Please give me feedback on this conversation, really needed here

[LovePrevails]

 

am I right or wrong in what I am saying?

is Scilla right or wrong is what she is saying?

 

why?

[PatrickC]

Just to let you know, that link only works I imagine if you are either facebook friends with yourself or the other party. It's telling me the content is unavailable.

[LovePrevails]

thanks I've now made it public

[LovePrevails]

should be viewable now

 

[Pepin]

Parent-blaming is often used as a quick-fix to personal problems. By blaming their parents for their problems, grown children can focus their attention on other people instead of engaging in the self-reflection needed to confront difficulties head-on. They can oversimplify and complain about family rather than learning from the past and making positive changes.

It isn't at all a quick-fix as it takes a lot of time for many to even begin to hold their parents to any objective standard.

There is an unsubtle dodge occurring in which she is ignoring whether the parents were to blame for the abuse they inflicted, and ignoring whether a particular action is abuse. This is rather nonsensical, especially with the vast amount of scientific research correlates issues in childhood with issues in adulthood. To not put responsibility on the parents for their abuse is to either to claim that a child must take responsibility for the abuse that was inflicted on them, or to deny the concept of responsibility.

More importantly, this objective self-reflection in regards to the past and who did harm to you as a child is very important in the process of not inflicting unprocessed abuse onto others, particularly other children. A result of this is that those who don't objectively analyze their childhood and hold those who are responsible for inflicting abuse are likely to normalize it and to reenact such abuse. This is to say the ones who are not self-reflecting and confronting difficulties: are the parents. It is very easy to say that the parents are not learning from the past and making positive changes.

I used a pseudonym to protect my family, and a good half of the book is used not to tell how I was abused, but how I got therapy and how it was carried out. That is what people call "moving on".

It is an odd concept to protect a "family" that did not protect you when you were at your most vulnerable. Not really sure how to respond to the later part. From reading on, what I gather is that is that they are claiming that it is best to resolve the issues behind doors with a therapist and to not make any of the abuse public as it will likely make bad light of the abuses in an inaccurate/untrue fashion.

This to me, this concept is logically equivalent to telling a rape victim to not talk about the abuse publically and to instead do it with a therapist, to not mention who abused you as you are going to ruin their image, and to tell them to deal with their problem and to move on. I doubt that many people would suggest this as a standard, rather people would encourage you to get the word out.

A personal example in regards to myself is how the concept of Hell and the rapture was beaten into me as a very young child. The effects on my life were all to my detriment, yet people are likely to dismiss the effects I experienced as a function of myself, as opposed to being the result of the ideas themselves. Some people maintain that what I went through was awful, but is not a valid interpretation of Christianity or how most handle it, and that it is rather sad that I received such a improper/negative view of religion.

Anyway, the conversation gets far muddier as it goes on from there. I wish I knew how to describe it, as it has happened to me. To now criticize you, assuming you are Anthony:

they can, but what does it have to do with the post? I don't see any grown children hitting dependent parents to discipline them, and if they did they would and should be held accountable under the law for assault. I agree it's important to take responsibility for yourself if you want to live a good life and avoid harm to others, and it's usually parental lack of responsibility that accounts for abuse. We still live in a world where if chldren don't study for tests we give them big fat Fs and tell them they are never going to get ahead in life, but if parents don't study for the most important test of a lifetime, which is giving life to and raising a child they can say "I didn't the best I could." Why is the level of responsibility attributed to a school child so much lower than the level of responsibility attributed to a fully grown adult?

Much of this is ineffective because it is a little hard to follow in context to spanking, and some of the claims being made can't effective if the person doesn't already agree or haven't thought about the subject. For instance: "We still live in a world where if chldren don't study for tests we give them big fat Fs and tell them they are never going to get ahead in life" might be useful if the person agrees with the statement and they understand how it is in contradiction to their previous claim, but if not, it is going to be perceived as rather disconnected and as a weak form of evidence.

What is likely to occur with this sort of argument is that it is likely to be ignored or not understood, or the argument will begin to focus on whether the argument is valid.

