MUCH anger toward her, and I tend to get paralyzed in some activities because I can never be good enough (for her, or her tapes), and I'd love to be DONE with that already. I don't want the anger. I certainly don't want the paralysis.

Wish me luck? It starts in January.

And since last year we FINALLY instituted the alternating Christmas (instead of Christmas Eve with my parents, in town, then *flying* to the in-laws and me missing Christmas dinner from an exhaustion migraine), last year was entirely with the in-laws (had a lovely time :), which makes this year with my parents. *stressstressstress*

Chickadee, witnessing

Chickadee, wishing you luck, with the therapy (where it sounds like you know what you want from it and have found a good arrangement), and with coping with the parents.

I just unfriended someone on Facebook because they no longer post anything except passive-aggressive vaguebooking -- cryptic snide comments with no point of reference and no way to know exactly what it is they're objecting to.

And it occurred to me afterwards that this is actually a very common variety of verbal abuse; the idea is to make the other person (any other person, whether it's your target or not) respond on the basis of what it sounds like you're saying, and then either go the Plausible Deniability route, or do the "if the shoe fits..." thing.

So I think it's worth mentioning here. If you know somebody who pulls that kind of shit, either on social media or in real life, consider getting them out of your life. Your blood pressure will thank you.

Chickadee: Witnessing. I hope the therapy is useful.

Good luck with dealing with the parents.

So, I just saw a film called "Ella Enchanted" with friends. (2004 film starring Anne Hathaway, Hugh Dancy & Cary Elwes.) Premise: campy comedy retelling of Cinderella, with the twist that Ella, as an infant, is given the "gift" of obedience by a stupid fairy godmother. That's right; she MUST do ANYTHING that ANYONE tells her to do. Her mother and her mother's best friend are the only ones who know, and they tell Ella not to tell anyone. So she can't. Story jumps to basic Cinderella plot; Dad remarries; nasty stepmother, evil stepsisters...

So, my friends (male and female) are all laughing at the campy humor and the situations Ella finds herself in. And all I can see is Ella has no choices. None. Not until the enchantment is broken at the end of the movie.

"How'd you like it?" asked our host when he took out the DVD. "It was a little... rapey... for my tastes," I replied. "Oh, but it didn't go there!" my friend protested, aghast.

Well, no. She wasn't forced into sex. But only, I think, because it was a kid's movie. (She is required to kiss someone.)

So, am I overreacting?

Cassy B @228 I haven't seen the movie but I've read the book, which is excellent (I'm told by my daughter that the book was better, but not, I think, different in what's being discussed here.) The book was quite clear that the removal of the ability to say no was NOT a "gift" anyone would want. So, no, I don't think you're overreacting. It's certainly important not to override someone's will about sex, but that doesn't make it okay to override their will about everything else.

Cassy, #228: I suspect that this is one of those "once you've seen it, you can't un-see it" things, and your friends haven't learned to see it yet. Also, unfortunately, I think your choice of the word "rapey" as a starting point was a tactical error, because that allowed them to respond with, "Oh no, she wasn't raped!" and then dismiss anything else you said.

If it comes up again*, I would suggest starting out by saying that you find the idea of someone having all their choices taken away from them too creepy to be funny. If that gets thru, then you might segue into, "She was forced to kiss someone against her will. If it hadn't been a kiddie movie, what else might she have been forced to do against her will?"

* Which it probably won't; there's a good chance that you've now been tagged as "the weirdo with no sense of humor". This group may quietly stop inviting you to their movie nights -- or instead, do so in terms couched to elicit a refusal, such as, "Well, the last time we invited you, you got all bent out of shape about a silly kids' movie. Are you sure you can handle this one?" **

** I don't think this is necessarily going to be the outcome. But I do think it's a possibility that you need to be aware of.

This is like my seeing Toy Story as horrifying-- the toys love the children, but the children can never find out.

rot13 because this could count as spoiling people's fun:

Engngbhvyyr-- jung *jbhyq* jr qb vs jr sbhaq bhg gung engf jrer fncvrag?

Fcl-- gur raq bs gur zbivr jnf gung fur jnf encrq (ab cbffvoyr jnl fur pbafragrq gb frk jvgu uvz) naq vg jnf cynlrq sbe n yvtugjrvtug ynhtu

Lee, fortunately, these are friends I've had for over twenty years; they may think my reaction to the movie was odd, but if they've been my friends this long they're willing to put up with my peculiarities... <wry grin>

OtterB, yeah, the movie has the two people who know about the "gift" (her mother and her mother's friend the housefairy) react in shock and horror to the idea. Which then is played for laughs for the rest of the movie.

Oddly, NONE of Ella's schoolmates or teachers, including her best friend whom she is forced to repudiate horribly, figure out Ella's curse in sixteen years. While her evil stepsister figures it out in about two days.... Yeah, well, children's movie.

You're right, I shouldn't have used "rapey". It was my visceral reaction, but it was probably too strong for the context.

(Oh, and in the movie, the Prince asks her (he doesn't know that she's under compulsion to obey) to kiss him only AFTER it's been made clear that she probably is interested in him. So they filed off some of the rapey bits even in the kiss. But, honestly, how many infatuated, heterosexual, hormonal teenaged boys, bunked down with Anne Hathaway with no adult supervision, are going to stop with asking for a kiss...? <wry> And since she didn't have free will, even her "willing" kiss (they did this thing with a chime and a body-jerk when she was ordered to do something, and that was omitted for the kiss) seemed creepy to me.

This may not be the right thread to have posted this in -- hating a film isn't a life-problem -- but I really needed a place to vent a little where folks would understand my dismay at a kid's movie... and to validate that I had a genuine reason to find the film creepy and distasteful, despite the laughter of the people who watched it with me. And it does touch on disfunction in relationships.

I appreciate the feedback.

Cassy, #233: Well, that's good; I'd hate to see you lose friends over this, but that is a fairly common reaction to someone unexpectedly harshing the group squee.

Another possible point of approach is, "Imagine how you would feel if you literally could not say no to any request someone made of you. And this is a character we're supposed to find sympathetic. How is it supposed to be anything but horrifying to watch?" Kids may very well identify with the Ella character, because let's face it, kids are often in the position of not being able to refuse an order from adults. But the reaction of the adults themselves should be more nuanced than that!

I think boosting awareness of how dysfunctionality is portrayed in our society is a perfectly appropriate topic for the community. Remember, we had a whole thread about Tangled a few years back.

Cassy B. @228: So, am I overreacting?

Nope.

Nancy Lebovitz @232: Having lived with one, I couldn't say they're not.

Cassy B. @233: This may not be the right thread to have posted this in

For my money, it's the perfect place.

I've been resisting the urge to wax verbose about the skin-crawlingly fascinating study of abuse patterns Jessica Jones is doing. Volumes could be written on the gaslighting alone.

As a confirmed stick-in-the-mud wet blanket type, I can say that sometimes, much later, people come back to me and say that my objections—which I always raise as my personal opinion and maybe just a quirk or a bad reaction because of my own twitches—have made them think and reconsider.

Friends who don't allow me to have carefully considered opinions, expressed tolerantly and mindfully of variance, aren't really my friends. But that's just me; other people's (perfectly functional! healthy and helpful!) social groups may work differently.

Jacque @237:
Not here. Really not here. I'll start a spoiler thread with trigger warnings all over it.

I've created a Jessica Jones spoiler thread.

I've asked people not to cross the streams between this thread and the JJ one. The dividing line, if you seek one, is what happens in the series? (there) versus what happened to me that the series is bringing out? (here).

My dual priorities are to (a) shelter DF from unnecessary triggers, which may restrict posting here; and (b) protect the separation of identities that allows people to comment freely in DF, which may restrict posting in the spoiler thread.

If you're in doubt, ping me at abi at this domain and we'll figure things out backstage.

I'm starting to wonder just what kind of people I grew up surrounded by.

It took a couple of years of doing NaNoWriMo to be comfortable telling that group that I wrote SF/F, and several more years to be comfortable telling people outside of NaNo the same thing. I kept expecting mockery and disdain.

I tend to restrict expressing my geeking out about a subject unless in a group that is already geeking out about that subject. I keep expecting mockery and disdain.

I tend to restrict showing what I like in general unless in a group that I trust reasonably well. I keep expecting mockery and disdain.

I don't know when I can call somebody a friend. I keep expecting that the only invitations I will get are the ones extended to an entire group that anybody can join and they are not personal at all.

I brace myself when it's time to decline offered alcohol and when they offer alternate alcohol options tell them that no, I don't drink anything with alcohol in it because I find it tastes utterly vile. I keep expecting pressure and shaming, or defensiveness. (I distinctly remember one friend in university setting herself a goal to see me drunk before we graduated. In fact, Crappy Ex was talking once about how maybe I could try shooters because it is possible to swallow them with minimal tasting and get drunk, and maybe then I'd relax...)

I brace myself when I have to tell somebody that no, I don't like loud parties with lots of people, even more so when most of them are drunk. I keep expecting accusations of being no fun at all.

I am reluctant to say anything about racism or sexism, or feminism, or any related subjects, or pointing out that a "joke" wasn't funny because of the bigotry contained within. I keep expecting disparagement and accusations of being uptight and/or not having a sense of humour and/or "Are you calling me a *ist!?" defensiveness.

Then other things, like disparaging comments not directed at me about things other people do... which the speaker doesn't know I do, or agree with, or sympathize with.

But the reason I'm starting to wonder this now is because this new group of friends, who I started meeting almost a year and a half ago, doesn't do those things that I have learned to expect. And it's kind of scaring me. *Can* I relax and reveal things now? *Can* I have opinions of my own? I don't even know if I know how to do that. I don't even know where to put the filter, between the wall of reveal nothing to the people around me, and the extreme openness of here.

the invisible one:

You're doing it right because your community is shifting to a supportive one. It's a long process; it has to be as reshaping yourself is part of it and that takes time.

Look at your incredible progress in the last year and a half!

Idumea Arbacoochee: I've created a Jessica Jones spoiler thread.

Thank you! And a very nicely drawn set of distinctions as to what belongs where!

As to JJ trigger warning: "ALL the trigger warnings. Seriously, all of them."

:-)

Cassy, it occurs to me (because of something I saw in a different context) that what you're seeing in Ella Enchanted is coerced consent. That's what the literal inability to refuse a request IS, and yes, it's squicky as hell.

the invisible one, #240: I think the answer to "what kind of people you grew up surrounded by" is ASSHOLES. And possibly predators as well, given their willingness to override your personal boundaries about things like whether or not to drink booze. It is positively amazing (and a sign of great strength) that you managed to hang onto your inner self in the face of all that crap.

You are now being exposed to what most people expect normally out of social situations. The problem with your former "friends" wasn't you, it was THEM.

*poke* ISE, what have you done with my post?

Well, good thing I copied the text. Reposting:

#241, Jeanie: Yes, I am trying to figure out how to friend when around people who aren't regularly telling me I'm DOIN IT RONG. Whatever "it" is. Previous strategies amounted to "don't rock the boat".

#243, Lee: I think the answer to "what kind of people you grew up surrounded by" is ASSHOLES.

And I grew up thinking that was how the world worked, so I didn't know that I could look for something different. (sigh) It's entirely possible there were non-assholes around me, but I didn't interact with them enough to realize that they were substantially different from the people who mocked or shamed me. (And people wonder why some folks get into bad relationship after bad relationship. Maybe they don't even know there are other options?)

Even my family. It's that combination of loving me and supporting my career and hobby choices and telling me I was overreacting when my opinion differed from theirs, especially when I didn't like something. Like the casual racist jokes that get tossed around a lot. I can do my own thing, as long as I don't disagree with their values, or something.

And possibly predators as well, given their willingness to override your personal boundaries about things like whether or not to drink booze.

Willingness to try, anyway. The not drinking alcohol was an easy boundary for me to enforce because it's basically impossible to spike my drink (with alcohol) without me noticing. I can taste ethanol and it tastes awful to me. (Not that they tried that. They used social pressure instead and mostly stopped after a month or two when they realized they weren't getting anywhere.) I still learned to guard whatever drink I had, partly because I didn't want to have to throw out a drink, and partly because I was vaguely aware of other spiking agents and didn't know whether or not I could taste them the way I can taste alcohol. Interestingly, there was no lack of pride in that particular university crowd that people (especially underage people) who got passing-out drunk were given a corner to crash in and were monitored by multiple people to make sure they slept it off safely. Seems they wanted people to get drunk but (most) only wanted that.

Other boundaries, not so much. Of course I had no idea what boundaries were at that point, and when I started university I was so thrilled to have people I could be a geek with that I thought I had found my people and ignored what made me uncomfortable because if they rejected me then who would I have?

It is positively amazing (and a sign of great strength) that you managed to hang onto your inner self in the face of all that crap.

I buried it.

Or more accurately, I only ever let it out when I was alone. The slightest hint of mockery or criticism for a thing I enjoy, and that person never sees or hears of me doing the thing again. Doesn't mean I stop doing the thing, only that I hid it. And of course hiding something is what you do for things you are ashamed of, so I became that much less likely to tell anyone about the thing.

The problem with your former "friends" wasn't you, it was THEM.

And one of the deep-seated lessons I grew up with was that people who blamed others for their problems were wrong and bad and weak and couldn't take Personal Responsibility (tm) for Their Own Problems.

it occurs to me (because of something I saw in a different context) that what you're seeing in Ella Enchanted is coerced consent. That's what the literal inability to refuse a request IS, and yes, it's squicky as hell.

It's also explicitly coerced via a spell, based on what I've seen mentioned here. I wonder how many people will make the connection between that and a "no" not being accepted and a "yes" the only acceptable answer, whether through social pressure or threats. Taking a "no" to mean "ask again later, repeat until getting a yes" is just as coerced, even if it takes longer.

the invisible one, #245: And people wonder why some folks get into bad relationship after bad relationship. Maybe they don't even know there are other options?

Exactly. How do you know there's anything else out there if all you've ever seen are bad examples? And beyond that, the abuse is a familiar and comfortable environment; you may not like it, but you know how to maneuver in it. Being around people who treat you decently, after years of that, can be downright disorienting by comparison, and this is what's happening to you now. Give it time; you'll adapt.

I can do my own thing, as long as I don't disagree with their values, or something. '

That sounds more like "you can do what you want as long as you never suggest that THEY might be wrong about something". Because THEY are perfect and unquestionable, and if you have a problem with them, it means YOU are the broken one.

I can taste ethanol and it tastes awful to me.

Same here. I generally explain it to other people in my own age group by saying, "Remember when you were a kid and you went to the doctor, and the nurse wiped the glass thermometer off with rubbing alcohol and shoved it in your mouth? Remmber how awful that tasted? That's what anything alcoholic tastes like to me." Doesn't work for people who grew up after they started using the disposable plastic thermometer sheaths, though! And I can taste it in ridiculously low concentrations; more than that, I can smell it in very low concentrations, and that's a warning not even to try tasting it.

And one of the deep-seated lessons I grew up with was that people who blamed others for their problems were wrong and bad and weak and couldn't take Personal Responsibility (tm) for Their Own Problems.

Ah now, this is another aphorism which is valid under normal circumstances but fails miserably under abusive ones. Because most of us have encountered the type of person who genuinely won't take responsibility for their own actions; no matter what happens to them, it's always Someone Else's Fault. They fall from one job to another, one living arrangement to another, one relationship to another, burn out one set of friends after another, it's always one crisis after another after another, and the concept that anything they did (or failed to do) might have had something to do with it is just not on the table at all. That's what the statement above is intended to address.

But for certain types of abuser, this is the ultimate Get Out Of Jail Free card -- and it depends, for much of its effectiveness, on the target not having any sort of reality check available. Because yes, it is indeed possible for "them all to be out of step but Jim" if Jim is being made into the scapegoat.

For a lot of people, college is that reality check; it's where they first meet people who don't treat them like their dysfunctional family does, and they start getting the "Wait, what, that's not right!" response when they tell family-related stories. You appear to have had the spectacular bad luck to fall into a college crowd that replicated some of your family's worst habits. But you're here now, and you are getting reality checks. Hold onto them for all you're worth -- because you're worth more than either your asshole family or your asshole "friends" have ever wanted you to believe.

#246, Lee:

Being around people who treat you decently, after years of that, can be downright disorienting by comparison

Yeah, disorienting, scary, confusing, freaking me out a little.

I mean, most of my [activity]-friends, the people I see as part of some activity but not outside of that, are probably decent, but I don't get close to them. They're acquaintances who I can have a perfectly pleasant chat with as part of the activity. I don't really know how to reach out to people to do something individual, so if they don't contact me, nothing happens.

if you have a problem with them, it means YOU are the broken one.

Well if I have a problem with something it usually means that I'm "overreacting". I'm trying to work out what I'm allowed to be angry or upset about. (Out of sight of my parents, of course.) Having occasional anxiety freakouts where I really am having over the top reactions doesn't help, so I'm also trying to work out what's anxiety-based and what's reality-based.

this is another aphorism which is valid under normal circumstances but fails miserably under abusive ones

Over the past few years I've come to the conclusion that every behaviour has a healthy and an abusive/unhealthy variant. It makes it really hard for me to read those "inspirational" shares because in so many of them I can so easily see the toxic variant of the behaviour promoted.

For a lot of people, college is that reality check; it's where they first meet people who don't treat them like their dysfunctional family does, and they start getting the "Wait, what, that's not right!" response when they tell family-related stories.

I never really told family-related stories that I recall. Or if I did, they were never of the sort to get that reaction.

the spectacular bad luck to fall into a college crowd that replicated some of your family's worst habits

The sexism, the rude humour and not *quite* overtly malicious pranks, the very *specific* type of allowable feminism (but don't use that word, because those feminists were all crazy): strong support for women working in male-dominated fields, if they were "one of the guys". But yeah, if you weren't part of that drinking, pranking, mocking everybody different culture, you were either ignored or mocked. If you were willing to laugh with them, you were welcomed with open arms. Those Other People is a discussion topic that I'm sadly very familiar with.

I had another thought yesterday at work. While not drinking because I hate the taste alcohol is entirely true, it's also not the whole story. It's just the part of the story I tell people. The other part is that the very thought of some kind of impairment, whether drunk or high from any drug, anything where what boundaries or walls I have managed to set up are weakened, is somewhere between deeply unappealing and terrifying. I've known this for a long time; in high school somebody said that getting drunk to lower your inhibitions was a good thing, and I replied that I liked my inhibitions where they were, TYVM.

With this discussion now, I wonder if the reason for the "terrifying" end of my reaction to the thought of being drunk is because I don't trust the people around me. Oddly enough, it's not a sense of physical danger which is what most people think of when "woman getting drunk" is the topic, but a sense of being at risk if I lose that wall that hides my internal life from the world. As if I would be rejected, mocked, attacked (verbally, whether to my face or via rumours), or ostracized if the people around me knew what I was really like inside instead of the perpetually cheerful, fun, goes along with stuff, inoffensive person I project.

the invisible one @247: I don't really know how to reach out to people to do something individual, so if they don't contact me, nothing happens.

If this is a skill you wish to acquire, Captain Awkward has some useful scripts.

I'm trying to work out what I'm allowed to be angry or upset about.

I can help with that: you get to be angry or upset about whatever angers or upsets you.

What perhaps is a confounding factor is that knowledge of your anger or upset is best shared on a need-to-know basis, and not everybody needs to know.

(Once you're well free of your parents—not dependent on them for anything—I'd say that they have "need to know," and they do not get veto power. But that's for when you're confident you're safe from them.)

It is useful to be able to choose how you express your anger or upset appropriately for the context. More detail if requested.

More later...work calls.

I think, for me, that even though I've been angry about the way I was treated in my family for a long time, there's still a piece of my reaction to better treatment which has something to do with not acknowledging just how bad it felt when I was a kid.

#248, Jacque:

If this is a skill you wish to acquire, Captain Awkward has some useful scripts.

I am familiar with CA's scripts. I read the entire archive and learned a lot. The issue for me seems less what words to use and more the ability to believe that the person I'm reaching out to would be interested in talking to me, personally. Without that, it doesn't matter what words I use because I won't send them.

you get to be angry or upset about whatever angers or upsets you.

One of those things that's easy to say and so very hard to believe. But yeah, it is a lot about who gets to see me angry or upset.

I am safe from my parents; I live in a place a long enough drive from them that it's not really a comfortable day trip there and back, and I've been financially independent for many years in that place I live. Getting close to half my life, now. There's a long list of things I don't tell them, which consists of nearly everything other than "I did Fun Thing this weekend!" ... which is about what my facebook postings consist of as well.

Reading the situation to determine how much information to share is appropriate is something I don't really have much skill with. At the moment I have the "tell nothing" wall, with a break in it for telling everything which is directed here. I know that telling nothing is not the most healthy thing, but telling everything to one person who is not a therapist is too much. I know that how much to share depends entirely on the context so there's no one answer to what my filters should look like. That includes sharing information and expressing anger and upset. Both of which expressions involve lots of tears, which is annoying.

the invisible one @250: the ability to believe that the person I'm reaching out to would be interested in talking to me, personally.

Ah. Yes, that is a different kettle of fish.

"you get to be angry or upset about whatever angers or upsets you." One of those things that's easy to say and so very hard to believe.

:-)  True dat.

there's no one answer to what my filters should look like.

And developing the flexibility to adjust those filters as appropriate to the moment is a whole skill-set (both in terms of social judgement, as well as the inner self-knowledge and flexibility) in and of itself.

In that context, "tell nothing" is not a bad default. It might not be the healthiest, but revealing too much in the wrong context can be rather counter-healthful, too.  :-\   ;-)

It sounds like, at the very least, you're being well meta-choiceful in how you're thinking about this stuff. "What do I have to work with now?" "How does what I have compare to my desired state?" "Oh yeah, what is my desired state?"

The Invisible One @ 250

I had a similiar problem, but from a different source: introversion coupled with shyness and fear of social interactions. Which I'm still dealing with close to 30 years after I figured out how to get through that communication wall.

It came down to picking one thing out of the flood of information I had penned up. If I let one, small, not-too-geeky thing out there, and it was received well by one person in a group, I'd tell it to a second person. If that person had a positive reaction, I'd tell a third. (As a side benefit, I quickly find out who all the blabbermouths were.) After the first bit of information went the full round with no negative responses, I'd let out a second fact. Rinse, Lather, Repeat.

Of course, this was only after I'd found out as much about them as I could. That's easy -- just ask them about themselves and do active listening. People will tell you all sorts of things if you appear interested and non-judgmental. Once I had their complete "bio," I'd offer stuff up about me.

I've since learned that my method of coping is used by con men to bilk people out of money and property. So if you need detailed primers, research on how to con people, only with the intent to obtain positive feedback and find friends you can be open with.

It's not a con if you give as much as you take.

Sunday, I got hit with a "wait, you LIKE me and WANT to hang out with me?" moment. I still haven't bought into my own "con" of being a socially ept person others want to be around. Making light is one of the few places I feel safe to post on line. The internet still scares me. I'm there (in virtual space), where you are now (in meat space). For what I want to do with the next phase in my life, social media is a necessity. I have to conquer my fear or give up my dreams.

So. Witnessing.

outlier:

I think, if you convincingly simulate being a charming person, that's really the same thing as being a charming person.

albatross @ 253

My gut disagrees with you. My head sees your point and mostly agrees with it. Mostly. There's a non-insignificant portion that doesn't.

My personal history is similiar to the invisible one's, only the worst of it came from my peers at school as a child. I was too weird, too geeky and either didn't want to or was too busy standing my ground to try to fit in to group expectations. Odd man out (and pugnacious with it -- I remember getting bullied and fighting back as early as first grade) described my life until I hit college. My peers pretty much ignored me after the failed bullying. My family loved me, supported me but pretty much shook their head in bewilderment about me.

I've been described by others as being charming and personable. I still don't see it - even after all these years. I still feel like I'm conning people out of their approval. This is because I can turn my charm on and off like a light. Mostly, I keep it on. There are rare occasion when I turn it off in social situations -- me getting back at someone for hurting a friend somewhere/somewhen. But that's small and petty and while it feels good, I know it's morally wrong. (thank you Catholic guilt)

I will accept, even claim, eccentric. "As in Weird. Flaky is bad-weird, eccentric is good-weird." (This was a set of definitions I used for one of my ESL students.) Weird I'm OK with. All of my friends are just as weird and non-mainstream as I am.

#251, Jacque: It sounds like, at the very least, you're being well meta-choiceful in how you're thinking about this stuff. "What do I have to work with now?" "How does what I have compare to my desired state?" "Oh yeah, what is my desired state?"

Something I seem to have picked up here over the years :)

It's one of those things where I feel more lost and confused now that I know the questions and options exist than I did before. It used to be I was a loner with few to no close friends and I was perfectly satisfied with that situation because I didn't want to be close friends with any of the people I knew. Casual activity-centred "friendships" were enough.

#252, Statistical Outlier: Sunday, I got hit with a "wait, you LIKE me and WANT to hang out with me?" moment.

Yeah, I know that feeling. It has been happening more often lately now that I've found this group of people and several of them seem to actually like me. Finding them started with an invitation just like that. I hadn't got past "person I like chatting with at [activity]" and she goes and invites me to her place for a board games party. (Along with a whole bunch of people I didn't know, which scared me, but I decided to go anyway.)

#253, albatross: I think, if you convincingly simulate being a charming person, that's really the same thing as being a charming person.

I suppose that depends on whether you read "a charming person" as "a person who is (intrinsically) charming" or "a person who has the ability to charm others".

The whole thing with other people's perceptions of you not matching with your own perceptions of yourself... I mean, some of it is conscious; I don't tell people about the bad stuff and they think I'm consistently cheerful and happy and handling everything really well because that's all I let them see, and it's so long ingrained that my default in-person response is cheerful and easygoing. I have to be in a really bad mood or really exhausted for that to show. I had a friend recently comment about my current crappy work situation and how impressed she was at how well I was handling it and staying positive. She doesn't know about the weeks on end when I just can't face the job hunt because I've fallen into the hole of what's the point of applying because I never get a call back anyway, she only sees the occasional "I did Fun Thing this weekend!" facebook post.

But some of it isn't conscious. Some of it, I have no idea where it comes from. Of course the same goes for workplace perceptions. I am confused by the assessments I get from my bosses and coworkers a lot of the time.

Statistical Outlier @252: For what I want to do with the next phase in my life, social media is a necessity.

Speaking as someone who continues to struggle with figuring out What I Want To Do When I Grow Up, I'd be interested to hear more about this, if you're inclined to share.

albatross @253: I think, if you convincingly simulate being a charming person, that's really the same thing as being a charming person.

Perhaps more usefully for the "fake it 'till you make it crowd": from the outside, simulating being a charming person is functionally indistinguishable from actually being a charming person.

the invisible one @255: But some of it isn't conscious. Some of it, I have no idea where it comes from.

There does seem to a component of disposition that's innate. A friend told me, many years ago when I was only just barely starting to escape my family-of-origin-induced social psychosis*, that I was generally cheerful and optimistic. I kind of boggled, because I sure as hell didn't feel cheerful and optimistic, back in those days.

But as the years have gone by and I've progressively taken title to my life, I have been pleasantly surprised to conclude that he was right. All else being equal, and generally given my druthers, I seem to have concluded that the Universe is a friendly place to live. Which, you know, generally rocks. But it did take me a couple of decades of conscious (and unconscious) work to get here.

* Where psychosis is defined as "not knowing what's real"

#256, Jacque: There does seem to a component of disposition that's innate.

I could believe that. I mean, my general cheerful and optimistic demeanour isn't completely fabricated, it's just that I edit out everything that isn't that for most public consumption, and there's a that societal training that says I'm female therefore I must be pleasant.

Although that wasn't quite what I was talking about in the bit you quoted. That was about the mismatch between self-perception and how others see you and where that comes from, whether it's deliberate or not. I mean (at work) I've sometimes had compliments where I thought I was struggling and criticism where I thought I was doing well, as well as reviews that matched my own assessment. So confusing.

the invisible one: I've often thought that it would be handy to somehow have a third-person perspective (fly-on-the-wall-cam, or something), so that one could see what other people are reacting to. :-\

the invisible one #257: I've sometimes had compliments where I thought I was struggling and criticism where I thought I was doing well, as well as reviews that matched my own assessment.

A complicating factor there is sometimes "feedback" isn't really, but is more about the other person's mood or political angles.

It's summer (here) and close to the holidays, so today I found myself thinking about my family. I have two older sisters, and we all struggle in different ways to overcome the way we were raised. How we were led to think we're useless, stupid, lazy, incompetent, so that we don't deserve anything good. It's a daily struggle to think I matter, my feelings matter, my ideas matter. I had to leave that place in order to have enough headspace to plan for the future (I had suicidal ideation when I was 12. What was the point of living if everything I did was always wrong? If I was so terrible no one would ever like me? Those were my mother's words. Instead of suicide, though, I opted for insubordination. If it was all wrong, that I'd only do what I wanted and the way I wanted. Years later, I understood I was saved by my own stubbornness.).
But I've known for a while that those were lies, things I was told in order to be manageable, a good victim, someone that would accept be yelled at every day of her life. What I didn't know is that the lies went further.

We were brought up with patched hand-me-downs, cheap shoes, using everything to the last drop and eating meat once or twice a week. We studied in a public school, had no toys but for the ones we got from relatives and never heard the words "I love you" from any of them (but that is another meaning for austerity, another kind of poverty).
Until this year, I believe that it was all because we were poor, just the general grind of a family of 5 in a poor country, nothing much to think about. My mother made very little money, despite being a doctor, and my father had to stretch his professor's salary to cover the need of the house.
Only it wasn't like that.

The truth is he has spent his whole life saving money by making us believe we were poor, so we wouldn't ask for things (like, a pair of jeans without holes in it), and he wouldn't have to spend.
My middle sister, which is more prone to visit the parents, was helping him with some computer related issue when she found his diary. So she read it (because she's as sneaky and nosy as I am stubborn) and found all his boasting about his savings and his prostitutes and his drunken parties (have I mentioned he's an alcoholic? Yep, and people always think he's so cool.). And a nice summing up of how much money he "saved" on his 35 years of marriage by pretending not to have that money. He's good with numbers, and they were all there. All the things he could have done, but didn't, like paying for school for us (our school was the kind where you had to keep you belongings with you or be robbed), or paying for my sister's eyesight correction surgery. And do you know what else was in the diary? A complete log of all his parties in his secret apartment, with his secret girlfriends. All the names of his cocaine dealers.
I already though he was toxic, I already though he was an asshole, but now he kinda feels like something out of a bad movie. I used to think the sacrifices he made to raise us were a redeeming quality. But it wasn't him that was being sacrificed, right?
I just needed to talk about this. Sorry it's so long, I did my best to shorten it.

stubborn @260 Sympathies, and witnessing. Finding that out must be utterly infuriating. I'd say "but at least you know," but I have to wonder if it's actually worse, now you know. <hugs> if welcome.

stubborn @260:

What an awful way to grow up, even before finding out that it was all a lie. It's impressive that you and your siblings found ways to survive.

Is it possible that understanding his hypocrisy can make it easier for you to discount the judgment and the terrible things you were told as a child?

Stubborn @ 260

Witnessing.

I don't know what to say other than, "here's a virtual hug if you want one." I don't think anything here is too long to listen to (read). We're here to listen as well as share.

Jacque @256

It's not that big of a thing, execution-wise. I write (and have published) and want to make my living as an author. The writing is actually the easiest part - it's my anti-depression/anti-anxiety/happy juice. I'm one of those people who can't not write. I'm a story junky. If I'm not consuming, I'm creating.

It's the self-promotion that hard. To be successful and sell books in the current and developing market requires a regular, if not extensive, on-line platform. My natural introversion is manageable. Ditto the shyness. The fear of others and how they can attack/damage/hinder (actively or not) is what I'm currently trying to over come. Plus I'm a female and write under my own easily-recognized-as-female name. I'm too stubborn to use a pen name or my initials. The latter isn't much protection. I've got a fairly recognizable last name and googling myself brings me up on the first page.

Stubborn, #260: Witnessing. That's horrible.

Can your sister copy, or steal, the diary and turn the information about illegal stuff over to the cops? Because that's what my first impulse would be in that situation.

Stubborn @260: Wow. Well, as abi points out, at least now you know just how (not) to credit his perspective.

Statistical Outlier: Thank you for the elaboration! I wish you much success; I anticipate the stuff you put into the market will be very interesting!

stubborn #260: Holy cow, that's nasty turned to downright fucked-up... I'd even say "insane".

In your place, I would be seriously tempted to turn the whole file over to the police, and if neither you nor your sister do so, it's out of pure charity. Is your mother still alive, and if so, where is she in this picture?

Stubborn, that is *messed up*.

Statistical Outlier, yeah, the social-media aspect of writing is a weird new-feeling thing. I don't have any advice about it-- I often feel like I'm mismanaging my own-- but you're not alone in thinking it's hard.

Jacque's recent comment helped me underline some things which I need to work on.

I've been having a hard time doing much of anything, and I think the background stuff is a belief that I ought to be able to get everything right the first time without having learned about it. And that since I'm not doing well at life (house is a mess, not making money), this is proof of how hopelessly defective I am.

At this point, I assume some of you are feeling a strong impulse to tell me I'm wrong, I'm actually a worthwhile person, people need to learn, and so on. This may do some good, but I'm more interested in what anyone has to say about getting out of this sort of self-reinforcing self-restriction.

Nancy, can you turn it inside out and make an asset of not getting things done?

The monologue I use:

"I don't feel like doing anything. The place is a mess. I am a worthless person."

"Good for me to recognize where I'm at. I need to do some serious energy recharging. I will take the day off."

"Look at me succeeding in not doing anything!"

(end of day) "I succeeded in sticking to my plan. I rested. I read a little/listened to music/watched a DVD. I inadvertently picked up a few things wandering through, so the place is a little tidier (though it would have been fine if that hadn't happened). Tomorrow I'll see if I need some more down time."

I used to overwhelm myself with everything that needed doing. Switching the focus to the day's progress, however slight, made a huge difference. At least strip the guilt off taking down time.

Nancy Lebovitz @269:

I'm with you on all of what you say. I'll leave aside the things you don't want me to go into and discuss I'm tackling it myself, but believe me when I say you sound overly harsh on yourself.

One of the things I've been trying to do to address the fear of making mistakes lately is a tiny, nearly negligible change.

I often play a solitaire game on my iPad. It has an undo function, which I used to use to check (for instance) whether putting the 9 of hearts on the dark 10 was better or worse than putting the 9 of diamonds on it. In case my first choice was wrong.

I've made the conscious effort to stop doing that. To say, "I'm going to put this 9 on, and live calmly and confidently with the consequences. If I lose, who's to say I would have won if I'd done it the other way? There's no telling. It doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things anyway."

It's like a drop of water wearing down the wall between me and permission to make mistakes. To be imperfect, one bad call at solitaire at a time.

I don't know if this helps, if it's in the same area in your head that it is for me.

That's useful, abi; thank you.

That's useful, abi; thank you.

Nancy Lebovitz #269: Striking off at an angle: That sort of thing can often represent "brain weather" (mood) rather than an actual "misconception" of worthlessness. While you're thinking about it, try going down the checklist for brain-weather control; food, sleep, environment, other needs, perhaps medication adjustments if that's in play, etc.

Nancy Lebovitz @269

My issues are somewhat different; not so much thinking I have to get everything right the first time, as thinking that I have to have thought everything through before I act. So this may or may not help you. But I value a book I think I recommended here before: Improv Wisdom: Don't Prepare, Just Show Up, by Patricia Ryan Madson. It recommends things like "start anywhere" and "be average" (the point of the latter being that for one thing you put too much pressure on yourself trying to stand out, and for another, the things that seem obvious to you may be your unique view on a situation.)

Another book that was helpful to me is The Practicing Mind, by Thomas Sterner. Using examples like golf and music, he talks about the process of learning something. The insight that sticks with me is that it's difficult to stick with distasteful practice for the sake of an end goal, and easier to learn to see the practice itself as a positive activity.

OtterB, #275: it's difficult to stick with distasteful practice for the sake of an end goal

Hence the failure of many an exercise program. The key is "find something you like to do, and then do more of it".

Nancy Lebovitz @269: I have that in spades some days, with my GD tapes. (perfectionist mother, would work (unnecessary) 80 hour weeks then deprive herself of sleep for a perfectly clean house)

One thing that helps for me is to acknowledge yes, the house is a mess. Yes, Mom would be having a hairy fit. You know what? It's okay. I *choose* to be okay with not being perfect. And I give myself permission to tackle this one small, manageable task and then not touch/think about/stress about the rest.

It's not a perfect system, by any means, but it's helped me a LOT. Sometimes, deciding it's okay if I (frex) don't do all the dishes then gives me a boost of energy that results in me finishing them - providing I *honestly* am okay with not finishing them. Which I have proved to myself a few times by deliberately leaving some of the PIA items for the next load.

I sympathize particularly because one of Mom's mantras was that you didn't just have to do it (perfectly, the first time) but you also had to do it *cheerfully*. If you didn't want to do it, it meant you were lazy (and therefore worthless and a horrible person)

I hope this helps a bit!

(and regarding the doing things perfectly the first time or you're no good and a failure? I got a friend to teach me how to knit this past January. I gave myself permission to absolutely suck. It took a LOT of effort and a LOT of practice to get any good at it - and it felt SO good in the end to have worked past the tapes and proved them wrong. :)

Oh ghods. Another wall-o-text....

Nancy Lebovitz @269: getting out of this sort of self-reinforcing self-restriction.

There's two pieces to this: the "has to be perfect the first time," and "not doing well and house is a mess."

The first one is, I suspect, particularly endemic in those of us who grew up in the '60 & '70s, when we generally encountered more pop art than folk art, and therefore only ever saw the finished product—at professional level, and virtually never got to see the process behind producing it. Blessedly, I think this is changing as crafting, Maker culture and fan art become more common. Me, personally, the way I'm currently fighting that tendency is to make an effort to put out some little Thing at least once a week, whether it be a web essay (see aforementioned comment) or using Twitter and Flickr to broadcast the imagery I've been working on. It doesn't have to be great, I keep reminding myself. It just has to be kind of interesting to me. I try to follow a former coworker's dictum: "Anything worth doing is worth doing half-assed." This in response to her own self-reported "overweaning perfectionism."

For the "not doing well" part, I've learned that this is a red flag for my self-care. I've worked out a prioritized list of practices, which I review when I get into that state:

1. Am I getting enough sleep?
2. Am I on top of my meds?
3. Have I eaten?
4. Have I eaten my daily greens?
5. Have I had some social contact?
6. Am I bored to tears with whatever project I'm working on?

(See also David @274.)

If I've let myself get depleted, keeping up with day-to-day maintenance becomes much harder, and I'm much more prone to get depressed and self-critical.

Up until fairly recently, driven in part by the idea that I had to do All The Things before I could take care of myself, I had gotten into the habit of repeatedly running myself into the ground. Like, daily. Not conducive to optimal functioning.

Another huge piece has been finally (somewhat) coming to terms with the fact that there's just too damn much to do. Leaving entirely aside the stuff I want to do. I'm convinced that maintaining a household is at least a two-person job. And this is entirely aside from all that stuff we ought to be doing: Exercise. Meditation. Cooking. Et freakin' cetera. For those of us living alone and too poor to pay for help, this is not great news.

I finally worked out that those glorious weekends when I magically get all my chores done are innevitably preceded by work-weeks during which I take one or more days off to just sleep. And on those weekend days when all I've wanted to do is sleep, I've been much more aggressive about, you know, spending the days sleeping.

I can't say that my house is much cleaner than it was before these insights. But at least I'm getting much less effed-up about it now.

Chickadee @277: Geez. Your mother sounds like a real piece of work. No wonder you struggle with GD tapes.

Yes, Mom would be having a hairy fit. You know what? It's okay.

Barbara Sher gave me something that helps here, too: When you're on your deathbed, what are you going to regret? Having a messy house that weekend? Or missing out on [fun thing.] I'm getting old enough and conscious enough of my screw-ups that I've got a much better grip on what I actually care about dropping the ball on. And I can tell you, it ain't the dishes.

If you didn't want to do it, it meant you were lazy (and therefore worthless and a horrible person)

It took me the longest time to work out that it's not laziness, it's exhaustion, and exhaustion is not a character defect!

Chickadee @277 Sometimes, deciding it's okay if I (frex) don't do all the dishes then gives me a boost of energy that results in me finishing them - providing I *honestly* am okay with not finishing them. Which I have proved to myself a few times by deliberately leaving some of the PIA items for the next load.

Yes, this. I can sometimes get myself moving for exercise, housecleaning, etc., by telling myself that I only have to do it for 5 minutes and then if I want, I can quit. Often getting over the "getting started" hump is enough and I'm happy to keep going. But when I'm not, I have to let myself stop, because otherwise I won't believe myself next time I try to make a bargain.

Also, Carolyn Hax's column in yesterday's Washington Post had a wonderful line in response to a woman who was having trouble with holiday preparations knowing that relatives would not be satisfied with anything she did. Hax suggested she stop trying to do everything perfectly, and said "Our culture sees quitting as a failure, when in fact it’s an art form — it’s what stands between us and futility, drudgery, recurring arguments and getting arrested for harassment. Please pour yourself something toasty and write your To-Quit List, topped by, “Quit seeing others’ expectations as your responsibility.”"

A brief essay on how the author stopped considering their 'laziness' morally relevant.

(Stopping in only briefly because I am going through a cycle of exhaustion -> flurry of activity -> exhaustion, and am currently in a low-energy phase. Still reading and witnessing.)

There's a drug for that!? Oh, dear....

Jacque #281: That's the same basic epiphany as Listening to Prozac -- basically, that what we think of as our "nature" can be startlingly, even weirdly, altered by a biochemical intervention.

the invisible one @245, Lee at @246,
the problem wasn't you, it's THEM

Through reading over this conversation, I'm realizing there's a step two I'm going through which is "even if (or when) you can tolerate more of that style of behavior later on, even if other people (appear to) do fine in that type of environment, it's still THEM."

For example, there are people who currently are at the location I got away from. At the same time that I understood that place to be dysfunctional -- "it's THEM" -- part of me was telling myself "if others are there, isn't something (still) wrong with me that I reacted when they didn't? They handle it, why couldn't I? CBT techniques help me now, why didn't I start earlier?" I'd slide, I still slide, into a "it's THEM, but isn't it also me?"

Of course, I have little insight into other people's internal reactions: they may or may not be handling it. But I also have to remind myself that I'm not noticing all the people who aren't there-- people who left, people who chose not to come in, everyone else in the world. I'm not alone in not being at that place, ruminations to the contrary. And I really have to remind myself that other people's skills in handling a dysfunctional anything is a positive for those people, but it doesn't cancel out the dysfunction.

I've got more tools and awareness and it's still them.

David@282: Which in turn reminds me of a radio news story I heard recently about London taxi drivers' training. They spend two years or so learning how to get around all the weird little streets and byways; this is called "the knowledge".

And the news story had an aside that brain scans had been done of people before and after acquiring "the knowledge", and the scans confirmed that it changes your brain. (Dunh-dun-DUN!)

Well, you know, the brain is where we do our thinking and store our memories. In the year 2015, why is it news that if you learn something, or have some memorable experience, this causes detectable changes? Mutter mutter closet dualists mutter.