For the most part, I like the other posts you made. I assume that Scilla is someone you know, not just because she is replying to something on your facebook, but more because the discussion has that odd vibe I refrenced earlier. It doesn't seem like a normal discussion/debate. Though maybe I'm seeing something that is not there.

[LovePrevails]

thank you for offering what you have shared, you have raised some good point I will keep in mind particularly about "not putting responsibility" where it is due

and about my vagueness which probably stemmed from a rush of temper at the time.

[PatrickC]

Hey Antony, thanks for making it public, so I could read it.

I had a number of thoughts on this. Of course, don't take my word on it, these are just my observations for what it's worth. But I hope it helps.

I was curious why she made that particular comment about 'parent blaming', given the context of the picture you had posted. It didn't seem particularly relevant when you were merely making a moral point about the way some parents make excuses for their abuse. Although given that she seems to have written a book which discusses 'parent blaming' then I suppose the picture may have reminded her of something in her past and she jumped the gun on an emotional trigger perhaps. I also found it interesting that she wrote this book under a pseudonym, as a means to protect her family. Presumably the family that abused her. That doesn't have to mean anything of course, but I think it's interesting all the same.

However, she did eventually make some quite specific personal accusations of you.

"You,
on the other hand, do not spare your parents, and I think you enjoy
their embarrassment and shame at your revelations of being abused.
That, in any case, is how you come over to me. If you really want to
overcome the damage of abuse, stop taking revenge and go to a good
therapist."

This just seems all kind of laden with shaming tactics. Not particularly helpful to you, if you were actually doing what she was accusing you of. Let's say if you had been doing something unconscious, then a more gentler approach with getting you to focus on that unconscious part would have been more profitable and indeed charitable way of helping you understand better. In fairness she does later apologise for this, perhaps realising her approach had been a bit harsh, which it was by the way. Unfortunately she doesn't give you any insight into that harshness or even admit to it. Which consciously or unconsciously (from experience) is all kinds of annoying of course. Highly speculative on my part perhaps, but this could suggest that she is trying to protect her own parents. I could be wrong of course, since she didn't go into detail about how she handled her own experience of parent blaming. However, her approach thus far wasn't entirely about helping you and was perhaps serving some other purpose for her.

That being said, I found it interesting that you wrote such a long and detailed response to her accusations. Not that I think there was anything particularly wrong with what you said, as it all made sense. But given what she had said to you (from my previous observations), I found it to be a little out of context. You did call her out correctly on the poor way she approached you (incompassionate) and you later pointed out how unhelpful she had been. But you then proceeded to defend your reasoning for posting the picture. For me at least, any reasoning about your picture posting was off topic by now, because she had made some significant claims about you personally.

I want to add before I go any further that I'm sorry to hear about the hell your mother put you through as a child, you have my biggest sympathies indeed. With a re-iterated caveat that these are just my thoughts Antony. I'm not going to claim that they are necessarily relevant to you of course. I think it is definitely true that some people can 'parent blame' as a temporary means to ease the pain of their history. I have seen people do this over the years from time to time. I certainly had a period of it myself too. It is well deserved blame as well, but if used as a shield against real insight can be an awful burden to bear. I believe Alice Miller discusses this point, but I'm at a loss to remember exactly where right now. However, it was interesting that you defended your position by describing the abuse you received from your mother rather than asking her what made her believe what you were doing was unhelpful for you. Not that you needed to ask her anything, you could have always ignored it as baseless of course. But since you didn't I think exploring your responses further might prove very valuable for you perhaps.

I hope that made sense and be sure to let me know otherwise.

[LovePrevails]

thanks for taking the time to reply

 

Hey Antony, thanks for making it public, so I could read it.

I had a number of thoughts on this. Of course, don't take my word on it, these are just my observations for what it's worth. But I hope it helps.

I was curious why she made that particular comment about 'parent blaming', given the context of the picture you had posted.

based on one or two previous posts, such as when I was staying at my parents' and my mum woke me at an ungodly hour by screaming at the top of her voice that a light bulb was switched on and I set my status to "Fuck you mum for waking my up at x in the morning... etc."  partially to see how my facebook contacts would react so I could do some asshole deletion

 

However, she did eventually make some quite specific personal accusations of you.