Variations on a lime @283, when thinking about job satisfaction (not the same, but parallel in some respects) I think of it as a Venn diagram. You have situations that almost nobody is satisfied with. You have people that almost nothing can satisfy. But mostly you have a midrange where "fit" really matters.

So, the situation may be dysfunctional and push your buttons unbearably. Someone else in the same situation might do okay, because their buttons are located in other places or calibrated to a different sensitivity. But, as you recognize, that doesn't mean the situation is okay and you are flawed. The situation is not okay, and just because someone else can live with its not-okayness doesn't mean you "should" be able to.

hope in disguise @280 and Jacque @281

That particular drug really is amazing, mostly for hypersomnia in my case.

I'm still lazy, of course, but I no longer doze off while driving to work or call in sick to work because I can't make myself get out of bed. And it's not that I'm magically fixed and the drug is a placebo, either - on Saturdays when I don't take it, I get up at noon, take a nap at two, get up again at 10pm, go back to sleep at midnight.

It's amazing how much more productive I can be when I don't have a chorus of "....or you could just say fuck it and go back to bed..." on repeat in the background.

Lydy Nickerson posted something in the Jessica Jones spoiler thread that I thought might have some relevance here. I asked if she'd be willing to port it over here, and she said that she isn't currently participating in the DFD conversation, but she was fine with me copying it over. There are a couple of bits in it that probably count as spoilers for the show, but I don't believe they're major ones.

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

This will be a little long and discursive. I'm going to start out by saying that I absolutely believe in redemption. I'm a fan of it. I truly believe that even horrible people who have done horrible things can become better people. However, there is a very specific redemption narrative that really chaps my ass. I didn't realize how much I disliked it until I saw the third season of "Slings and Arrows" were they declined to follow the script, and it filled me with an absolutely unholy joy.

I think of it as the story of The Boy With All the Clues. The story arc is about some guy (almost always a guy, in fact) who is in a position of power and behaves badly. Throughout the narrative, he is provided multiple clues that he's being an asshole. Sometimes it's people sorrowfully telling him that he's behaving badly, sometimes it's a reversal of fortune where he has to experience crap, sometimes it's a sudden loss... whatever. Over and over again, the protagonist is given clue after clue after clue. Eventually, he has a sudden after-school-special moment, where he realizes that he's been an asshole, and then there are unicorns farting rainbows and bunny rabbits dancing in green grass, and all is right in the world. Possibly my very least favorite of this genre is "A Christmas Carol," but that's partly because I truly hate Dickens.

One of the really problematic aspects of these narratives is that the victims exist primarily as set pieces and props. Their pain is an object lesson, and their oppression merely a device for helping TBWATC learn better. The final clue is never a truly righteous anger by one of the abused. And, very often, the denouement includes forgiveness from the abused. One of the functions of these narratives is to get people to be patient with their abusers, to defuse their anger and despair by holding out hope that the bastard will learn better. The thing I loved about the ending of "Slings and Arrows" is that TBWATC did exactly what the powerful assholes in my life have always done, which is make a nod toward becoming a better person, but then slip right back to being an asshole the moment it becomes convenient for them.

In "Jessica Jones" there are a series of nods to this narrative. The videos that suggest an abused childhood, some of the ways in which Killgrave acts like he's really trying to change for Jessica, that horrific suggestion that she act as his moral compass and her briefly considering actually taking that devil's bargain. But the show firmly rejects this narrative, and embraces the fact that none of his victims owe him a second chance, and that their rage is utterly reasonable.

I especially appreciated the way the truly horrifying videos of the ten-year-old Killgrave being experimented upon were re-contextualized by the information that child-KIllgrave had a deadly disease and that these were medical procedures attempting to save his life. I don't think that they're evidence of abuse (as someone suggested). I would have to watch the videos again, carefully, but I don't recall anything that strikes me as abusive if seen as a medical procedure.

I used to work in Bone Marrow Transplant, and so I got to see the edges of parents making truly terrifying choices for their very young children. Bone marrow transplants are an extreme procedure, and it's actually very frightening to realize that the person capable of giving informed consent is not the person who will suffer the consequences of the decision. One of my nieces was born with several congenital heart defects. Her first open heart surgery was about fifteen minute after birth. By the time she was five, she'd had three open heart surgeries. On the way to the doctor, she would recognize the exit from the freeway to the hospital, and start screaming. She didn't stop screaming until she was in the car on the way home. My sister was calm and pragmatic about this behavior (bless her). And now, Willow is sixteen, active, healthy, smart, and a lovely lovely girl. Because her parents chose procedures that were extremely painful and utterly terrifying.

And there we have the thing I love most about JJ: consent is hard. Consent is complicated.

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

(emphases mine)

Does anybody else run into this? Abuse-by-proxy. Or maybe collateral abuse...I don't know what to call it.

A coworker has been fighting with our regulating agency on a professional development issue for at least a year that I know about, and the latest go-round is that she just received notice: "You have been certified to jump through Hoop X." Problem is, she successfully cleared Hoop X a year ago. From what I overheard, new requirements went in during the last year, and, instead of doing the intelligent thing and grandfathering her in, apparently they reset her status and she is effectively having to start over. Or at least is caught in Hoop Jumping Limbo Hell.

This person is normally almost Spock-like in her composure, but she was in absolute tears on the phone (in an open cube-farm—!), and just stormed off to the restroom, slamming the door behind her.

Meanwhile, I'm sitting here feeling kind of freaked out, with that "hold really still so they don't notice you" reflex running. Nobody's in any danger, but it's been a long time since I've felt that flee-or-freeze reflex I used to get when I'd listen to fights raging up and down the hallway outside my bedroom door in my parents' house.

And I feel volcanically angry on coworker's behalf. From everything she's said, and from what I've overheard, we've got a petty bureaucrat who, Ghu knows why, has decided she has it in for coworker. And/or is one of those people that takes their daily joy from rules-lawyering their clientele into an apoplectic mess.

I'd like to offer my bureaucracy-wrangling superpowers up to help, but I don't see a non-awkard/non-intrusive way to do that, so I'm just going to keep mum for the moment.

Anyway. Nobody's in danger, nothing I can do, but I just needed to blow off some second-hand steam. Thanks for listening.

"Ya want I should wash his car, boss? Ya want I should take him for a ride??" ::bites tongue:: ::bites tongue::

Jacque @288: Augh, that's terrible. I am so sorry for your coworker, and I sympathize greatly with your desire to help. Hearing people being badly treated when you cannot make it stop is never fun :( (also, hiding from the yelling: I know that feel)

one of those people that takes their daily joy from rules-lawyering their clientele into an apoplectic mess
The fact that there are people who do this makes me sad :( in the same way that internet trolls make me sad/angry, and for the same reasons, I suppose.

Jacque @288:
Meanwhile, I'm sitting here feeling kind of freaked out, with that "hold really still so they don't notice you" reflex running. [...] And I feel volcanically angry on coworker's behalf.

I have nothing useful to offer—no solutions—but it's a long-running observation that the feelings that we feel on behalf of others are often stronger and less quenchable than the ones we feel on our own behalf.

So the strength of your reaction is a natural thing. It doesn't mean you must intervene to solve the problem. What you do depends so much on circumstances, on your relationship with your co-worker, on things no one but you knows.

And yet you are upset and (by the sound of it) triggered. Witnessing, sympathizing, hoping it passes quickly and without lingering aftereffects.

abi: "Triggering"—!

Yes! Thank you. That's totally what's happening. Thank you. That helps a lot.

"Heeere, hindbrain. Nice hindbrain! Have a kitty picture. Good hindbrain."

Jacque #288: I'd like to offer my bureaucracy-wrangling superpowers up to help, but I don't see a non-awkard/non-intrusive way to do that, so I'm just going to keep mum for the moment.

This is something where it might be worth being a little awkward, to help someone. You can say something like "You know, with the open cubes, I couldn't help hearing how you were getting a nasty runaround from XYZ..." <pause to let her unload as needed, and/or check if she's shielding> " I'm pretty good at dealing with bureaucrats, maybe I could help you out some?".

Actually, I did exactly that a little while ago. The look I got assured me that she's not in a receptive mood. But I have now officially Done Everything I Can, so I can in good conscience file it under My Problem, and deal with it accordingly.

Jacque #294: Actually, I did exactly that a little while ago. ... But I have now officially Done Everything I Can.

Indeed. Possibly she'll come back later asking about it, but otherwise, yup you tried.

Christmas day off with pay: yay, paid day off, I'm going hiking!

Christmas decorations everywhere: pretty, can mostly enjoy the sparkles and sometimes ignore the religious aspect that comes with some of them.

Christmas music in every public place ever: meh, can mostly ignore it.

Christmas shopping ads: annoying, but I'm used to ignoring ads so I can mostly ignore those too.

Christmas posts wishing everybody a happy holiday: meh, glad they're happy, mostly ignore, reply with something generically cheerful if one is specifically directed at me.

Christmas posts bemoaning the "war on christmas" ~or~ christmas posts going on about how we should celebrate the winter holiday we want to celebrate and not think there's a "war on christmas" while carefully being polite to christianity and on a topic that is absolutely centred around christmas but politely reminding christianity that other traditions exist and have winter celebrations too ~or~ "it's CHRISTmas, not Xmas" ~or~ anything related to that whole mess of christianity thinking it's being attacked because it doesn't have 100% public dominance and has to actually recognize that there are other traditions out there and playing the victim even though it's been the one to forcibly convert people to its traditions: RAGE.

I don't know what's different this year. Maybe it's seeing the aggressor playing the victim combined with all the accumulated stuff I've been learning the past few years about toxic relationships, but I seem to be on a hair trigger this year.

Seriously, christianity: do your own thing and enjoy it however you enjoy it. Just don't pretend that you're not still a dominant force in north american everything.

And most of all: Leave. Me. Alone.

the invisible one @296: My apologies on behalf of people like my parents. :(

the invisible one, #296: all the accumulated stuff I've been learning the past few years about toxic relationships

That's key, I think. Because a lot of this is "once you see it, you can't un-see it" stuff, and an awful lot of right-wing politics (and don't think for one minute that the "war on Christmas" crap isn't political at root) is built on toxic-relationship models. In particular, a lot of it is built on the "authoritarian family" model, which has the toxicity baked in from top to bottom.

IME, you never go back to how you were before you started seeing it, but (1) how much it affects you depends a lot on how you are otherwise physically and emotionally, and (2) you do start developing coping tactics and the ability to recognize when you need to deploy them.

Witnessing, and sympathies.

That space between learning to see something and learning to cope with that something is not a fun space to be in.

I can't say I regret all the things I've learned, but I do wish the coping strategies came along quicker, or better: solutions. But so many people don't or refuse to see the problem (as I didn't until relatively recently!) which makes a solution that much harder. And I keep having to sit on my hands on fb to try to explain stuff to people who come across as simply not knowing because in doing that explanation I would be revealing far more about myself than I'm comfortable with doing on fb where both strangers and my parents can see it linked to my actual name. (I have to admit I'm boggled by how many people post horrible stuff with their name attached. I got to expecting that kind of behaviour on the internet where pseudonyms were used, before fb became a huge thing, but I guess the horrible is not about the anonymity the way everybody said it was.)

Maybe I need to be off fb for a while. Maybe the duration of the holidays. It's my main method of seeing what the people I know are up to but it's also a source of unhappiness sometimes, when I get all that bs thrown into my news feed by people I thought were decent.

the invisible one: My solution: do my own thing, and share it with those who are likely to find it amusing.

the invisible one, #299: Not suggestions exactly, but I think there are options on FB that you don't appear to be aware of. If you know about these things, feel free to ignore.

1) You can change the default setting for your FB account to "friends only". That way, only people you have specifically friended can see what you post. Caveats: it will not change the visibility of anything you posted previously, and it won't prevent random people from seeing the comments you post elsewhere (which I suspect is the main issue here).

2) You can change the visibility of a specific post to be something other than your account default. Caveat: be sure you change it back when you post again! FB tends to make your posting selection "sticky", which is not so bad if you're tightening the security for a post, but not good if you're loosening it.

3) You can have posting filters on FB. If you want to post something that will be visible to one group of friends but not a different one (frex, something you want your family but not your co-workers to see), you can create a filter and change the visibility of your post to that filter only. See Point 2 for caveats.

4) If you want to post things which would make you uncomfortable under your own name, you can create a secondary account using a different e-mail address. Just make sure the name looks plausible* and don't attach any pictures to it.

* By plausible, I mostly mean something that looks sufficiently northern-European-descent-privileged. FB's "real names only" policy has a lot of holes in it; I've got Miles Vorkosigan on my friendslist, for ghodsake.

Internal Server Error *thump*

I've had the "friends only" filter on for years, which I set in the time between breaking up with and fb blocking Crappy Ex. (Prior to that I'd had it on "friends of friends" but he and I had waaaay too many mutual friends.)

The thing with not explaining because of what it reveals is not on anything I post (I wouldn't post anything like that anyway, my own posts are rare and probably 90%+ hike and event photos) but on replies to things other people post, which may or may not be set to public but either way whose visibility I don't control. I was reminded that my mom sees my comments on other people's public posts when she asked me who [male name] was, probably hoping that I had a boyfriend or something, because I commented on some of his fb posts. (Also, fb should rename "close friends" to "stalker mode" because it shows you everything your "close friend" does that hasn't been set friends only such that you can't see it at all by their friend who isn't connected to you at all, and gives the person being followed no option to hide some activity, only to not post at all or outright block. After that comment from mom I started checking the security settings on my friends' posts before commenting.)

The whole thing with secondary accounts... in order to have anybody to talk to on it, I'd need to add friends, and there would be a certain amount of revealing my identity involved in that. Also, I have enough internet pseudonyms, I don't need to add another one. (Enough for me = 3 pseuds, plus my real name for fb.)

Jacque @300, I have absolutely no idea what any of that says, but it's lovely.

All: I wish everyone here all the spoons they need to cope with the stress of the holidays. And joy, wherever possible.

Cassy B.: but it's lovely.

Thank you!

I have absolutely no idea what any of that says

You understood it perfectly! :-)

Well. That was an interesting experience.

Walking up Willow to Broadway to get from my unfucking gig to my dog-walking gig, and an older lady in a minivan pulls up to ask directions. She wants to go to Davis Square OR Porter Square. And she's got limited English; from the accent, Russian or a related language.

I try to explain that Davis is back-that-way, & give her simple directions. Not so good...she doesn't seem to be retaining them. Says something about nervous, and her husband being drunk, & also that she needs to get gas. I try to tell her that for a gas station, she should go to the traffic light & turn right on Broadway. Still very confused, and hunting through her pocketbook because she thinks she left her money in her other bag.

I say, how about I get in and show you where the gas station is? And if you need a few bucks for gas, I can give you some. Because really, I doubt an old lady is going to kidnap and murder me, and the ride will get me closer to where I'm going, and am I really gonna leave her all run out of gas on a rainy December night? No I am not.

She's still asking about Davis or Porter, and I explain no, gas station first, because I don't want her to run empty. She says she'll put me where I need to go, and I say that's okay, at the gas station I'll be almost there. I tell her I'd guide her back to Davis except I have a dog to walk. She says I look like her granddaughter - I think she said it was because of my Red Sox cap, but I'm not sure. She says she's been married fifty years, five-oh, and she's never seen her husband like that. I'm probably more like her daughter's age, in that case, but I don't say it. She's also driving the almost certainly automatic transmission minivan as if it's a stick. Well, we don't stall, so what's it to me?

She doesn't pull into the first gas station on the right. Which makes me a little nervous. I tell her put on your blinker, go into the Gulf station. I have to repeat that I'll give her five bucks for gas, because she's going on about her other pocketbook and she doesn't know if she has the money, and I swear she would have kept on driving until the car stopped flat. It was chiming the low fuel warning. She thanks me profusely and pulls a large Mass card out of her bag and says Mary's going to take good care of me. I say we can all use a little help sometimes.

So we annoy a lot of traffic getting into the Gulf station, with her going on about how she's nervous, I guess because of the dark and the rain, which I can sympathize with.

I get her sorted out with what side the gas tank is on. I've got an indeterminate number of ones and a ten in my wallet, so I give her the ten. She expresses her gratitude again.

The station is full serve, so there's an attendant. I tell her he'll get her sorted out with directions. Which, I've probably just given him a headache for the night, but odds are he'll manage /something/. I hop out of the car and wish her a good night.

I hope she makes it where she's going. Ten bucks' worth of gas ought to give her some leeway for wrong turns. Maybe the gas station guy will have let her call her sister - that's who she said she was going to, because of the drunk husband. I hope she's ok.

I'm counting it as a pay-it-forward moment, though not quite as effective as I'd have liked it to be.

Anyway, her car didn't run out of gas.

Whoops. Meant to post in OT. Guess it's vaguely on topic as she was having a dysfunctional family incident?

May everyone here have a Christmas as safe and non-stressful as possible.

What Lee said. May you find new light and hope as the year turns: a path forward, a better accommodation, new strength. If you have to go back to the difficult places with the difficult people, may they be tolerable; if you're avoiding them, may you find a good place to be.

Whatever happens, this community is wonderful, and I'm grateful to you all for being here.

What Cassy B. said @304 and what Lee said @308.

And thank you abi for continuing to curate this community.

A song came up in my playlist while driving home from a christmas visit with my parents:

It's been a long December
but there's reason to believe
maybe this year will be better than the last

...I sure hope so.

Wishing everybody a new year that's better than the last.

Hey, all. I'm coming out of lurkerdom to ask for some advice.

In March of 2013, my husband and I invited my sister to move in with us to get back on her feet, because she had lost her job and apartment. She agreed at the time that she would stop smoking (I'm allergic) and help with the housework, and we agreed that we would drive her around and help her get a job. When she got a job several months after moving in, we agreed that she would pay a set percentage (less than half) of the rent, and to compensate for the reduced rent she would take on a larger share of the chores.

We're now at 2016, and she has not quit smoking; in fact, despite the fact that the lease for our house specifies that it's a non-smoking property, she smokes on the front patio and leaves her cigarette butts lying around. She has not, in two and three-quarter years, done even a moderate share of the chores (and certainly not the amount agreed upon); when I try to schedule her to do chores, or remind her to do her share, she responds in one of three ways: "I am/was gonna do it," "I'm not doing it because you've done something to piss me off and I expected you to read my mind to figure it out," or throws a temper tantrum worthy of a toddler. She still expects me to loan her money and ferry her around and do errands for her--and on top of that, she expects me to be *happy* about it. And, oh, there's one other small thing. She smokes pot.

To clarify, I don't have a particular problem with using weed in general; I'm happy to see it being legalized in various U.S. states. But I live in a Southern state where drug use is highly frowned upon, and I don't want to lose my lease or get busted by the cops. Plus, she smokes really cheap weed and it stinks like the death throes of a thousand white-hot skunks, and I don't want the smell around.

I told her when she moved in and first found a dealer that she needed to keep it away from the house. Less than three months later, I found out she was holding on the premises; I told her in no uncertain terms that no drugs on the property meant no drugs on the property, goddamnit. Needless to say, she hasn't stopped, and she outright lies to me when I call her on it (which I have done every time I become aware of it--we found some of her stash today, which means the whole game is about to start up again). I know part of the problem is that I have no functional authority to enforce the house rules; it's either stern words that she feels free to ignore, or kicking her out.

Why haven't I kicked her worthless ass out already, I hear you cry? Because, you see, she has a daughter, who turned 5 last year, and just started kindergarten. And kicking her out would mean kicking my niece, who is a wonderful child, out as well. And I don't want to hurt my niece, or see her suffer needlessly. At the same time, I'm completely fed up with the situation. And husband and I have things we want to accomplish in 2016 that are going to be more difficult if the status remains quo; we don't need the extra work or the extra stress that dealing with her entails.

At this point, I can only see two possibilities that I would be willing to accept: she stays on, but she pays a full half the rent and utilities, and she agrees in writing that if she gets caught with pot again, she has 72 hours to find a new place to live, and I am no longer obligated to give her anything more than basic board. The other possibility is that I tell her that her lease is up in 90 days and there's no negotiation. And in either case, she'll throw a huge screaming fit.

What I need advice on: are either of these a good idea, and if not, can you see a better one? I'll be honest, I'm in complete "bitch eating crackers" mode as far as she's concerned, and I'm afraid I'm too enmeshed in the situation to approach it rationally. And I don't want to hurt my niece because my sister's a lazy junkie parasite. But, you know, I never signed up to be a pseudo-mother to a spoiled wanna-be teen and a five-year-old, either, and my biggest responsibility is to myself and my equally-long-suffering husband.

Jennifer Baughman, I can't offer anything but sympathies, and you have those if you want them.

If I were in your shoes, I'd choose the 90 day option. That being said, I offer the following for your consideration:

You really want to help the niece? Report Mom to CPS and the police -- and if you're willing, tell CPS that you'll take custody of the child.

I'm sure you realize that you're enabling your sister's activities, but only she can make the choice to change -- which means letting her face the consequences of her actions. If that means she crashes and burns, then you've got to let that happen.

You have my sympathy, and I know what I'm telling you is hard to hear. I had to coach a friend with an alcoholic employee through the steps to take to get him fired, which was difficult because the employee was also her friend.

Jennifer Baughman: Sympathies, and witnessing.

For what it's worth, I'd go with the 90 day option. There is 0 chance that she will change, so the 72 hour notice will just put you in a difficult place later. Also, I think that you are fully justified (even given the presence of the niece) in taking either option, given that your sister has used up not second or third chances but all of the goodwill and patience of a saint.

Also, I agree with Lori Coulson @314 about reporting to CPS. It'll be hard and messy, but it's the only thing that *might* induce your sister to change.

Many, many sympathies.

Oh, man, that is a tough and frustrating situation. My first thought was Lori's, which is another tough and potentially frustrating situation but at least means getting her out of your house. I wish you strength.

Thank you, everyone, for the well-wishes and advice.

Lori, Chickadee, I've investigated calling CPS, but in the state I'm in, as long as the child isn't being actively abused or neglected, the report will go absolutely nowhere--the system is already overwhelmed and underfunded, and the agency is actively cutting back to investigate high-risk cases only. My niece isn't being neglected or abused, so CPS isn't a viable option.

Jennifer Baughman, my sympathies too. I would not be ready to face this, if it happened to me, because there's *reasons* I'm not having kids, most of which still apply to adopting.

The answer for just the sister is obvious -- 90 days notice. The answer once factoring in the niece? I don't know. If the niece were old enough, I'd say 90 days notice combined with letting the niece know that she can always stay with you when mom has gone off the rails. But for a young kid, that's not good enough -- either your sister would have to go along with it reliably, or you'd have to become the official guardian, I would think.

Sorry about the CPS situation... Any chance that your sister would willingly make you guardian for your niece?*

(I know, snowball's chance in hell, right?)

Even if CPS will do nothing, you might want to go ahead and report just to get the situation on the record. Oh, and a parent engaging in addictive behavior IS considered abuse in some states: Exposure of Child to Illegal Substances

*That is assuming you'd want to do so, which isn't always a given.

The situation as regards my niece--we both love her, very much, she's a sweet kid, but we're childless by choice, and just having her around 24/7 does cause us stress. That said, we could handle *that* if it weren't for everything else my sister's doing.

We've told my sister that whatever happens, my niece always has a place with us; however, there's no way she will give up custody of her daughter while she has breath. She's not a perfect parent, but she genuinely loves my niece, and vice versa.

Unfortunately, I think I have to take the viewpoint that my niece *is* ultimately my sister's responsibility, and it's not *my* fault that my sister won't follow the house rules and won't live up to her agreements, and therefore any disruption to my niece's life is entirely on her shoulders. But my sister won't see it that way, naturally, and she *will* try to use my niece against us. Including telling my niece that we don't love her anymore.

Ok, I think the 90 day is your best bet, and I *do* understand about wanting to be childless. I know I wouldn't be a good parent.

Whatever you decide to do, you have my sympathy and my support.

Jennifer Baughman: I have no useful advice to give, but wanted to offer sympathy for your tough situation.

Jennifer, #320: she *will* try to use my niece against us. Including telling my niece that we don't love her anymore.

Now, there I think you have a chance of getting inside the decision curve. If you haven't already been saying things fungible with this, talk to your niece now and make sure she knows that you and your husband love her and always will. That may not provide complete immunization against your sister's lies, but it will help. It's unfortunate that she's just a bit too young to understand some of the nuances of the situation, such as "this was never intended to be a permanent arrangement" and "your mother is endangering herself, you, and us by her drug use", but you go with what you've got.

Lee: Fortunately, we are well ahead of the curve on that. Sister has tried to pull that game before; she's deliberately misinterpreted "go away" to "leave forever", and her tactic there is to stomp into her room to "throw things into a bag" and tell my niece that "Uncle and Auntie don't want you to live here anymore." At which point, she comes to us crying, and we spend time trying to comfort her and tell her that Mommie's wrong, we love her, and nothing about this is her fault. As best as we can tell, she believes us; it certainly hasn't seemed to dim her love for us.

Jennifer Baughman: As it happens, I have been through a variant of this game (though not with a kid in the mix).

Were I in your place, (I'm assuming you want her out) here's what I would do (with the details tuned to your preferences):

First, research your locality's rental laws. If you have accepted rent from her, these may come into play. I know that in Boulder, if you've accepted rent, you have to give a minimum of 30 days notice before evicting someone.

Second, tell niece what you're going to do ahead of time. Tell her you love her and she can stay with you as long as she likes. Alert her that Sister may react badly in one of several known ways, or may come up with a new way to react badly.

Third: announce to Sister that as of today, she has 30 days notice. If she gets caught with pot again, she gets 72 hours notice. (Threaten involvement of law enforcement, if necessary.) If she wants to negotiate to stay longer than that (and you're willing to let her), you'll agree to 90 days as long as:

• she pays half the rent, on time and in full,
• she consistently does her share of the chores (which you detail in writing),
• she leaves the premises entirely to smoke, and
• cleans up after herself including proper disposal of the butts, and
• pot is not brought onto the premises at all.
• Breaking any of these rules gets her the 72 hour notice to vacate (modulo rental law details).

Present all of this in writing, make her initial each clause. Remind her, if she gives you any lip, that she's perfectly free to find another place to live.

My prediction, based on my experience, is that she will not agree, but at least the situation then becomes explicit. My instinct is that starting with the 90 days notice supplies enough wiggle room that she'll think she can find a way around you.

What's going to be especially hard about this (whether you go with a 90 day window or a shorter one) is enforcement.

Bring in some Outside Authority. If you have a family counselor you trust, or a large, imposing friend, or an extended family member, ask them to be present for The Talk, tell them ahead of time what you want to have happen, and have them there as Stern Authority. They don't have to do anything except sit there and Be Stern. And also back you up if (when) there's conflict.

If she negotiates and signs on for the 90 day window, staying longer takes another explicit negotiation. Otherwise, it will be assumed that she moves out.

A huge piece is to have it very clear in your mind what you want to have happen, as well as what you're willing to work with.

Good luck, and may the Force be with you.

Jacque:

Thank you. This is pretty much perfect; Husband and I have been going over the options, and we think this (modified to our specifics) is the best option; it's a nice combination of the carrot and the hammer. You are absolutely right about her finding ways to exploit any little bit of slack she's given; I'm writing up the lease right now, and for every clause I'm having to lay out what is and is not acceptable, and the consequences of breaking them. I'd say it's like dealing with a five-year-old, but the five-year-old in this situation is much easier to deal with. :P

We're very clear on what we want, and what we can live with:

Best option (also, the not-gonna-happen-anytime-soon option): Sister moves out, is fully independent and stable.

We can live with: Sister stays, abides by the new lease, and otherwise stays the hell out of our way. Not ideal, but acceptable; it's easier to live with a five-year-old than a toddler, and this way she keeps a stable home.

We can also live with: Sister moves out in a huff, or does her usual promise/lie and gets busted, and gets kicked out. In this case, we probably will contact CPS and notify them that her drug use has forced her daughter out of a stable home situation, and see where it goes from there. We've agreed that if something did happen to Sister, we would take over guardianship of Niece; no, we don't want to do the parent thing, but for Niece, we will if necessary. We're certainly not letting her go to my parents, and her father isn't on the birth certificate, and has never been in her life.

What we can't live with is the status quo.

Everyone:

Thank you so much for the outside perspective! It's good to hear that, no, I'm not overreacting, and it really is a problem. I freely admit that I let things slide for too long, but at the time I had limited spoons (recovering from untreated sleep apnea), and chose to spend those spoons on recovering my physical health. The good news is, my health is significantly improved, and still improving; I'm mostly properly medicated, and once we get the situation with Sister straightened out, I have cautious hopes for 2016.

Much of my emotional and mental recovery is due to the insights that you guys have brought to the DFD boards; I haven't been posting actively, but I have been reading, witnessing, and taking ideas away that have allowed me to reframe the way I view and approach situations. Still a work in progress, but there is progress. Thank you all for being here!

Jennifer Baughman: *snerk* I wonder how my Ex-Roommate From Hell would feel about providing benefits to unknown strangers by way of being a Cautionary Tale. :-)

I freely admit that I let things slide for too long

You know, after I finally pried ERFH loose from my household (a good six months past my target date), I pondered how I felt about the experience. The conclusion I came to was that my main error was in being Too Generous.

You know, as "character failings" go, that's one I can happily live with.

Oh yeah, and: when you present Sister with [30 days, or whatever you choose] notice, I'm presuming that's the time at which you offer her the 90 days detailed lease option.

When you present her with that lease option, give her a hard deadline for making a decision and signing. If she lets the decision go past that deadline, she has, by definition, given you notice she's moving out on or before day [30]. No take-backs. (Make that explicit, too.)

I could very easily see her dawdling around for 28 days, leaving you with the impression she's moving out, and then on day 29, saying, "Oh yeah, that lease you offered? I accept." (This is essentially what happened to me for five of those six months I refer to above.) This is abuser boundary testing 101; don't give her the opportunity to do that to you.

Jacque:

I, also, can live with excessive generosity as a character flaw. My biggest problem is that I was trained by an abusive family to be the people-pleaser and caregiver, and I have to constantly make sure that I'm not taking care of everyone else to my own detriment. :P

Oh yeah, and: when you present Sister with [30 days, or whatever you choose] notice, I'm presuming that's the time at which you offer her the 90 days detailed lease option.

We're going to have a little get-together around the kitchen table Monday evening (earliest our best friend could get free for this). She is going to make a decision then and there: either leave that conversation with the written 60-day lease termination notice (which is what my state requires for a verbal month-to-month lease), or the signed and witnessed 90-day lease (which I will explicitly be calling a probationary period). If she leaves the table without either (say, storms off in a temper), I will hand-deliver the lease termination notice to her bedroom and she gets no further chances.

Sister is a boundary-pusher, and a rule-breaker, and proud of it; she's boasted of it to me, more than once, so I'm setting up as many protections against that as I can. I don't intend to let her Vader her way out of the situation--as a matter of fact, there's a specific clause in the lease that says the agreement can't be changed without the signature of all parties involved, including the witness. So no, she does not get to change the deal while I pray she doesn't alter it further. :)

I can't predict which way she'll jump; if it were just her, I know she'd just take the 60 days. I've overheard her talking to our parents about how horrible it is living with us, how she's so unhappy and miserable and we're so mean to her. *insert eyes rolled out of head onto the desk* She may choose the probationary period, for Niece's sake.

Jennifer Baughman @ 330, you seem to have this as well-planned as possible. Even so, I'm sure Monday will be a difficult day. I wish you luck and lots of spoons.

Jennifer Baughman @330: there's a specific clause in the lease that says the agreement can't be changed without the signature of all parties involved

Ah! Very good! I missed this point; I took this as implicit, which just shows my vulnerability, as well as my (erroneous) presumption that people will just automatically play by the Social Contract.

I've actually had people (neighbors, in that case) try to verbally weasel around the conditions laid down in a written contract, so good for you for catching that one.

I echo Cassy B.'s good wishes for you. I will be fascinated (o.O) to hear how this shakes out. Wouldn't surprise me in the least if she comes up with a wrinkle none of us have thought of, but I think you're as well-prepared as possible.

Jennifer Baughman, pre-planning should help a lot. It did for us, anyway. In addition, I suggest you be a broken record made of solid steel: enforce the terms and consequences you set out, and don't give an inch. Keep setting out the "obvious" things in writing where it's provable that she KNEW they were conditions. The document should also cover provision of food and other household supplies, and cooking arrangements. Whatever the arrangement is, make it explicit. I found this out the hard way...twice.

A couple years ago, when Dragon was still living with my partner and I, there were money problems. Dragon thought she had money in the household bank, because she had paid one month in advance. She didn't account for having racked up and refused to pay bills under my name. Prep work and some sneakiness cut my losses by an order of magnitude.

When the Money Talk happened, I pulled out the spreadsheets and explained in detail, showing the figures and the calculations. Dragon wasn't able to effectively dispute the results because of that. Instead she tried being angry that we had "let" her "overspend" and that her "extra" money wasn't available. We were sad at her about how we had ALL overspent, but showed how we had been paying in extra all along, which had cut down the interest charges for her too. Partner and I were immovable on how money would be handled for Dragon's remaining tenancy: food was now completely separate. Rent and utilities would be paid immediately and evenly. Dragon was trying to pretend to be fair and decent, which handicapped her ability to manipulate, since the proof was right there in the spreadsheet that she wasn't trustworthy.

It got worse, though, from Dragon's perspective. We insisted on getting the settlement IN WRITING. Was she EVER steamed. She had already tried to convince us that we should trust her to pay, and that she would never stiff us the way Previous Bad Roommate had done. (Ironically, PBR had been less expensive, AND had not overextended us financially the way Dragon did. PBR merely failed to pay her share of expenses we could cover without her. Then PBR's overall finances imploded when she fled, so she was just financially incompetent, not a con artist or abuser.) Dragon rehashed this as she fought having a written settlement for a good half-hour, maybe more. She pulled out further manipulations. Dragon went on and on about how we were insulting her honour by even suggesting that she wouldn't pay. We hadn't actually *said* that for the whole conversation despite it being right there in the numbers that she had NOT paid. It was Dragon who equated documentation to insult. We just kept insisting that we needed it in writing and signed, and that in her place, not only would we be happy to sign an equivalent document, but that OUR honour would require US to do so, to protect HER. (Mostly true. If a friend loaned me serious money, I'd readily sign an IOU and if not asked, would ask if they wanted one.) Eventually she signed, but only after *many* rounds of posturing and manipulating, where we did not give an inch.

I had actually paid Dragon's bill share with the "extra" money once I finished doing the books, before the talk. I don't think she found out -- that would have caused extra breast-beating, or brow-beating, or both. We soon found that she had been half (or even two-thirds?) of the grocery bill. Dragon HAD to have been counting on us covering her financially, since she barely left the house, and lived on rice and beans for the next 2 months, instead of bacon and steak and frequent restaurant nights as had been her custom.

The second time? Much of our case against the Idiot Evil Landlord hinges on his spy being a roommate not a tenant, and his actions therefore being harassment. This is provable largely because after Dragon, we were paranoid and insisted on making a roommate agreement with the spy. If the local authorities award us anything, it will be because of that. When we take his forgery to the police, it will be even more important.

Cassy B., Jacque, thank you for the wishes of luck and spoons; they are most gratefully received. If I'm well-prepared, it's in large part thanks to everyone here, and that's a huge burden off my shoulders.

Every time Sister pisses us off, Husband and I remind each other and ourselves that "We have a plan. It's a good plan. We're okay." And it helps.

Bodhisvaha: Thank you! As it so happens, I remembered the problems you had with Dragon, and went back and reviewed some of your posts for inspiration and ideas.

Right now, Sister isn't contributing to the household groceries, but she does buy some food (snacks, some lunches, and breakfasts) for Niece, and we're ok with otherwise feeding them. Cooking is set out in the chore schedule, and is Husband's responsibility. (Sister has unfortunate delusions of being a good cook. She ruined a 20-pound turkey this past Thanksgiving because "she just wanted the stuffing and chicken juices for the gravy.")

I expect she'll be enraged at having to sign something; in this case, however, I have absolutely no compunctions about telling her that, based on her past behavior, we don't trust her. She has spent three years demonstrating that she is untrustworthy.

Also fortunate: she doesn't actually owe us any money that we're willing to make an issue of. Missed rent payments from years past, but there's no point in digging those up, really; she can't/won't pay, and it would just be for the sake of schadenfreude. (Which I am trying to minimize.) This isn't about punishment, however much I really want to punish her for all the misery she's dished out. This is about consequences, not comeuppances; this is about enforcing boundaries and responsibilities. (Whether she sees it that way or not.)

So how is the situation with Idiot Evil Landlord going? Are you at least out of that house?

Jennifer -- once you have a signed agreement, take it and photocopy it, and POST IT at significant locations in the premises, like the refrigerator door, bathroom door, etc.

That way, if she tries to ambush you on changing something, you'll have the agreement right there to support your claim.

(You'd never guess I've worked for the government, right?)

Following on Lori: keep the original copy with the original signatures in a secure location, preferably off-site.* Do not let Sister know where this location is. (I, too, work for the government, but this is just basic good data hygiene.)

* If you lived in Colorado, I would suggest actually recording the document with your county clerk and recorder. That way it becomes a matter of public record, and is accessible to anybody who knows your names.

But that might be a little too far into schadenfreude for your taste. :-)

Jennifer, a couple more suggestions:

1. Start with the 90-day agreement. Say, "we want you to sign this, agreeing that you'll be out in 90 days, which is [point to date], and in the meantime you'll abide by these terms."

(she whines, pleads, cries - let her have her say without responding, and when she refuses to sign it pull out the next)

2. "If you don't sign this, then (produce eviction notice) we hereby give you notice that you must be out in 60 days".

3. Do not say anything more. Do not engage in conversation (or you'll be arguing all night). Let her run down and then repeat ONLY either of the statements. This is going to be hard to do; you and your husband can help each other through this.

Not letting her steer the conversation is an amazing gambit. I'm sorry to say I've had it used on me (though not for some years, yay personal growth), and must report that it works.

"But what about niece?" blah blah blah
"We'd prefer that you sign this agreement that gives you 90 days. If you don't, you have to be out in 60."

When she agrees to the longer one, read through it with her before you all sign and date it.

This seems intriguingly pertinent. I know that my ERFH managed to repeatedly slide past my resolve without my really being able to pin down what happened.

Lori and Jacque:

There will be four original signed copies, one for me, one for Husband, one for Sister, and one for our friend who will be the witness. My copy will be stored at work in a locked file cabinet; Husband's copy will be stored at home, since his office is rabidly no-paper; Friend's copy will be stored at his home, and Sister will do what she wants with her copy. I work with data; I believe in redundancy, you betcha.

Something just occurred to me. Sister hates ultimatums; she's told me several times that she won't tolerate them, yadda yadda. And I just realized--of course she hates ultimatums; she can't weasel her way around or out of them. She can't derail, or try to justify her actions, or try to blame others for imagined slights. Her story seems to be "Everyone's out to get her."

The saddest thing about this whole situation is that this is probably the death knell for any sort of positive relationship between us. Or maybe it's been dead for awhile and this is just burying the corpse. It's a weird feeling; mostly, I just regret that I have to go to these lengths. I don't think I really care about her anymore.

Jennifer Baughman @339:

maybe it's been dead for awhile and this is just burying the corpse

I don't think I really care about her anymore.

The second sentence answers the first. Your narrative is not the biography of a positive relationship; it's the story of a relationship that looks positive as long as no one communicates on any but the most superficial level.

If your sister wants a positive relationship in the future, it sounds to me like a minimal requirement is that you both be entirely financially independent of one another and living in separate households. Once you're not forced into irritating and irritated proximity, maybe you will discover something worthwhile that you have in common and build a new relationship. Or maybe not.

But it's clear that this particular one is dead. Time for the burial. I'm sorry.

abi: Thank you for the sympathy and clarity. It was never a very good relationship; we had an abusive childhood and she responded by bullying me; I cut off contact for the better part of 15 years. She contacted me when my niece was born; we were cautiously building somewhat of a relationship, but it was all long-distance. Living with her, it’s become clear to me that if she weren’t my sister, she wouldn’t be the kind of person I would have as a friend. I think I’m sad for what never was. I don’t think, even once she’s out on her own, that there’s anything left to salvage.

Jennifer Baughman @339: Sister hates ultimatums

The irony here is that you are not issuing an ultimatum (though I have no doubt the distinction will be lost on Sister). Ultimatums (the pedant in me keeps wanting to say "ultimata.") come in the form of "Do X or else." Sister would be loathe to admit it, but the "or else" (move out and get her own living arrangements) option has always been there. And all along you've been very generous regarding the "do X." E.g., you've requested certain rules, she's gleefully ignored them.

What you are doing is stating boundaries and conditions. The terms under which she's stayed so far have always been in place; she has simply ignored them. You're done ignoring them, because they materially affect your quality of life.* E.g., the "request" aspect of the above terms is now gone.

What you are doing now is offering her options. They are non-negotiable:

• Option 1: she moves out now. (This option has always been open to her.)**
• Option 2: she takes the sixty days notice.***
• Option 3: she takes the ninety day lease.

She gets to choose which course she will take. But this is not a negotiation, and any conduct on her part that indicates she thinks it is betrays a misunderstanding of the facts. It's your house, full stop. If she give you any lip about what you allowed/tolerated in the past, that was in the past. We're talking about now, and going forward.

(It occurs to me: if you haven't already, you might have Friend read through the discussion on this thread, so he is fully up to speed on your plan/things to watch out for.)

Since it's your house, it's your rules, and always has been. What she's experiencing now is simply the result of her failure to acknowledge that fact and the consequences of her own actions. (I'm sure she would be far less reasonable if the tables were turned and you were breaking the rules of her household, but we don't bring that up. :-\)

she can't weasel her way around or out of them. She can't derail, or try to justify her actions, or try to blame others

For Monday night, probably a good idea up front to clarify that this is not a discussion: this is a meeting where you inform her what her options are. If, in particular, she tries to derail, be monomaniacal about bringing the conversation back on topic. "This is what we've decided. These are your options. Choose one now. Failure to choose invokes Option 2." Repeat as necessary. If she starts to argue, this is where Friend quietly Inflates And Looks Scary, and you do your broken record impression.

* I don't think I really care about her anymore.
Her conduct suggests strongly that she doesn't care about you—and hasn't for some time, except as a resource to be exploited. I think this reaction is completely reasonable and intelligent on your part. This does not, sadly, make it any less regrettable.

** At the start of your conversation, state that, if she storms out in a huff at any point during the discussion, you will interpret this as her giving her notice to vacate immediately (within 72 hours), and no take-backs. (You don't have to say this would be your preferred outcome; you can just let the implication hang in the air.)

*** Actually, this is where things have the possibility of really going sideways: if your state requires sixty-days notice, that means in practial terms that she can continue behaving badly, which means you've got two more months to deal with her nonsense. Might be time to research some operant-conditioning approaches to, ahem, "encourage" her to at least minimally comply with the rules. Ideas that come to mind: deploy a squirt-gun to use on her cigarettes when she lights up on the premises. If she leaves cigarette butts around on your property, collect them and dump them on her pillow. Threaten CPS/law enforcement involvement if you detect marijuana on the premises at any time. And so on. These may be too passive-aggressive for you, but you get the idea.

If you do decide to go this route, warn her (in writing?) ahead of time, so she doesn't get to cry "abuse!" when the consequences happen. Oh, she will, anyway, but you can say "we warned you." And she might take heed and behave, at least somewhat less badly.

Jennifer Baughman @341: I think I’m sad for what never was.

This is a feeling I'm familiar with. It took me a long long time to figure out that my brother had some fantasy of our relationship in his head based on how we played together when I was a baby, but interacting with me as I am now, he just...lost interest. Which is better than what you're dealing with, but it took me a long time to figure this out and quit trying to have an adult relationship with him.

I don’t think, even once she’s out on her own, that there’s anything left to salvage.

It occurs to me that you might (in age appropriate terms) talk about this with your niece, and explicitly let her know (give her some tangible token, like a note, or an inscribed toy, or something) that you are still more than open for a relationship with her, and that you specifically invite her to keep contact with you (though this may be problematic as, of necessity, it will be going through your Sister, at least to some extent). Sister will be at great pains to sell the story, "It was all Jennifer fault!" and cast you in the role of villain. This will give niece concrete evidence to the contrary. She may not be equipped at her age, to take this information in, but it seems the least you can do to give her a wider perspective than Sister's.

Jennifer: Best of luck and many spoons for tomorrow. I hope it all goes as well as possible.

Jennifer Baughman @334: Important note that is probably completely different in your jurisdiction: pay attention to the *exemptions* from tenant law. Over here, sharing a kitchen or bathroom with your landlord puts you outside of tenant law, into occupancy, which is fuzzy and mostly lawless. To the point that a landlord can have an occupant suddenly removed by the police for trespassing. If your jurisdiction has similar exemptions, this is a useful Big Stick to have available.

Here I was meaning to write you a real reply about Evil Idiot Landlord, and then I avoided the computer all weekend. The shortest version is that we did move elsewhere, but the authorities are still figuring out what to do, and surely wish we would go away.

re: me at 337
Instead of:

"we want you to sign this agreeing that you'll be out in 90 days"

...it should have been "we want you to sign this 90-day lease"

That her chances of abiding by it are slight isn't the issue.

Jacque, #332: Some years back, during a ML conversation about gender privilege, it was noted that for women in particular, it is often assumed that the terms of a signed contract can be altered unilaterally by the other party. I've had someone attempt to do it to me (conchair, abusive hotel manager). I don't doubt that it happens to men sometimes as well, but it's notable where women are involved.

Jennifer, #341: It's okay to let yourself mourn for the relationship you could have had, if your sister had been a better / less damaged person herself. It was also okay to try to rebuild a genuine relationship out of the ashes of when you were both living with your parents; some sibs manage to do that. But, as you have realized, in this case it's not working -- she's re-creating the same old family dynamic all over again -- and the best option for you is to let go and walk away.

Jennifer Baughman @334, you were asking for an update on the situation with the Evil Idiot Landlord. Here is the long (but definitely not longest) version. I am so sick of the whole mess, but every time someone tells me to just let it go, I can't. Letting go feels like lying down and asking Landlord and Judge B (see below) to walk all over me with stompy boots.

Rewind to summer 2014. The first hearing date, 3 weeks before moving day, was a disaster. We tried mediation instead of having a hearing on the merits. Never do this. The mediator is not trained in tenant law, and justice is not the goal. When we tried to stop mediation, we were told it was too late and browbeaten into making an agreement. Signing that agreement screwed up everything after: a mediated agreement is supposed to settle the WHOLE case, even when it doesn’t address portions of that case. In practice, it seems to be used to resolve future complaints as well, at least of the same type. I won’t ever be trusting a mediation option again.

Landlord immediately failed to do the thing that had a 24h time limit, despite it being an easy thing, and us reminding him early enough to buy materials and do the thing. All documented. We requested the case be re-opened, it was re-opened, but scheduled for just before the moving truck. Could we reschedule? No, then we might be deemed frivolous. We moved out end of July 2014. The new landlords are blessedly sane and legit so far, and we're really glad to be back downtown where we belong.

During the next pair of hearings on whether the agreement had been breached, we had Judge A. Downside: Judge A didn't fully understand what all was going on, and because of time and mediation confidentiality, it couldn’t be explained properly. We did not think to say “but Landlord violated the terms that he had wanted”, which might have been enough violation to change the outcome. Upside: by the end of the first hearing, Judge A did realize it was a nasty mess and that Landlord needed a thorough spanking. Judge A decided that the Yoga Spy Roommate was an occupant, not a tenant--very important legal distinction--and got us a copy of the forged lease. Judge A carefully explained proper procedure for the next time around, and attempted to word his written judgement such that it didn’t screw up our chances.

So this summer, nearly a year later, we finally push ourselves into writing up a new tenant’s rights case for the parts that Judge A said would still be eligible, and the parts he said were a toss-up. It goes to hearing. We had hoped that the judge on duty would have read the 1 page summary--no. Judge B’s scan hit the phrase “mediated agreement”, pigeonholed us as a waste of time, and tried to get rid of us. We chewed up 40 minutes attempting to actually be heard. When it was clear that there was no way in hell he would do so, we apologized for wasting his time, left, and went immediately to ask a tenant advisor was there anything that could be done? Tenant advisor said yes, dug out some magic words, and we started doing our homework.

Here, you get 30 days only to request a review. It took about 20 days for the hearing recordings to show up, and listening to them was traumatic, on top of the deadline stress. The actual review request was 25 pages long, with 1/3 for explaining the previous case and hearings, and 2/3 for explaining what was wrong with Judge B’s hearing. It also included a 3 ft x 4 ft poster showing the timeline of events as a table (11pt body text) with dates, event description and category, case # (if any), which of the 6 categories of offenses it belonged to, the duration of the offense, and outcome/resolution (if any). Finally, an adequate one-page case summary!

Judge B could teach a master class in manipulation through questioning and bad logic. One major tactic was to keep us going around in circles, constantly asking specific questions about the missing bits he refused to let us explain in an orderly fashion. It was so confusing that he screwed up massively, as well. Half-way through the circus, he noticed our blurb saying there was a fake lease. His roaring "WHAT false lease?!?" was very good evidence that he hadn't read the case notes or listened. We then showed him the fake lease, which he did not think we had, since he had not bothered even opening the evidence binder (with table of contents) beside him.

Judge B then *paid attention* for an entire 4.5 minutes, and that's where it got extremely interesting. During that time, despite some of it spent reading the fake lease, and *demonstrably not having a clue what our case EVEN WAS,* he questioned the landlord independently, and proved *all but one* of the major points supporting our case. He probably would have gotten that one, too, except the landlord realized he was in deep trouble, and threw a smoke bomb by breaking confidentiality. Judge B didn't notice the confidentiality breach, was taken in, and went back to his previous pattern of circling and insisting we had no case. At the end, when summing up, he completely ignored the points that *he himself had proven* and said we had no case. It is all on tape.

They were not able to throw out the review request. They certainly wanted to. It was too long. The poster was too weird. But they had to read it, and then someone had enough integrity to pass it to the next stage of triage, and I must have made some sense, because they did schedule a hearing to determine if there was in fact a serious error. That was in early November, and Judge C, the lady hearing it, actually did try to listen. We even got to explain mostly in order (only 1-2 jumpcuts!). I worry that we didn't do a good enough job of explaining what was wrong with Judge B's *actual ruling,* what with explaining all the background for Judge C. Judge C was also good enough to say that the forgery aspect of things should be taken to the police. (First official to say whose problem it is.) Judge C is also the vice-chair, so whatever can be done by that body, she has the authority to do. She warned us this was going to take a while, and we haven't heard back since. I suppose we should politely bug her soon. We also really should make an evidence packet and appointment to talk to the police...

I would certainly like the money that Evil Idiot Landlord cost us, plus some, but mostly I want to be enough of a badass that jerks don't mess with me. I want for Landlord to not only never, EVER, mess with me again, but also to never mess with anyone in that particular way again, because he's too damn traumatized, and preferably in jail. I want the justice system to admit that I was right and they screwed up, even if only in the indirect method of giving me a favourable judgement. I also want Judge B to get the worst performance review in the history of that tribunal, because what he did was cruel and incredibly stupid as well as unjust.

Bodhisvaha @347: That sounds exhausting. How awful that *you* have to be responsible for proving everything - over and over and over. For myself, I hope that the judge loses his job entirely. If he's so sick of hearing cases that he won't even listen to the facts before making his decision, he has no place on the bench. Sympathies.

Department of "things you can't do anything about but wish to hell you could"...

Yesterday we stopped for lunch at a Jack-in-the-Box near Baton Rouge, LA. We ordered, I grabbed a table, my partner waited to pick up our food. Another family came in -- young man, wife, 3 daughters all in the 5-to-8 range.

While we were eating, I observed that this guy's idea of "playing" was pretend-violence. He "boxed" with his wife, dragged her into an embrace that she didn't seem to want, and shook her. My partner didn't see any of that because his back was to them, but he said the guy acted and talked like an abusive control freak, including demanding that the children call him "Sir".*

All I could think about was how easily pretend-violence can turn into the real thing. I wanted to tell her, "You deserve better than this -- and so do your daughters." And I couldn't. It's not the kind of situation a complete stranger can get involved with. My heart is still aching. I hope she manages to get loose from this guy before he does permanent damage to her or any of the children.

Just venting, because I had to talk about it somewhere.

* Yes, I know that's a common thing in military culture. I've known quite a few people who said they were taught to call their father "Sir". And guess what? Every one of them also said that if they failed to do so, they would get beaten. At this point, I consider it a Big Red Warning Flag.

Chickadee, thank you for saying exactly what I had been wishing more people would say. I am also totally up for Judge B losing his job, but he did briefly demonstrate the skills we want him to have. :)

Let's hope the police and other authorities will be helpful during the next stages.

Jennifer Baughman, how did your meeting with your sister go, if you don't mind my asking? I'm simultaneously concerned and hopeful...

Apologies for the delay in updating; I needed some time to try to process and settle.

So it didn't go to plan; we didn't even get to the part where we offered a choice, it just went straight to 60-days-and-out. She doubled down on lying about her drug use in the house (though her comment that we couldn't *prove* anything was illuminating), did her level best to derail, redirect, and blame us, and outright admitted that she stopped doing the share of chores she agreed to because she didn't like doing that much work. And also said that she's been going into our bedroom and bathroom and through our medicine drawer. (I am keeping a close eye on my ADD meds now.)

She did manage to manipulate a physical confrontation between her and Husband; she started trying to push the kitchen table into him and force his laptop off; he ended up trying to pull her away from the table. She called the cops on him, but that didn't turn out like she planned it; Husband was the only one with marks on him (where she tried to pound him around the head as he was getting her away from the table), and the cops just took a report and suggested she spend the night elsewhere to let things calm down. (I know she was trying to get him arrested. She's tried to provoke his temper before, and unfortunately, she's very good at it.)

She kept saying "she didn't want (the arguments/confrontations)," but, frankly, I have a hard time believing that, considering her proud declaration that she has sixty days to move out, and she's going to make every one of them miserable for us. What I suspect she actually means is that she didn't want me to cut her off, she didn't want us to call her on the drug use, and she didn't want to lose access to a living situation where she got everything and gave a bare minimum.

Niece knows we love her, we repeated it several times, and she got hugs from both of us at a couple points, despite Sister trying to get her away from us. She was following Sister around while she gathered stuff up; I was stress-crying on the couch. She kept asking me why I was crying, and I just told her it was grownup stuff, that it wasn't anything about her, and that we love her--I said nothing about who, or why, or what; I'm not going to interfere with her relationship with her mother. Despite that, the last thing we heard her say as they were leaving was, "Mommy, why did you make Auntie cry?" She's perceptive, but I can't feel good about it. I hope Sister didn't punish her for saying that.

So Sister has 58 days and counting. And she's already telling people that it's all our fault, we're monsters, horrible, the Worst People ever, she was just getting comfortable, and we're kicking her and her baby out. (I'm sure she was comfortable, considering everything she was getting and how little she was paying for it.) Meanwhile, we are changing passwords to the entertainment services that she was getting free access to and seriously considering telling her she's responsible for her own food at this point. She's paying for the bare minimum, from here on out she will get the bare minimum. Locks and wireless will be changed when she moves out.

She's spent the last two evenings elsewhere, though she texted me asking if she could stay the night last night. I told her she has a right to stay at the house throughout the 60-day period, and that we would not interfere with that. I also told her that I expected her (indeed, all parties) to stay civil to each other, and she texted back 'Agreed'. However, I suspect I will have to impress upon her that calling Husband a 'fscking p*ssy' does not count as civility.

I also expect her to leave a mess behind; fortunately, Husband and I got ourselves a Groupon for Christmas for a professional four-hour house cleaning, which we will use after she's out. I am going to make it clear to her that we are not going to be her storage unit; anything of hers left her after she leaves will be thrown away or donated to Goodwill.

So... yeah. I was actually hoping she'd accept responsibility for once in her life, but nope. I'm sorry for Niece. She deserves better than Sister, and we can't give it to her.

Jennifer Baughman, <hugs> if welcome.

Jennifer Baughman: Well, good on you for putting your foot down and protecting your and Husband's well-being. And at least you have a resolution, now. Even the one you wanted (her scheduled to move out), if not the way you wanted.

Sister has, I am confident, enough Enlightened Self Interest to land on her feet(ish), though I'm sure she'll bewail her sad story to anyone who will listen. And Niece sounds (unfortunately) clueful.

outright admitted that she stopped doing the share of chores she agreed to because she didn't like doing that much work.

I wonder if she imagines that not living with you will involve less work. Though I imagine a lot of what she says is the drugs talking. :-(

And also said that she's been going into our bedroom and bathroom and through our medicine drawer. (I am keeping a close eye on my ADD meds now.)

May be more than you want to deal with, but in your place, I'd be strongly tempted to put a key-locking knob on my bedroom, and keep any "attractive" items/substances behind that lock.

she started trying to push the kitchen table into him and force his laptop off

D-8

Um. This is straight-up physical abuse bordering on assault. (Maybe over the border?) In your place I'd be looking at rental law as it applies to physical safety.... O.O

Jennifer -- JUST to make sure the next 58 days STAY civil, you may want to look into the possibility of filing a restraining order against Sister. That way if she tries to beat up either your husband OR you, she can be hauled off to jail.

She really IS stupid, isn't she? Were I in your shoes, she'd have been sitting behind bars right this moment for assault and battery...

Jennifer Baughman with the series ending at #352

Whooo boy. You have sympathies from Belgium, in spades.

I hope I can add a little reassurance in the department of what your sister is spreading around as "the reason why things didn't work out," with a bit of a personal tale -

I'm not on speaking terms with my birth family. One of the reasons became clear when, nearly out of the blue, an aunt kited into my (then active) FB mailbox with angry allegations that I had blocked her. Now, she's not got the same computer background that my generation has, so while I knew I hadn't actually "unfriended" her, I also hadn't bothered to make her my BFF, if you know what I mean. But working out exactly what she was talking about wasn't high on my agenda, because that particular period was a set of about four shit sandwiches, one of which included the news (that very day) that Dear Hubby had been "organized" out of his job.

With some fervent pleading from Dear Hubby to not respond in kind, I was supported enough to step away from the computer, and later, reply with a text largely drafted by him, pouring oil on troubled waters.

She was Having None Of It: her subsequent reply said that I was "just like" my mother (with which I am at peace, but she couldn't know that) and revealed some interesting information about how she regarded a living situation she'd apparently shared with my mother - "that hell-hole" was her description.

Now, I'd spend time in the house she referred to; despite my own problems regarding my mother, I couldn't match the reality of the house I'd seen with my aunt's attempt to paint everything to do with her sister as The Worst of This And Next Century. That, along with more of the pattern of "communicating" from said aunt gave me more than enough information to form a belief that, at least in this matter, my mother had not been at fault.

Shorter version: people who know you, will nod sweetly at your sister and dismiss what she's saying. People who don't know you will still have the rest of your sister's behavior from which to calibrate their understanding of the truth.

As for my own situation with aunt: about 6 months later (shortly before I nuked my FB account), I had reason to check my mail again, and wouldn't you know? All those awful messages were nowhere to be found. Replaced with masses of saccharine "I luv you!" things.

What she doesn't seem to realize, is the ease with which things like copy/paste and screenshots still preserve the originals. I didn't even mean to, actually - I'd wanted to have some extra eyes over the original texts (to get advice on my responses), and so the originals are... somewhere else, far from her reach.

Strength to you with your own situation - thank you for the time you're taking to report, and I send lots of good thoughts for when you must process before proceeding.

Crazy(and family is sometimes The. Worst.)Soph

Jennifer: Witnessing, and sympathies.

Jennifer: Ouch. And I'm seconding the idea of the keylock on your bedroom; they cost about ten bucks, are pretty easy to install, and I really don't trust your sister not to steal stuff, especially your meds, from the impression I've gotten of her character. Especially when the 60 days is almost up and she realizes you really mean it.
Hugs if welcome.

I'm not sure if all my reading is helping or hurting me.

"How can you stay you, if you don’t have your core values, the fundamental, absolutely necessary things that help to determine your sense of self and help you feel good and enjoy the good in life? How can you respect yourself if you’re quick to abandon your values to adopt someone else’s?"

I mentioned a while back that I tend to mirror what's around me as part of my invisibility. Whatever the guy I'm dating is interested in, I'll go along with. Whatever the culture of the group I find myself in, I go along with. My opinions, if they differ, stay buried. Utterly terrified of being excluded, even if it's from a group whose values I don't share. (Because my values? What are they?)

There was also other stuff from that site about boundaries, and how not having and enforcing them attracts all the wrong kinds of relationships, and how common it is for women to not really believe they deserve to be treated well and thus don't enforce a boundary around that.

Ok, I get that this is a problem for me. I keep reading about it here there and everywhere, trying to find a path to a solution, but all I find is "this is your problem, you need to fix it". Maybe I've read enough or too much? Maybe I should keep reading until I find something that gives me a hint to how to get out? Maybe I'm just going round and round? Maybe I have already been given the signposts but I don't know how to read them? How do you get from not believing you deserve to be treated well to actually believing that? Actually, really believing it and not just faking it and saying the words that demonstrate to others that you do even while quailing inside in terror that you're going to lose what few friends you have?

Feeling really dumb and useless this week even more than usual, even with the explicit acknowledgement that this is very common.

Also starting to feel like this isn't really DFD-thread stuff because it doesn't seem to be about families and what am I doing asking for relationship advice in a place for family trauma? (If you have to tell yourself it's not that bad, it is. I remember that from many threads ago. But is it?) And oh look, anxiety wants to isolate me again, by telling me this post (and by extension me) doesn't actually belong here. Anxiety wants reassurance, and I also read that anxiety can get addicted to seeking out that reassurance, that it's never enough and there is always more needed.

Some days I hate my brain and all the horrible things it tells me about myself. Maybe all those articles are feeding *that* instead of actually helping, at this point.

Sorry, kids, this is probably going to be long. Again.

the invisible one: Point the first: deep breaths.

Second point: I, for one, think this is entirely the right thread for your question. Part of what we've talked a lot about here is the flip-side of dysfuncionality, which is learning how to be functional. Which is what you're doing. So you're fine.

Third point: It sounds like you've got a couple of things going on here. Issue A: values....

I don't find the author's assertion that you can't respect yourself if you abandon your values to be a particularly useful one. I think a more useful question is, "What are my values that I am expressing?"

Values (in my observation) are innate: they're like your eye and hair color. They're issued to you at birth. The work of life is clarifying what they are. (Which can be a challenge, as we have so many influences telling us what they think we ought to value.)

Also, values have hierarchies, so if two values are on conflict, you will choose to go with the one you place higher value on.

Probably the best wisdom I've seen on the topic comes from Sidney B. Simon. He has a bunch of books out on the topic, but one punchline I like a lot is: your true values are those that you act on.

Another dimension of values is the needs they support. See: Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

So, in your particular case, based on what you've said here, it looks to me like two of your values are in conflict:

• Belonging.
• Your expressing your true self.

When you look at Maslow's hierarchy, you'll notice that it's a pyramid. The needs lower in the pyramid are more basic, and one can't generally effectively address a need unless the needs below it are first met. Note that "Love/belonging" is a more core need than "Esteem". This matches exactly the choices you report making.

WRT boundaries, I prefer to think of these as innate, too. They are related to but not the same as values. The work of relationship is discovering what they are, and chosing how/when/if to communicate/enforce them.

Issue B:

It sounds like, somewhere down the line, you were conditioned to believe that

if
  you express your true
  values/boundaries/priorities
then
  you will automatically be rejected.
  in all cases/circumstances

Does that sound accurate?

One question this prompts is: who taught you this? How did you believing this serve their interests? (It obviously doesn't serve your interests.)

One way to address this might be to consider what selection criteria (values) you're using to choose who to hang out with. And what to do when it turns out that the group/companion's values come into conflict with your own. Right now it sounds like your solution is to bury your values in favor of the value of the other(s).

Do you have the capacity to change who you're hanging out with so they better match your values? (Or is it even deeper than that: if you are around others, you can't get to your values...?)

As to clarifying what your values are, there's a Simon book available online: Values Clarification.

Does any of this help any?

the invisible one, #359: On the difference between core values and common interests, the concept of "deal-breakers" may be helpful to you.

To illustrate the difference as it applies to me: when I was in college and dating a guy who liked sports, I developed more of an interest in sports, which didn't persist after we broke up. My current partner is very interested in cars, so I now pay much more attention to cars than I used to. I would not expect that interest to persist if I were no longer with this partner. This kind of thing is part of a normal relationship -- if you care about someone, you tend to pay more attention to the things they care about.

I would not even think about dating someone if I knew, for example, that they were against marriage equality -- and if I'd been dating them and found that out, I'd break it off. That's a deal-breaker, because it's one of my core values. I have in fact broken off relationships with acquaintances (people who get to the level of "friends" have already been vetted for stuff like this) because I found out that they believed abortion should be illegal. Again, core value; I am not capable of "agreeing to disagree" about this issue.

Perhaps it would help you to do some thinking about what sorts of things would cause you to write someone off altogether. Those things are likely to be your core values, your deal-breakers. If you can't identify anything which falls into that category, then you have a defined starting point in your personal search: figure out what those things are.

Actually, really believing it and not just faking it and saying the words that demonstrate to others that you do even while quailing inside in terror that you're going to lose what few friends you have?

There's a reason that "fake it until you make it" is an aphorism. It frequently is a self-reinforcing cycle. The odds that standing up for yourself will cause people to dump you are relatively low (and if it does, then you really, genuinely are better off without them because they are not your friends). Far more likely is that they'll say something along the lines of, "Oh, sorry, didn't know that bothered you," and change accordingly. If it's just a difference of opinion, well, friends don't have to agree about whether (say) Movie X is terrific, or whether Cuisine Y is tasty. And the more times this kind of response happens, the weaker the hold that your original fears will have on you, because you'll have direct evidence that they were false. Which in turn makes it easier for you to assert your opinions and boundaries about other things, lather, rinse, repeat.

To a considerable extent, this is about trust issues. What I'm hearing you say here is that you don't really trust any of the people you hang out with, because you think that if you express an opinion different from theirs they'll drop you like a hot rock. Again, this is not how friends behave -- but JerkBrain refuses to accept that.

Anything which is causing you to feel like a less-than-functional person is appropriate for the DFD threads IMO. For one thing, relationships in other parts of your life often have things in common with dysfunctional family issues, cf. roommates from hell or abusive bosses. For another, the kind of issues you're discussing here are frequently the result of long-term damage from a dysfunctional home life. Never forget that JerkBrain is a liar, and will try to keep you from healing yourself.

#359 ::: the invisible one

I'm going to recommend some cynicism about advice. It's remarkably easy to make forceful statements about how people ought to be, and how they're letting something important down if they don't live up to some standard.

Something that happened to me, and which I suspect is happening to you. is feeling unsure about how to live, and this can leave one very vulnerable to authoritative voices.

I don't know what solutions are-- I'm not sure whether I'm stuck or digging my way out.

If you'll forgive some evaluation, I think your question about whether what you're reading is a good for you is a good sign. You're tracking how you're feeling and at least allowing for the possibility that you can make decisions about what you'll let into your life.

the invisible one #359:

Adding to the consensus that undoing the damage is relevant on this thread...

I mentioned a while back that I tend to mirror what's around me

I did this when I first went off to college; in my case, it was a way of trying to be accepted, modeling my behavior and expressed personality on the people around me. For awhile, I didn't even realize I was doing it, either; I thought I was just trying to fit in. And for all that effort, it didn't work; the first group of people I became acquainted with had some abusers, and like sharks, they smelled the chum in the water. It was all very ugly and very drama-filled and I don't talk to any of those people anymore, with one exception: Husband. Husband was the one who told me what I was actually doing, and how it was being perceived, and he asked me something no one ever had: "Who are you, and what do you want?"

the invisible one (who is not invisible here), you are ahead of where I was at that point. You asked those questions for yourself! That is a significant accomplishment in and of itself.

It's ok if the answer is "I don't know." If you've lived your life being compressed, it's hard to expand. You've had to deal with a lot of familial disrespect and disregard of your opinions. Suppressing your own wants becomes a habit. (To answer your question "Is it that bad?" Yes, yes it is.)

The good news about that is, habits can be changed; the bad news, of course, is that changing habits is hard, and takes time. Nor does it help that Jerkbrain likes habits, especially ones that enable Jerkbrain to be a jerk.

Those habits don't change overnight, though. It has taken me years to accept that I am allowed to feel what I feel, when I feel it; that I am allowed to have wants and needs and opinions of my own, even if they conflict with someone else's. And the biggest one: that I am allowed to say, "No, today my needs come first." Or even, "Today, my wants come first."

I don't want to discourage you with that, though, because from everything you've posted, you're already taking steps to figure out what you want, and who you are. It doesn't look like it from the inside, but it is progress. (Are you still enjoying taking the daily photographs? Did you get all the colors you wanted in your house? Are these things feeding your soul? If so, that's progress!)

You have understandable trust issues, but you're indicating that those are becoming a problem for you. What would it take for you to trust someone that has indicated they like you? That might be worth thinking about.

invisible one @359: yep, your question belongs here! Building on what Jacque said in #360, here are some possible chinks in Jerkbrain's armour.

It's not all-or-nothing. You can express some facets with one group and some with another. It's vastly more comfortable, though, if they like most of you, than if they like one bit and consider the rest of you to be all covered in poison spikes.

My experience was that when I found my tribe, it *felt* different, even during the initial nervous phase. Pretty soon I could tell that I fitted better here than anywhere I'd ever been before, and I felt safe and at peace in their company. It was like being a half-dead plant and suddenly there was good soil and water and sun. They aligned with my true self well enough that my true self could come out and take shape. So, keep searching, and remember that when you find your tribe members, it's going to feel *good* to be around them, instead of feeling like work, as socializing with the wrong people tends to. You get much better quality belonging-feelings from groups where you can express your true self.

I understand the trap of being what you're expected to be, because it happens to me too often. One thing I'm trying that's going well is starting fresh and setting the terms. I joined an industry group to network, away from all my current co-workers. I did that on purpose so that I could take the brakes off, and be assertively me with my quirks, in a way that I don't at my current workplace. It turns out the industry group likes eccentric me! This is especially exciting because these folks are not from my usual "greater granola geeks" tribe, but enjoy my geek aspects anyway. The perks of adulthood!

I'm going to try to keep on doing the assertively-me thing in the future with new people, because life is too short to waste on faking for the approval of people I don't even like or respect. If I am flamboyantly me, then the people I won't like anyway are more likely to avoid having relationships with me, and I won't feel pressured to conform to their expectations!

Bodhisvaha, #364: If I am flamboyantly me, then the people I won't like anyway are more likely to avoid having relationships with me, and I won't feel pressured to conform to their expectations!

This is HUGELY important, and it's an epiphany that different people reach at different times. I got it in college, in the form of, "I'm never going to be able to fit in no matter what I do, so I might as well go ahead and BE weird, and make a selling point out of it!" And shortly thereafter I discovered the local SF club and the SCA, which made that route much easier.

I've also discovered that having one major interest in common with a group may not be enough, if the rest of the group gestalt is something I'm not comfortable with. At one point I was flirting around the edges of the Red Hats culture, and found a group calling itself Red Hat Beaders, and thought that might be a good fit for me. Um, not -- they were all heavy drinkers* and much more politically conservative than I am, and I only went to a couple of meetings because it was obvious that I was not in fact a good fit there.

In effect, what you're talking about here is setting up a filter in real life, such that people who are going to be a good fit with you will be attracted and people who would be a poor fit won't be. And that's something a lot of people do without consciously realizing it.

* As in, 2 giant margaritas (or the equivalent) apiece over dinner, and I was thinking that it was a damn good thing I was driving home in a different direction from any of them!

Well that turned into quite a wall of text...

#360, Jacque: Values (in my observation) are innate: they're like your eye and hair color. They're issued to you at birth. The work of life is clarifying what they are. (Which can be a challenge, as we have so many influences telling us what they think we ought to value.)

That is plausible enough given my experience of growing up in a family who doesn't share some of my values-as-expressed-by-politics. If it were taught instead of innate, I'd expect I would have shared those values until at least university, when many people start questioning what their parents teach them.

I don't find the author's assertion that you can't respect yourself if you abandon your values to be a particularly useful one.

It may not be true as an absolute "you *can't*", but I found it reflected my experience. I mirror the people around me and am unhappy when that doesn't match what I believe, and don't know how to believe I am allowed to enforce boundaries.

So, in your particular case, based on what you've said here, it looks to me like two of your values are in conflict: Belonging. Your expressing your true self.

I'm not sure if "belonging" is a value or some so-far unattainable wish. Or both.

One question this prompts is: who taught you this? How did you believing this serve their interests? (It obviously doesn't serve your interests.)

I think I have figured out a possible explanation for how I learned this.

So a frequent topic of conversation at family events is "Those People, you know, Those Other People, Aren't They Awful." (Which exact group Those People are varies, but they are always Those Other People.) Often, growing up, my tentative and half-formed opinions were on the "awful" side of those discussions, and Those People who believe Those Things were dismissed or derided or scorned as naive or soft-headed or outright stupid or delusional. You better believe I wasn't going to speak up, because having those words turned on me directly wasn't something I wanted to experience. I had no backing for my argument, because my main exposure to Those Things was a feeling of what was right and wrong, and the overly simplified description of that position sounded kind of reasonable except that it was presented dismissively. I didn't have exposure to the vocabulary or the arguments behind it. And my family scorned other people who believed that way. What few attempts I did make to try to feel out support were met with "no, that's naive, that's not how the world works".

At school I was pretty much cut off from my classmates. Hardly talked to them. I was in the same class from K to 12 with a core of 7-8 people and I couldn't have told you half their names when I was in grade 12.

At university I was less of an alien because I was finally surrounded by people who thought science and science fiction and geekery was fun and awesome instead of "LOL nerd loser", and the girls could talk about something other than beauty stuff and how hot that one young teacher was, and I thought I had finally found my people, but a lot of the other opinions still didn't match. I didn't know the name for an appeasement grin at that point but I smiled and went along with things I wasn't comfortable with, because people who didn't have fun doing those things were scorned and derided.

So it wasn't that I had been rejected by the groups myself, but that the groups rejected some of my opinions before I revealed them, so I didn't. And I don't know at what level having different opinions triggers rejection and derision and when it doesn't. So I got really good at going along with whatever the group did, and several people have commented over the years that I get along with everybody (because I don't argue or even have differing opinions) and I'm always happy (because I don't show anything else) and how Crappy Ex and I suited each other so well.

(Actually, returning to this thought a bit later: in university, I joined the group of "program I was studying", and was promptly rejected by the group of "dorm I lived in". I did exactly one "everybody is invited" event with the dorm group, at which I found this out. Didn't have much of anybody to talk to at that event; the only person who talked to me was not pleasant to me. So I was rejected by a group due to expressing the opinion that I liked a group they didn't like. Maybe not everybody in the group would have explicitly rejected me, but silence = agreement and nobody else talked to me. Fortunately the rejection took the form of mutually ignoring each other instead of harassment.)

How it served their interests? Not sure. Maybe maintaining their belief in their rightness unchallenged, because silence = agreement? I really don't know the answer to this.

One way to address this might be to consider what selection criteria (values) you're using to choose who to hang out with.

Um. I'm not, really? For most of my life the people I would hang out with were not chosen individually by me. Family. People at some hobby activity where I joined the group for the activity and the people were there. The program I did at university.

The concept of having friends separate from some pre-existing activity group is kind of new to me, as is being personally invited to a gathering of friends instead of "everybody is invited!" extended to an entire activity group which I joined.

I actually have a couple of friends now! Who invite me, specifically, to do things with them! And so far I haven't been doing appeasement grins around them but instead have been doing stuff with them that I already knew I enjoyed from doing alone.

(Or is it even deeper than that: if you are around others, you can't get to your values...?)

Maybe. Maybe once I figure out what they are and figure out how to build some boundaries around them, I'll be able to hold on to them when around others who don't share them. I do know that on breaking up with a guy, once the pain is fading, a common factor is a feeling of un-compressing myself as I figure out what I want to do with my time and energy instead of waiting for him to decide what we will do. (I have tried suggesting things to do. After having my suggestions rejected often enough, I stopped suggesting.)

#361, Lee: when I was in college and dating a guy who liked sports, I developed more of an interest in sports, which didn't persist after we broke up

At the expense of the things you were interested in?

Yeah, I understand being a bit interested in something largely because somebody you like is really interested in it. Going hiking with a person who has specialized in something that will be seen on the hike is amazing. Trees, birds, fungus, rocks... doesn't matter what it is, if they know it and love it, I find it's hard to not enjoy their explanations of what we're looking at.

I have heard of deal-breakers. Can't remember if I first heard it here or CA. So far I have identified some deal-breakers that I want to enforce in the future, long after the fact, after I finished processing the end of the relationship. Stuff like, if he does his hobby at the expense of spending time with me. Or if he feels it's acceptable for him to make a decision about my future. Both of those cases, I didn't enforce them at the time, they weren't what caused the breakup, but I identified afterward that they were a source of deep unhappiness and I did not want to accept them again.

The odds that standing up for yourself will cause people to dump you are relatively low (and if it does, then you really, genuinely are better off without them because they are not your friends).

So I've heard. See above about how many friends I ever had. It was (is?) a scarcity mindset, maybe. Hold on to the people who will talk to me, hold on desperately, because nobody else could actually want to be my friend. From that point of view, cutting people off means being completely isolated.

Not true, certainly not healthy, but pretty much describes the terror of rejection by people you don't even like, if they're the only ones you have to hang around with.

#362, Nancy Lebovitz: feeling unsure about how to live, and this can leave one very vulnerable to authoritative voices.

Um, yeah. Some voices which sound authoritative are ones I can identify as toxic and generally ignore, mostly. (Overt victim blaming, and so on.) But some hit that spot between resonating with my experience and is it victim blaming or is it an uncomfortable truth? That site I linked to is one I'm not sure about. There are things about myself I need to work on. I need to figure out how to enforce boundaries, and that site is probably right that not having boundaries attracts abusers. But is it victim blaming mixed among the truths, or am I not wanting to accept which parts I'm responsible for?

#363, Jennifer Baughman: I did this when I first went off to college; in my case, it was a way of trying to be accepted, modeling my behavior and expressed personality on the people around me. For awhile, I didn't even realize I was doing it, either; I thought I was just trying to fit in.

That's it exactly. I thought they were my kind of people.

Unfortunately, in that university group, one of the abusers became boyfriend, then husband, then Crappy Ex. The people who asked those sorts of questions were mocked as being full of fluff and woo, no better than crystal healing and astrology.

(Are you still enjoying taking the daily photographs? Did you get all the colors you wanted in your house? Are these things feeding your soul? If so, that's progress!)

I am doing my daily photos, but I'm starting to find it hard to find new things to photograph. I fall into routines in terms of where I travel very easily, and am trying to find different routes to run on so I have different things to photograph. I still have two more rooms to paint but I have finally chosen colours for them! They are helping me be happy, but my job right now is sucking the life out of me. I know how I'm feeling *with* my photography and my running and my hiking; I don't want to contemplate having this job *without* those things. Most of all I need to get a job in my actual field, which I enjoy immensely, not this temp turned permanent thing doing something that I don't even enjoy with hours I despise.

What would it take for you to trust someone that has indicated they like you?

I have no idea. In terms of romantic "like", my experience has been that somebody who "likes" me and demonstrates it stops doing so once he's "caught" me. I have no way of knowing that he considers "caught" and thus when he can stop performing wanting to be with me, so how do I know he won't stop performing tomorrow, or next month, or next year? How can I know whether it's the truth or a performance? A performance will claim to be the truth.

In terms of friendship "like", well, I'm still trying to learn how to have friends who are not simply a person I can enjoy chatting with at a shared interest. I suspect I want to tell people what's going on with me because I keep surprising myself by letting some detail or another slip, but I'm rarely sure what to make of the responses I get. Even direct sympathy often makes me back up and think "no no I'm not fishing for sympathy! I'm not That Kind Of Person!" (which seriously, how did that attitude even get in my head, ugh. Dismissing people as professional victims is part of the Those Other People conversations.)

#364, Bodhisvaha:

I understand the trap of being what you're expected to be, because it happens to me too often. One thing I'm trying that's going well is starting fresh and setting the terms.

That sounds like an excellent idea. Once I figure out what self I am most comfortable with being and how to maintain the expression of that self around other people.

First, invisible one, what you're saying is so entirely appropriate for this thread. Thank you for sharing.

Second, Jennifer Baughman, I'm so sorry about your sister's malice. Thoughts, prayers and hugs (if welcome) all with you.

Third, this (plus the therapy group I'm in) has gotten me thinking about stuff. Regarding the mimic-to-fit-in, I was lucky enough to have several friends/acquaintances who called me on it, even though at the time I didn't have a clue what they were talking about. It was a cumulative effect, that combined with a certain donkey-stubborn sense of self, allowed me to develop a sense of self even while still living with my enmeshing mother.

Also, the "Those Other People" conversations - that takes me right back. My extended family (both sides) was SO bad for that. It took me a long time to get rid of (most of?) the unthinking racism/sexism/homophobia/fat-shaming*/etc.etc.etc. that I picked up growing up. Because what you grow up with, right? Interestingly, I think I can see one distinct point along the continuum of rejecting those ideas - one particular Christmas.

Background: My dad's sisters were horrible to my mom. Mom made herself socialize with them because that was the Proper thing to do. So every Christmas, we'd have our family Christmas on Christmas Eve, then pack up and drive to [other city, 3 hours down the highway] for Christmas Day plus a few days. Finally, at some point, Mom had enough of making herself sick for a week before, and declared she was staying home. A few years after, I decided it was crap that Papa left Mom alone on her birthday (Boxing Day) every year, so I started staying home too. (note: my parents married late, and had me later, so my closest first cousin is at least 8 years older than me, and most 12-14 at least - I didn't have anybody my age in [other city]) This may have been after the particularly memorable drive home** but I don't remember.

That rejection of their treatment of Mom was, I think, part of my rejection of a lot of their attitudes. Not that I'd ever agreed with it all, but I'd gone along with it, and found a lot of the awful jokes funny because (bullied loner that I was) I was so happy to be *part of* a group.

I remember feeling really awkward with a lot of my mom's family, primarily because they lived out of easy visiting range (2-5 provinces over) so I only saw them rarely.

Still, the fact of consciously choosing which parent to side with (which sucks mightily for a young adult) started a process of realizing that I could *choose* what to think/believe. I don't remember ditching a lot of the other baggage until university, but as many here have said, that's where you *really* start to get exposed to new ideas.

Huh.

Sorry for the wall o' text...

*Example of two combined: Mom's of Polish extraction, and I inherited the broader Slavic bone structure, so even though I was borderline underweight at the time my face was round-ish. My paternal aunts are all anorexic-skinny and narrow-faced. One of my aunts told me (indirectly, with plausible deniability) that I had a fat face.

**I don't know who was more impaired - me from exhaustion or Papa from alcohol. We'd arranged that I'd drive, so he could spend a last night with his sisters drinking, but he refused to leave at the prearranged time, and brushed me off when I said I was concerned about how tired I was, so we left *hours* later than planned. And I couldn't even switch off with him because he brought beer into the car and kept drinking on the way home. :( He'd never done that before. I was so angry with him.

the invisible one, #366:
At the expense of the things you were interested in?

No, more along the lines of doing things I wouldn't otherwise have done (go to school games) because he wanted to, and reading Sports Illustrated (which I actually found somewhat interesting in places) because it gave us more things to talk about.

You've reminded me of something else, though. I was already heavily involved with the SCA when he and I started dating, and he never had any interest in that at all. And one day, in a discussion of possible futures, he said, "The day we get engaged is the day you quit the SCA for good."

And while I didn't immediately dump him, that did cause me to decide instantly that this was not a person I was going to think about marrying. He had just told me that (1) something I considered an important part of my life was absolutely unacceptable to him, and (2) that he thought being engaged would confer on him the right to control my hobbies and interests. Given my background of fighting those exact same fights with my parents, there was no way in hell I was going to sign on for that!

We eventually broke up more-or-less amicably, and he never knew that he'd permanently blown his chances with that remark. Hell, that was 40 years ago, and by now if he remembers it at all he may be embarrassed that he was ever That Asshole. But it's important to me that this was where I drew a line in the sand WRT a romantic relationship -- that there were things I was not willing to surrender for one.

It was (is?) a scarcity mindset, maybe. Hold on to the people who will talk to me, hold on desperately, because nobody else could actually want to be my friend.

I do understand this, and I think you're right in labeling it a scarcity mindset. People who have been desperately hungry sometimes become food-hoarders even when food is plentiful.

But consider this also: if you surround yourself with the wrong kind of people, people you can't trust, people you hang onto only because you're terrified of being alone... that can actually drive away other people who you'd rather hang out with, because they see the people around you and don't want to spend time with them!

Also, this is where you look hard at one of the most common pieces of advice for women who continually fall into poor relationships out of desperation: no relationship at all is better than one with the wrong man. As long as you feel that you need other people to make you a complete person, you're going to continue to have this kind of issue. Wanting to have friends is normal and good, but not at the expense of being mistreated or being afraid to trust them.

The people who asked those sorts of questions were mocked as being full of fluff and woo, no better than crystal healing and astrology.

To be sure, there are examples of that (and they tend to go along with stuff like crystals and astrology and Religion-of-the-Month Club!), but it's not a universal. You, unfortunately, didn't have the experience to know that these are also valid professional therapy questions for people who have been severely suppressed for a long time, and you might not have recognized yourself as falling into that category.

I have no way of knowing what he considers "caught" and thus when he can stop performing wanting to be with me, so how do I know he won't stop performing tomorrow, or next month, or next year? How can I know whether it's the truth or a performance? A performance will claim to be the truth.

One good (but not infallible) test is to refuse to do something he wants you to do, especially if your reason for refusing is that it conflicts with something you want to do. If he can't accept "You go do your thing and I'll do my thing and we can have dinner later," that's a strong indication that he's performing.

Beyond that, I don't think many people are capable of putting up that kind of performance, in a real-life situation, for years on end. So the longer it lasts, the more likely it is to be the real thing.

Unfortunately, a lot of the other things I could say here boil down to, "Sometimes you get burned, and you just have to get back up and start over." Which is much easier to say than to do, and easier to do after you've gone around that track a few times and learned that it really isn't the end of the world. So, probably not helpful to someone in your situation. :-(

Jennifer Baughman @352: Whew! that was rough! At least there is some relief for having a set course? Sister did an excellent job of reminding you why you made this decision in the first place... That's why I'm joining the "buy a lock" camp for the meds and valuables, or simply getting them out of the house for now. On that note...I would be ready to change the main locks promptly once she leaves. Paranoia says Sister just might sneak in and take or break things after moving out.

Lee @365: If only the flamboyant-me filter idea had occurred to me earlier, my twenties might have been different. In my teens I got used to the idea that being weird wasn't a defect, but it just did not occur to me that *flaunting* it pre-emptively could be useful. Best defense is a good offense?

the invisible one @366: that was a powerful lot of you-must-belong-or-else and you-are-wrong vibes being beamed at you in your formative years. I agree that you've got a scarcity mindset about social connections, *because they were really scarce and low-quality*. If you had to rank human connections on a -5 to +5 scale, and most of what's happened to you is actually -1 to -5, with only a few 0s and +1s or +2s for comparison, of course it distorts the results.

The best possible catalyst for change would be some good experiences, preferably some great ones, to raise your standards! :) Historically, you've consistently made the best choices that your experience at that time could guide you to make. No, they weren't all the right ones, but you surely did aim the best you could. The fresh start experiment will give you some good shots at getting better experiences.

Romances do often cool down and transmute as they become lasting relationships, but what you're describing is *not* how it should be. The romantic "like" you have received so far smells bad, possibly like pickup artist. (They publish their techniques -- you can read up and inoculate yourself for the future.) The worst times are one good barometer of relationship quality. How does he hold up when you're sick, depressed, writing a thesis, lost your job, or your cat died? He doesn't have to catch the ball *every* time, but he shouldn't drop it most times either.

Jennifer Baughman @363:

I mentioned a while back that I tend to mirror what's around me

I think it might be worth pointing out that this is a basic primate characteristic; it's a big part of our being social animals. We all do it to some extent. (It's why, when you meet a coworker outside of work, you see dimensions of them you'd never see in the office.)

It's only problematic when we fall in with groups that have problematic behaviors and attitudes.* But it's a god-send when we find ourselves in healthy company: Hello, DFD threads!

Also, as so many of us here have reported/demonstrated, it is possible to be aware of our behaviors/attitudes, where we got them, and how we want to change them, and then be choiceful how we evolve from there.

It's also (as others here have so wisely pointed out) helpful (glorious!) when we find ourselves in groups that more closely align with who we truly are/want to be.

Shorter me: it's not the mirroring that's the problem. It's what and who we mirror that can be troublesome. Also, it can be helpful to be choiceful about it.

* I'm still working to unlearn the tendency to condesplaining** that I picked up from the first social circle I had as an adult.

** Ahem. Hi there! :o)

the invisible one @:366 "I don't find the author's assertion that you can't respect yourself if you abandon your values to be a particularly useful one." It may not be true as an absolute "you can't"

Note that I didn't say that it's not true; I find it to be not useful. That's because for me, it's much too easy for Jerkbrain to hook onto and use as a club to beat me with: "You didn't cleave to your principles, you twit!! You're bad bad bad and you'll never amount to anything!" I try to avoid giving Jerkbrain excuses to yammer at me. I've gotten better at ignoring it, but it's still soaks up energy better used elsewhere.

Me, personally, I'd rather live in a place where I compare my behavior to my principles, feel regret/frustration that my behavior didn't measure up, and adjust my circumstances/habits/resources to cultivate better behavior in the future. For me, tagging it to my ability to "respect myself" impedes rather than enhances my well-being. But that's me.

OTOH, it sounds like you find it to be useful! In which case, go you! If what I say doesn't work for you, then it's so much static in the ether, and you're totally right to treat it as such!

(Also, if I may, I'd like to point out that your saying It may not be true as an absolute "you *can't*", but I found it reflected my experience. is a splendid example of you defining your experience, and differentiating it from mine. GO YOU!)

I find it's hard to not enjoy their explanations of what we're looking at.

Entirely tangentially, I love people loving things. Unless it's a topic to which I have strong negative conditioning (sports, cars), if somebody waxes on knowledgeably and lovingly on [topic], I love listening to them, almost irrespective of the topic. </geekery>

deal-breakers ... if he does his hobby at the expense of spending time with me.

Calibration question: if it's a case of "we're together, but I'm ignoring you because I'm [doing hobby], don't interrupt me," I'm totally with you there. Question: if it's a case of "Get together at [time]?" "Sorry, I'll be [doing hobby] then. Do you want to get together at [different time] instead?" Would that be acceptible to you?†

Not true, certainly not healthy, but pretty much describes the terror of rejection by people you don't even like, if they're the only ones you have to hang around with.

I've lived there and, yes, it is a scarcity mindset. Not a happy place to be. But completely understandable.

That site I linked to is one I'm not sure about.

Yeah, I concur. I see some valid stuff, but I also see some incompletely-thought-out-stuff that doesn't really match with my experience/understanding. Muddled, like. Your response demonstrates very proper and valid discretion.

If you're interested, here's my (quick, we hope) review: Her starting premise that "core values" are different than "common interests" is a really good one. I think she conflates values and boundaries too much. They are certainly related, but I think they operate on different axes. She's right that values inform everything about your life and what you chose. Where I think she's wrong is in framing values as a variable thing that you develop through life. I think boundaries are variable, and one adjusts them in response to a number of factors. Values is one of the things that boundaries enforce, but by no means the only thing. There's a third axis she doesn't talk about explicitly: beliefs? Beliefs exist about many things; the ones pertinent here are about possiblility and necessity. In your case, one belief around possibility that you grew up with is: "This group is the only one available to me; to lose it is to lose All." Another belief, which others here have expressed is: "There are many groups out there which are available to me. It is possible to find groups that support me, and avoid groups that don't." I think she's also conflating values with preferences. Also, she talks about "primary" and "secondary" values. What she's missing, I think, is that values are hierarchical. Some values are more important to you than others. But their importance changes with circumstance, and in relation to each other. (Yes, it is possible to have a rock/paper/scissors values conflict.) So, shorter me: I think she's onto something, but is missing some important distinctions. I'm curious: what would your review be?

Hm. Lemme try this: boundaries about to what degree you will allow others to define/control your own experience/actions. They can be more or less permeable, depending on company, context, and circumstance. All: Does this definition work?

† I had a friend who, for the most part, was fun and great to be with. But there were times when she wanted to get together at [time], and I'd say (without elaboration) that I wasn't available at [time], could we get together at [an hour later]? She'd get bent out of shape because what I'd be doing at [time] was watching a TV show I wanted to see (this was before VCRs, so if I didn't see it when it was broadcast, I'd miss it completely). She felt she was being "pushed aside for a (mere) TV show." Even though I was doing the Captain Awkward–recommended thing of not saying what I was doing, just that I wasn't available at [time], it wasn't until years later that I had the vocabulary to understand that, while she had every right to feel how she felt, what she was doing by pressuring me to spend time with her in favor of my (to her not important) activity was...kind of boundary-crashy. Which was weird, in retrospect, because she was generally more clueful than that. But this was also decades before there was much explicit discussion of boundaries as such.

Bodhisvaha @369: The worst times are one good barometer of relationship quality. How does he hold up when you're sick, depressed, writing a thesis, lost your job, or your cat died? He doesn't have to catch the ball *every* time, but he shouldn't drop it most times either.

Ooo! I like this! And, looking back, matches my experience/results rather well.

Just found a link to this song over on Slacktivist. I think it might resonate for a lot of people here.

#368, Lee: he said, "The day we get engaged is the day you quit the SCA for good."

Direct of him. I got variations on "you're stretching yourself too thin" and other nudges away from doing what I wanted to do by means of helpful and caring comments. Funny how once he was gone I suddenly had all kinds of energy for doing all kinds of things.

if you surround yourself with the wrong kind of people, people you can't trust, people you hang onto only because you're terrified of being alone... that can actually drive away other people who you'd rather hang out with, because they see the people around you and don't want to spend time with them!

I'm starting to learn that those people do actually exist, and they're not just a myth told by imaginary internet people.

One good (but not infallible) test is to refuse to do something he wants you to do

That sounds like one of the tests in the book Jerk Radar. The sort of relationship tests it is quite sensible to do. That was a really good book. I should read it again.

Beyond that, I don't think many people are capable of putting up that kind of performance, in a real-life situation, for years on end.

Maybe not, but if they suck you into believing that's the best you can hope for and you're lucky for it, and that's what love looks like, they don't really have to except in occasional bursts between spending the entire evening ignoring you in favour of video games or youtube videos or TV or...

#369, Bodhisvaha: The romantic "like" you have received so far smells bad, possibly like pickup artist.

I've read a bit about them. The system I was hit by was less overtly confident and more friends then asking out and "nice guys finish last" and helped by how I literally never said no to a guy who asked me for a date or a relationship unless I (or he) was already in one. I have no idea if they realized that was the case; I certainly didn't until just a couple of years ago.

The worst times are one good barometer of relationship quality.

Unless he's all about being the white knight rescuer.

Though even then it'll be on his terms. Some rough times I was criticized or blamed for, some he rushed to my "rescue".

#370, Jacque: Note that I didn't say that it's not true; I find it to be not useful. That's because for me, it's much too easy for Jerkbrain to hook onto and use as a club to beat me with

Hm. Would it be reasonably accurate to say that you read it as a form of instruction? If you do this, you must do that?

I read it as a description of a consequence: if you do this, that will happen. I am realizing that I did this, and yes, that did happen.

(Also, if I may, I'd like to point out that your saying It may not be true as an absolute "you *can't*", but I found it reflected my experience. is a splendid example of you defining your experience, and differentiating it from mine. GO YOU!)

(Note to self, stop backpedalling and trying to shrink my statements to fit the posted opinions of the people here. Yes, I started to do that.)

Calibration question: if it's a case of "we're together, but I'm ignoring you because I'm [doing hobby], don't interrupt me," I'm totally with you there. Question: if it's a case of "Get together at [time]?" "Sorry, I'll be [doing hobby] then. Do you want to get together at [different time] instead?" Would that be acceptible to you?

It was the first. Anything from "don't interrupt me" to "yeah, we're going to [place] at [time]" followed by still playing his computer game half an hour past [time]. Because it wasn't "doing hobby" time, it was what they did when they weren't at work, sleeping, or performing in order to chase a girlfriend. (Or so it looks from my perspective. Not sure if it's accurate or bitter or both.)

I'm curious: what would your review be?

I will have to read it again, and try to have an assessing and judging mindset rather than a believing authoritative voice and self-blame mindset. I'll give that some thought tomorrow.

Jacque #370: (Yes, it is possible to have a rock/paper/scissors values conflict.)

Yes, possible, but also dangerous! Such a loop isa vulnerability that can be used against you.

I forget who (Hofstader? Peck?) used ice cream cups for an example: If your values are chocolate > strawberry > vanilla > chocolate, someone can say "hey, trade you this strawberry cup for your vanilla, plus 10 cents"... you go "sure", upon which they say "oh, now I've got a chocolate cup"... and next "now I've got a vanilla cup", and then you're $.30 poorer with the same cup you started with.¹

Now, that's being very literal, but the metaphorical expansions are pretty obvious. As far back as ancient Greece, people have realized that it's important to think about your priorities, and maintain them as a well-ordered heirarchy.

¹ Yes, the ice cream will eventually melt; that sort of hazard is probably why we have a natural bias toward immediate benefits over deferred rewards.

I want to check on something-- I've seen relationships where partner A insists that partner B accompany them to activities that B isn't interested in because they want B's company. I'm not sure whether B gets attention or not, but B never gets to do what they want to do if it takes as much effort as A's preferred activity and A isn't interested in it.

I've expressed horror at it, and I've had people tell me it's normal in relationships. Is it actually normal? Maybe normal on a smaller scale? I'm not sure I explained the whole thing-- that it's one-sided using a partner as a teddy bear rather than an occasional thing.

Nancy @374: I think this depends on meanings of "normal." It's "normal" in the sense of a thing that happens moderately often (tornadoes and heart attacks are also normal in that sense). That doesn't mean it's normal in the sense of either healthy or inevitable, and it doesn't mean A should settle for it. (Tornadoes may be inevitable, but we have weather forecasts and shelters.)

The slippery thing there is, in some relationships there are more-or-less explicit tradeoffs of "I'll go to the ball game with you, if you'll come to this movie with me," and certain B's can say things like "you should come to the ball game with me, because that's what couples do/if you care about me" and always come up with reasons or excuses why they're not going to go to the movie, and even why there isn't time for A to go to the movie, because they spent all of Saturday at the ball game so they need Sunday for chores or to see family.

My impression is that this (like a lot of similar imbalances in mixed-sex relationships) tends to be gendered, both in the gender of people who ask that of their partners and in whose friends and relatives will tell them things like "you're supposed to care about his interests" if they complain. But that doesn't mean it would suddenly become okay if it's a same-sex relationship, or if a woman was demanding that a male partner spend time on her interests but wouldn't reciprocate.

Do you remember whether the people telling you it's "normal" are in the relationships, either "it's reasonable for me to expect the other person to do this for me" or "that's a price I expect to have to pay," or third parties (call them C) with whom you were discussing this?

Nancy, #374: As you've described it, a completely one-sided thing, it is definitely NOT either normal or healthy, and A is being a controlling asshole. As a give-and-take of "Okay, I'll do this thing with you and then you do that thing with me," it's much more common and more reasonable.

Of course, the ideal solution would be, "Okay, you go do your thing and then later we'll do something together," but people who are committed to the joined-at-the-hip meme of "but couples are supposed to do EVERYTHING together!" don't understand that.

Nancy @374: Any of my friends would also be horrified at that imbalance. It's not "normal" in the universal sense, and we'd certainly side-eye the one treating the other as a teddy bear.

Lee @368: "The day we get engaged is the day you quit the SCA for good."

I'm impressed the result wasn't a mushroom cloud. Yeah, I would probably be at least diplomatic in that case, too. But—sheesh!

the invisible one @372: imaginary internet people

::giggle:: I love this. I want to find an excuse to use it. :-)

Hm. Would it be reasonably accurate to say that you read it as a form of instruction? If you do this, you must do that?

Huh. Yeah, I guess I did. I read it in the imperative voice. For which I have something of a hot-button. :-) (Syntactical note: this is why I tend to use the "one" construction instead of the rhetorical "you." It's too easy (for me, at least) to read the latter in the imperative voice.)

Note to self, stop backpedalling and trying to shrink my statements to fit the posted opinions of the people here.

:-)

David Harmon @373: "rock/paper/scissors values conflict" Yes, possible, but also dangerous!

And also confusing, until one figures out what's going on.

Nancy Lebovitz @374: It's for damn sure not normal in my part of the world. I would regard that as a huge, glowing, red flag, in fact.

Jacque, #378: Heh. Well, for one thing, remember that this was when I was in college, and still developing my own personality. Secondly, it wasn't an active threat, just a potential one -- and it was enough to make me mentally shift the status of the relationship from "potentially serious" to "okay, he's just Mr. Right Now". There was no reason to make a huge scene right then, because it was just a dark cloud on the horizon; by the time it got close enough to be a problem I'd be long gone.

Ok, here are some thoughts I had on re-reading the article I linked above, with intent to review.

Pointing out that values and preferences are different things, and that some values are more important than others, is good. I think the author has split it into only three groups (core values, secondary values, preferences) when it's more of a continuum. If a dividing line is needed between dealbreakers and non-dealbreakers in the value set is needed, that works well enough, but it feels incomplete and I didn't see an acknowledgement that it's actually more complicated than three distinct groups.

On values being based on life experience: I would say some yes, some no. As in earlier reply to Jacque, I grew up in a family some of whose values didn't match mine, which points to no. But there are also dealbreakers based on things I've experienced, which may or may not something one could call values but are definitely important. I guess it depends on whether the experience clarified a value that already existed, or not?

Values and boundaries - I think she's wrong here. They're strong when together, but you can have values without boundaries protecting them (and end up unhappy when living contrary to your values) and you can have boundaries around things other than values.

The repetition of dating the same type over and over and expecting something different isn't down to a *lack* of values, I would say. More likely a lack of knowing how to defend those values, and a lack of believing that you're allowed to defend those values. As we've discussed here, people who grow up in dysfunctional families sometimes learn to hide their values as a survival strategy, and unlearning that is hard. The way this whole article is written, it reads to me as if the author, like many people, doesn't know that.

I remembered again yesterday and today that I very rarely show that somebody is making me angry or upset, because that gives the people around me ammo. Including when that means hiding my values. Whether it's evidence that I overreact about things and thus they can dismiss any complaints, or subjects to tease me about, depending on the person, it's information that I'm not comfortable sharing. It's not that far different from having a hard time showing lots of enthusiasm for something I really like - it's material used to tease me with. If I'm in a group that explicitly demonstrates that they really like a thing I can show enthusiasm. I'm *still* reluctant to admit that I write SF unless the people I'm telling have already revealed that they like SF.

Then the thing with beliefs. That confused me. Changing self-esteem changes beliefs changes your values? It may change how energetically you defend or support those values.

So I would say, enough good and useful stuff that I took it in and the stuff that isn't right hit me inside the shields. Some self-help stuff has enough bad advice (often victim blaming, or of the woo-ful "think happy thoughts and all will go well!") that I can stop from taking it in, most of the time.

Dating the same type over and over can also occur when you don't realize that the problems you keep having are connected with the kind of person you keep dating. That was me in my early 20s -- I was strongly attracted to a particular personality type, and it took 4 or 5 iterations of "I keep having the same fights and the same breakup issues with these guys" before I realized that the fights and breakup issues were intimately connected with some of the personality traits I found attractive.

Once that thought percolated up to the surface, I discovered that even though I still found that personality type attractive, I was much less inclined to get involved with guys who had it -- because I knew how the story was going to end, and I was tired of that.

This wasn't me not defending my values -- I did defend them when push came to shove, because that's what caused the breakups -- but me needing to have enough data points to recognize a recurring pattern.

the invisible one @380: The repetition of dating the same type over and over and expecting something different isn't down to a *lack* of values, I would say. More likely a lack of knowing how to defend those values, and a lack of believing that you're allowed to defend those values.

Also, being at the stage of not knowing what one's values are. If one is never allowed to make decisions for oneself, or various other violations of agency, it's entirely possible to grow up not knowing what one finds important. (How's that for a pretentious-sounding sentence?)

The other piece of dating the same type over and over, though, I think, goes much deeper even than values. I really like Harville Hendrix's Imago theory. Briefly, as we shape ourselves to our care-givers as we grow up (that old social primate matching thing again), portions of our innateness are supressed. We're attracted to people who rub those suppressions, as a way of getting at them and actualizing those potentials.

When we do it successfully, the "type" we're attracted to (and the attraction is, in my observation, almost at a visceral level—I don't think there are any higher functions at all driving it) shifts over time. When we fail to do it, we've still got that itch, even when we've left the last romantic interest, so we go for the same "type" again. In a lot of ways, it doesn't have anything to do with values at all; it's much more basic than that.

So I would say, enough good and useful stuff that I took it in and the stuff that isn't right hit me inside the shields.

Yeah, that's definitely a skill it took me a while (and on which I'm still working!) to develop: just because something someone (an Authority*) says makes sense, doesn't mean everything they say works. It can be tricky sorting through the discrepencies, but it sounds like you got a solid filter running, even if it's sometimes a little late to the game. :-)

* I'm also a lot pickier about on whom I will bestow the status of Authority. Which continues to get me into no end of trouble with my chain-of-command at work.

One Week Later...

Everyone: again, thank you for the hugs and sympathies and such; they are much appreciated!

W/R/T locks on the bedroom door--I'd love to, but our bathroom is the only place we can put the litter boxes and cat food/water, so the door has to stay open to accommodate them. We're seriously considering a webcam, since my computer is also in the bedroom. However, the meds in question now live in my purse, and my purse stays within arm's-reach, no matter which room I'm in. And we have lock-changing on the schedule for the day after she moves out.

Sister has been spending a great deal of her time somewhere else; she was home over the weekend, but didn't interact with us at all. Wednesday, I asked her not to move our laundry out of the dryer, but to ask one of us and we'd take care of it. She called me 'petty' for it; the way I see it, I'm reducing the possibility that she's going to make good on her threat to make us miserable. Needless to say, she's not entitled to my trust anymore. (And I will note that I am respecting the same condition regarding her clothes; she left wet clothes in the washer yesterday, and when I saw her at lunch, I politely asked her to move them.)

Most communications at this point, I think, are going to go through email or text. I texted her Friday to tell her that she needed to pay the rent that night, and to my surprise, she did. I think Wednesday was the last time she actually spoke real words to me; yesterday she barely even grunted to acknowledge me.

In the meantime, she's not eating at home, she's spending easily half of her nights somewhere else; I'm okay with this. She's not bothering us on the nights she is home, and it's blissfully quiet the nights she's gone. She has 54 days and counting. Niece, meanwhile, is still trying to spend what time she can with us, still comes over to say 'hi' and give us hugs and kisses and tell us about her day, and in general does not seem to care what her mother says about us.

And I honestly don't care what she says about me; the people who know both of us are fully apprised of the situation, and those who don't aren't in a position to cause me problems.

And catching up...

Bodhisvaha #347: Sweet fancy Moses! I am so sorry you're having to go through that. Judge B needs to be fired; the last time I checked, actually reading and acting on the information one is given is part of the job description.

I hope you get a favorable result soon from Judge C; you guys deserve to have something go right in this process for once!

Lee #349: My father was ex-military, expected us to call him 'Sir', and enforced it with yelling and beatings. So, random data point supporting your thesis.

Nancy #374: Count me in on the expressions of horror. Compromise is generally not defined as "You do everything with me, whether you want to or not, and I'll decide if I want to do something that you want to."

#381, Lee: I see. So add in a lack of knowing which behaviours are violating which values. Still not about a lack of values.

#382, Jacque: We're attracted to people who rub those suppressions, as a way of getting at them

I don't understand. I read the link as well. I'm not sure I follow the premises that page's explanation is built on, even. Especially the parts about how a relationship is a power struggle. If it's saying "this is how a bad relationship works and this therapy is supposed to help you get away from that" then I'm not seeing it. It seems instead to be saying "this is how relationships work and this therapy is supposed to help you use that to your advantage" well ... screw that, I'd rather stay single for the rest of my life. Seems to me if we date people who match the profile of the people who suppressed parts of us to begin with, it would reinforce the suppression, not release it.

just because something someone (an Authority*) says makes sense, doesn't mean everything they say works

I've noticed I already do the opposite. If somebody says or recommends a thing I know is wrong, I dismiss everything they say. Missed early signs of a health problem in my cat that way... the blood work results that were relevant and important came after a few things (such as "give him some antibiotics just in case, no, I don't know if there's a bacterial infection, oh yes haha *some* people *believe* that's not a good idea...") that made me stop listening to the vet entirely, smile and nod through the rest of what he told me while trying to end the appointment and get to the exit and go looking for a different one.

I think it depends on whether they combine something that registers as right or wrong with the things I'm not sure about. And possibly how much importance I put on the various right or wrong things. Also probably depends on how much I believe my own assessment of how right *my* knowledge is. If it's science based, I can be very confident about what I know and don't know; but if it's an assessment of what my feelings are, or whether something is my problem or my fault or something about myself that I have to work on, I have really low confidence in my own knowledge.

Jacque #382: We're attracted to people who rub those suppressions, as a way of getting at them

That sounds like "I haz a hammer" theorizing, where the "suppressions" are the hammer.

An alternative explanation (surely one of many): OK, start with "we shape ourselves to our care-givers", which seems obvious. That leaves imprints in our personality, and we're looking for people and relationships that match those imprints -- our personal "missing piece". But as we grow and gain self-awareness, we can change parts of our personality, recognizing and healing some of those collected imprints. And if we do that, the pattern which made those imprints doesn't actually fit us anymore.

the invisible one, #384: Seems to me if we date people who match the profile of the people who suppressed parts of us to begin with, it would reinforce the suppression, not release it.

That's kind of a "yes and no". The more-common explanation is that you can be drawn to the same kinds of people who messed you up in an attempt to "make it come out right" this time. Unsurprisingly, this trick almost never works, and you end up with what you said instead.

I dated someone similar to my mother (with whom I had a fraught relationship) for a few years. I remember thinking about the ways he was like Mom, and thinking, "And this time, I'm going to win!"

We broke up because the relationship wasn't working - there were a lot of things wrong there. I suppose that I won, by taking care of myself, and leaving a relationship that was not and could not be healthy.

It's been a while since I was here. When I read Making Light, I read all of it. The Sad and Rabid Puppy debacle required more spoons than I had. Now that spoons have increased, and the puppies have been sent elsewhere, I'm back. I just finished reading the last three Dysfunctional Family threads.

First: witnessing. You've survived quite a lot.

Second: Reading three threads in one gulp displayed quite well our support for each other, and how we've grown. Having a safe place to vent, and be supported therein, shows in subtle positive changes in phrasing over time.

Lee #368

"The day we get engaged is the day you quit the SCA for good."

Sometimes the clues are huge.

I dated a guy for a while that seemed to be projecting his ex on to me. One day he said "That's not like you." erm. We'd been dating four weeks at that point. Along with some other clues, I realized we had a communication problem. So I worked to find common communication ground. And found out he honestly expected me to read his mind. "My intent matters." oh. That explained so much (like why he spent to much time after I misunderstood or got upset explaining that uncommunicated intent). B'bye.

I emailed Mr Intent Matters a list of problems, because I wanted to see how he'd take them apart(*), in the format of "I feel A when you do B because C." What I got back kept any back brain "try again" message from ever voicing again.

"If given the opportunity, I will tell you where your feelings are wrong."

Done. I walked away from the best sex ever.
He ranted at me in email for about six months. I read them to check for any indications of stalkerish behavior. Nope. Just whining. I never answered, and he finally ran down.

Sometimes the clues are huge.

(*) I stopped doing this years ago, because most times, the person getting the list takes each one apart, and misses the pattern of behavior the collection outlines.

Quietly Learning To Be Loud @388: "If given the opportunity, I will tell you where your feelings are wrong." Wow... just, wow!

dcb@389: In a similar context, the reply I got that made me walk away without a second thought was "It's up to you to prove why I should care."

Therapy is hard. Very important, very useful, but hard. :(

(thus ends your weekly context-less remark. :P )

Some of you may be familiar with the phenomenon whereby a person who appears outwardly to be thoroughly decent will claim that actually they're a horrible human being, cheerfully evil in fact, quite the terrible friend. Some such people, in my experience, do turn out to be nasty, but some keep right on appearing thoroughly decent. It's a bit disquieting and I never know what to do: should I carry on treating my friend as I did before? Should I be on guard and not allow them to get closer? Are they just being insecure and self-sabotaging?

Along those lines, my partner claims to be Chaotic Evil, in the D&D sense. But he appears to be generally polite, good-natured, kind and patient towards those close to him, and so on. He also claims to have no emotions but acts like he likes me an awful lot and isn't sure how to deal with it. It is very possibly anxiety-brain talking but I am not sure how to tell if he's just a highly repressed person with positive emotions leaking out all over, or a terrifyingly good actor and sociopath. :( I'm already unsure enough of my ability to read people accurately, especially when I am potentially blinded by "but I love him!" Not sure what to do.

Hope in disguise, since you're already experiencing anxiety and awkwardness, I think you have little to lose by sharing it. Perhaps asking bluntly would clarify the situation. "When you say that you are a terrible person who shouldn't be allowed around others, what do you mean exactly? What reaction do you expect from me?" "Do you have evidence that you are chaotic evil?" "When I hear things like that, I end up freaked out and second-guess myself to oblivion. If you don't want me to cut you off forever, could you stop saying so?"

But I have solid relationships and would still be very nervous about doing that. In less solid situations, I expect it would be more stressful. I offer the advice because it might change the situation that is already bad.

Hope in disguise, I was strongly reminded of this post: http://www.aspiestrategy.com/2014/04/adults-on-spectrum-and-ted-bundy.html

I don't mean to diagnose on the Internet, but I suspect that thought pattern isn't necessarily limited to people on the spectrum anyway, though they might be subject to thinking that way for different reasons than other people.

<rant>Entirely trivial compared to what most folks are dealing with here, but local sports-ball team has occassioned much local head-splodey hysteria by going to national  national marketing blitz money suck  big-deal sports ball thing. Said hysteria has, of course, taken over the population of my local office. My bitch is that I find this all very irritating and triggery, owing to early, very unpleasant experiences/associations with the whole sports ball obsession of family members and school. ::growl:: </rant>

*sigh* why do I keep doing this to myself? Every time I read or see something "for women" or "that women like" I am left only with the sense of further evidence that I'm not actually a woman, and yet I keep reading them.

Maybe it's the hope that somebody somewhere will talk about something "for women" that actually appeals to me. Or even talks about something "for women" that doesn't apply to me by saying "some women" or "many women" instead of "women", thus acknowledging that maybe I am a woman who exists, instead of having the implicit "all" -- with the fallback position of "well of course not *all*, I didn't say *all* women" if it's brought to their attention.

(Prompted by a piece about "women's fantasies" which is all about romance novels, and is entirely made up of things I hate about the genre.)

Jacque, #395: I don't consider that trivial at all. Having worked in an office with a cow-orker who had all of my mother's triggering phrases and mannerisms, I know exactly how much it interferes with your ability to work effectively -- and you can't complain about it because of course it doesn't bother anyone else!

the invisible one, #396: When I see one of those articles, I always mentally insert the word "stereotypical" in front of the word "women". Yes, you're a woman, but you don't fit the popular media stereotype. Neither do I -- but I see that as largely a source of amusement, with occasional frustration when it becomes obvious that the stereotype is based on institutionalized sexism. I suppose it helps that almost none of my female friends fit the stereotype either, so I have no reason to consider myself abnormal; it's the stereotype itself that I consider abnormal, being made up of a constellation of traits that almost no woman displays ALL of.

The over-generalizing use of a broad term in a context where it's easy to point out exceptions is, unfortunately, common to virtually everyone; it's a standard English idiom, and training yourself not to do it takes time and effort, and still sometimes fails. I saw a huge argument about this elseNet a few days ago, where the term involved was "self-published authors".

This is where the usage #notallX proves itself useful for more than just mocking apologists; it can also be deployed as a way to remind people that they're overgeneralizing.

Perhaps you could reframe it that people who write about 'women' are clearly not experienced enough in the wide variety of people who can be labeled as such, and isn't it helpful of them to so clearly mark their articles as clueless?

It is frustrating, though, to have it constantly reinforced that you are not performing your identity properly in the eyes of the article. In my experience, though, the biggest difference between 'women' and 'men' is that a group of women are much more likely to talk about birth control than a group of men. Everything else, I figure, is group-dependent.

the invisible one @396: Heh. I think I did conclude, at a very early age, that I'm not "a woman," for just precisely the reasons you cite. (By contrast, I'm not "a man" for the same reasons.)

I'm okay with being "a person," though there are days I have my doubts about that, too.

I guess it's also building on a lifetime of not fitting in and being told I'm Doin It Rong; kind of hitting me in a sore spot. Nope, you don't belong here either! haha!

I know it's lazy writing. I know overgeneralizing is a common thing.

I know I shouldn't read those things because they don't do anything good for my happiness levels, and neither do they teach me anything new that might make it worth spending time on a not-happy thing.

the invisible one: Nevertheless, there is a low-grade, background radiation of "you don't fit" and "ur doin it rong" in the popular culture—primarily driven, in my not particularly humble opinion, by the advertizing industry. After all, if you're happy with who you are, what need do you have of their products and services?

My solution to that has always been to cast the side-eye on those who scorn me for not being [what I don't want to be anyway]. But that's much harder if you are struggling to chart your own course. The blare of the neon (if you'll pardon my overworking the metaphor) can make it all the harder to see your own stars.

Yeah, still struggling with that, hence the hurt, and the earlier discussions about how much of different things I've read should I actually believe, and...

About you being upset about the sports frenzy? Don't let anyone tell you you're overreacting, they don't know the history behind that sore spot they just poked.

@the invisible one no. 396: It's hen dope. That's an old newspaper term for stuff that (male) content controllers would just throw in there to keep the ladies contented. It was notorious for lack of fact checking and general inanity. Good Housekeeping was explicitly founded to give women something to read that spoke to the interests of the (then) homemaking majority without any hen dope, hence their in-house product testing department and so on.

But hen dope is still with us. It isn't even what keeps ladies contented...it's what advertisers think keeps ladies contented, therefore what they will pay to support.

I suppose one of the back-handed benefits of being constantly bullied at home and at school was that I gave up on ever fitting in and just read what I liked, whether it was girly or not. Most of it wasn't.

I bought my first smartphone a month ago. I brought my husband along because he's responsible for buying the cell phones for his company, so he knows the ins and outs and traps and tricks. He'd done the research, knew what was available and for how much. Good thing, too.

It was a horrific experience. We'd've walked out if we hadn't been on a tight timeline. The guy lied to us about phone availability ("you can't buy that; you can only rent it." "Then why is there a buy-it-now price on the sheet posted here?"), price ("This one is cheaper." "Then why does the sheet posted right here show that it's $100 more?"), and plans ("This is our cheapest plan...." "The sign behind you shows a plan that costs half as much and does exactly what we want.") When he got the phone out of the safe ("We don't have that model in stock." "Go check.") he came out with one black one and one white one. He started to hand me the white phone, saying "women like the white one."

Now, at that point, if he'd said water was wet I would have demanded a second opinion. I just gave him a level look, and said "No, thank you, I want the black one." I hadn't actually had an opinion until he'd flat-out told me what I thought...

Cassy

The first car my husband and I bought together, which was probably 35 years ago so one would hope that things have improved in that time, one of the first salesmen we saw discussed things like gas mileage with him and wanted to show me the lighted makeup mirror on the passenger side sunshade. We didn't buy a car from that dealership. But we do still use his phrase "I'm talking about a super deal," with a particular ironic inflection.

OtterB, I've had that happen, too. My first car, my parents drove me to the dealership (after all, I needed transportation). The dealer gave his pitch to my folks, turned to me, and say, "And what color would you like, dear?"

I walked out. Didn't walk into a Subaru dealership again for thirty years.

To the phone salesman's credit(?), he was equal-opportunity sleezy. He lied to my husband as much as to me.... (Thank ghu my husband actually buys cellphones and cellphone plans as part of his job description.) At the end of this excruciating experience, after we'd pointed out to his face that he was wrong about every single thing he'd told us... he gave us his card and asked us to recommend him to our friends.

(I got a "rate your experience" email from Sprint. I rated it, by God...)

OtterB @ 405

Heh. The first time I went shopping for a car on my own (well, sans father, I had a female friend with me) the salesman (on the first car) kept pointing out things like electric seats, radio/music options, cruise control, etc. until I popped the hood. He came to a stuttering halt. After I pointed out it was low on radiator fluid, he started in on construction and the like.

My friend had to walk away, so she wouldn't laugh in his face. I didn't buy from that dealer.

the invisible one @402: About you being upset about the sports frenzy? Don't let anyone tell you you're overreacting, they don't know the history behind that sore spot they just poked.

Thank you for the reassurance. It does help to hear. Fortunately, I largely managed to keep my discomfort to myself, though I confess I've surreptitiously caused memorabilia posted in the break room to "fall down." Blessedly, there's only one person in my orbit who's shown a tendancy to tell me how I "should" feel about things. Also, blessedly, I've mostly managed to keep her at a distance such that I've only had to explicitly tell her to step off once. I've got my clue-by-four handy, though, should I need it.

Cassy, #404: Did you post a review on Yelp? After an experience like that, I certainly would have -- with the salesman's name included! Filling out Sprint's internal feedback survey attacks the problem from one direction. Posting a public review attacks it from a different one.

Lee @409, never occurred to me. I'll do that forthwith. Thanks! (I wasn't cheated because I quite literally had a professional phone-buyer with me; I can't assume anyone else will have that advantage.)

Hit post too soon.

The ludicrous part of the whole thing was all the prices and plans were posted, prominently. He was literally telling us one thing while we were looking at prominently displayed sales brochures that said the opposite in big bold letters. I felt like I was in the middle of a bad comedy sketch or something.

In the BTDT department -- last time we needed a new refrigerator, Jan and I went to our local appliance store and did our usual 'good cop, bad cop' routine. All we wanted was a fridge/freezer combo, no bells, no whistles...

I finally had to TELL the salesman that we weren't interested in having an ice-maker, water-in-the-door, etc. because they cost an arm and a leg to repair when they break. The guy looked at me like I'd sprouted two heads.

Cassy, #411: That's definitely something to mention. I would also include the examples you've posted here of what he was lying to you about, literally underneath the sign that said otherwise. And that he tried to tell you what color you wanted. The more specifics your review includes, the more seriously people will take it when they look.

Lori, #412: Furthermore, it's no longer possible to find the wire racks meant to hold 2 ice-cube trays inside the freezer (which are kind of necessary to keep Stuff from piling up on top of them) because everybody is assumed to have the ice dispenser in the door now. Fortunately, my partner has welding equipment and could fix our rack when it broke, because there was not one to be had anywhere in the city.

Cassy B.: I am, crusty and cynical though I may be, unfortunately vulnerable to that sort of thing. Growing up in an alcoholic household, one has to decide which one will believe? What one sees? Or what one is told? Unfortunately for me, for the sake of survival, I had to go with what I was told. That reflex persists, compounded by a "don't make waves" inhibition. So dealing with that salesman, I might very well have caved....

Lee, next time you're in the Denver metro area, check McGuckin's.

me @414: ...or maybe not. Just had a go-round at work where trainer said B when boss (I though) had said A. I voiced a challenge; turns out I was right. Whew!

Jacque @416, go you!

Well, that didn't work.

Reverting to a pseud here. Staff at my office received a notice from HR reporting that we were being investigated for "unlawful discrimination," and that some or all of the staff will be interviewed to gather information about this. "Timeframe to be determined. Don't discuss this with your coworkers."

That's all the letter said (though with copious wordage).

My reaction to this has been to use this as a chance for self-evaluation: I've reviewed in my mind members of our staff, and made estimates of what kinds of discrimination they could be vulnerable to, and then checked (my perception of) my own behavior against that estimate. Far as I can tell, I can't think of anything I might have done that would prompt this sort of insitutional response. If not, this will be an opportunity to Learn Something New. So I in myself have been approaching this whole thing with an attitude of interest and curiosity.

A coworker has expressed a huge amount of "annoyance" (fear, based on nonverbals) about this at our staff meeting. This person is someone I generally have a pretty good relationship with. This person's anxiety has also provoked anxiety in me. So I made an attempt to share with them some of my thinking about how to mitigate the anxiety this situation has caused.

Nope, nuh-uh, not having any of it. "I want facts. Do you have facts?" (Fist slamming into palm implied.)

It took me a couple of rounds to figure out that there was no chance of my getting through with anything that would be of any use to anybody. (Coworker is clearly in fight-or-flight mode, with all capacity focused on the anxiety-causing stimulus, with no attention free for anything else.) So I finally stepped off, "Sorry to have bothered you."

And went back to my desk feeling much worse than when I'd gone in.

Reasonably speaking, I don't think I did anything wrong, but this is clearly one of those situations where more listening should have preceded speaking, and the speaking perhaps best left out altogether. Note to self....

@nCnC: Witnessing. And don't forget that we can't always figure out how other people will react before they do.

Speaking of reactions, I'm second-guessing myself here. A member of my parish--I'll call him Joel--has a mental illness that requires medication and also tends to make him think that he doesn't need it or it's really part of a big conspiracy against him. When he's on his meds, he walks and walks. When he's off his meds, he walks and walks and also says passive-aggressive nasty things to the air when passing people, yells bad words at somebody he's arguing with in his head, and looks mad. We just leave him alone when he's like that because he won't actually attack anybody and trying to engage with him just gets him madder. If he is actually scaring people, the police, who know him, will roll up and let him know that he needs to pick a sidewalk with no people on it.

Well, the other day he looked sad and scared and seemed compelled to keep his arms moving at shoulder level or higher, and he was walking around like that in the cold rain. So I called the police for a welfare check.

And now I'm wondering whether I should have just left it alone. He gets so upset when people notice his abnormal behavior; it feeds into his paranoia and I also think that on some level he's embarrassed. But he looked so sad.

J, I think you did the right thing. Sometimes I make decisions based on what the worst consequence could be of each choice. Worst consequence of you calling for a welfare check: Joel is more paranoid about people seeing him and is upset that someone noticed his behavior. Worst consequence of you ignoring the situation: Joel genuinely needs help and doesn't get it, possibly is harmed by his behavior. I'd much prefer to be wrong in the first way than in the second.

J @419:

I agree with Diatryma, particularly since the police know him, and he knows them.

Hopefully either after the initial embarrassment has faded (if he's actually OK) or after his medications are back in balance (if he's not), he'll see the call as what it was: an expression of concern.

I was in a parish with someone in much the same circumstances. It's hard, and even knowing that it's usually even harder on them doesn't make it easier. Thank you for caring, though.

J: we can't always figure out how other people will react before they do.

I point I often forget; thank you for pointing that out.

J @420: WRT the wellfare check call, I agree with Diatryma and abi. And, further, it's great that there's the "wellfare check" frame to put it into.

Saw my call on the police report in the paper; he's OK. Or he was then.

Group therapy, for me, is kind of like massage therapy. It hurts at the time (though you don't notice because you're talking with the therapist ;) but it does amazing amounts of good.

I feel like one of my legendary knots has been worked out. I don't need to be angry any more. The anger has served its (very important, even critical) purpose - but I don't *need* it any more. I've set the boundaries, and learned to enforce them. I've individuated to the point where I'm not fragile any more. I don't need the anger any more.

Also, there is no blame. I no longer blame Mom for the mess she made, but neither do I accept the lessons she taught me, or the blame for learning them.

I'm torn between laughter and tears. But I feel so light...

Chickadee, #425: Go you! Yay for progress!

Chickadee (425): Wonderful! So good to hear.

Well. I've heard mentioned a few times around here that Miles and Ekaterin were an example of a good relationship in fiction. Been reading through the Vorkosigan books.

Just met Ekaterin. Ouch. So many points of recognition. But I know it gets better for her because you all said it did. So I am wondering how, now, and reading on. (And, hoping it doesn't get better because she's rescued by Miles. I hope she rescues herself, dammit.)

One of my families of choice, and it's a large one, is very dysfunctional. They've codified, enforced and reinforced an abusive to outsiders culture. It's not really racism or sexism or any other -ism, except by accident. The really tricky part of it is they advertise themselves as being open and friendly and inclusive. It's really the ultimate bait and switch.

Being part of the group was like being in an abusive marriage. There were some verbal attacks, but most of it was gaslighting. Some of it was deliberate. Some of it accidental -- as in "that's not MY experience" and the automatic assumption that a different experience is somehow either wrong or a lie.

I just found out someone else who has experienced similar abuse is now publicly shaming the group in social media. This is mostly because the individual is going back to the group.

Me, I used to live in Omelas. I emigrated there thinking it was a place I could live in, love and be loved. I've been walking away for some time now. Grief is a very long road to travel. Especially when you get missives from home.

the invisible one @428: I hope she rescues herself, dammit.

*snerk* ::secretive grin::

(Ah, to be reading those for the first time.... ::sigh::)

#430, Jacque: Well that sounds promising :)