"You,
on the other hand, do not spare your parents, and I think you enjoy
their embarrassment and shame at your revelations of being abused.
That, in any case, is how you come over to me. If you really want to
overcome the damage of abuse, stop taking revenge and go to a good
therapist."

This just seems all kind of laden with shaming tactics. Not particularly helpful to you, if you were actually doing what she was accusing you of. Let's say if you had been doing something unconscious, then a more gentler approach with getting you to focus on that unconscious part would have been more profitable and indeed charitable way of helping you understand better. In fairness she does later apologise for this, perhaps realising her approach had been a bit harsh, which it was by the way. Unfortunately she doesn't give you any insight into that harshness or even admit to it. Which consciously or unconsciously (from experience) is all kinds of annoying of course.

thanks for putting this in perspective for me, yes it is. 

Highly speculative on my part perhaps, but this could suggest that she is trying to protect her own parents.

yes I think it's all along the lines of "you should forgive, forget and move on."

 

That being said, I found it interesting that you wrote such a long and detailed response to her accusations. Not that I think there was anything particularly wrong with what you said, as it all made sense. But given what she had said to you (from my previous observations), I found it to be a little out of context. You did call her out correctly on the poor way she approached you (incompassionate) and you later pointed out how unhelpful she had been. But you then proceeded to defend your reasoning for posting the picture. For me at least, any reasoning about your picture posting was off topic by now, because she had made some significant claims about you personally.

So are you saying that if someone makes claims about my personality, it is counter-productive for me to be compelled to defend myself? can you explain further

 

 

[PatrickC]

That being said, I found it interesting that you wrote such a long and detailed response to her accusations. Not that I think there was anything particularly wrong with what you said, as it all made sense. But given what she had said to you (from my previous observations), I found it to be a little out of context. You did call her out correctly on the poor way she approached you (incompassionate) and you later pointed out how unhelpful she had been. But you then proceeded to defend your reasoning for posting the picture. For me at least, any reasoning about your picture posting was off topic by now, because she had made some significant claims about you personally.

So are you saying that if someone makes claims about my personality, it is counter-productive for me to be compelled to defend myself? can you explain further

No I'm not. You did defend yourself at points, as I mentioned. It was just that that your defense of your posting (picture) wasn't particularly relevant by this point. It was perhaps a triggered emotional defence you may have been experiencing at this point. I guess I'm saying you didn't defend yourself enough. The empirical approach would (I think) have been to say, 'ok, so you are making accusations of me, which is kind of annoying, given you haven't provided much evidence, can you explain where you got this idea from and help me understand where I may be reacting to my history?

[LovePrevails]

 

That being said, I found it interesting that you wrote such a long and detailed response to her accusations. Not that I think there was anything particularly wrong with what you said, as it all made sense. But given what she had said to you (from my previous observations), I found it to be a little out of context. You did call her out correctly on the poor way she approached you (incompassionate) and you later pointed out how unhelpful she had been. But you then proceeded to defend your reasoning for posting the picture. For me at least, any reasoning about your picture posting was off topic by now, because she had made some significant claims about you personally.

So are you saying that if someone makes claims about my personality, it is counter-productive for me to be compelled to defend myself? can you explain further

No I'm not. You did defend yourself at points, as I mentioned. It was just that that your defense of your posting (picture) wasn't particularly relevant by this point. It was perhaps a triggered emotional defence you may have been experiencing at this point. I guess I'm saying you didn't defend yourself enough. The empirical approach would (I think) have been to say, 'ok, so you are making accusations of me, which is kind of annoying, given you haven't provided much evidence, can you explain where you got this idea from and help me understand where I may be reacting to my history?

 

ok thanks for clarifying with an example. That looks helpful I'll bear it in mind in future.

 

 

[DaVinci]

I read through all the comments and what struck me as odd was this idea that talking about it openly on a public forum is worng. That Facebook is for "surface interactions". No, Facebook is words that are visible on a surface. Just like books are words that are visible on a surface. So to me there is no real distinction bewteen the two that would lead me to believe Facebook is just for "surface intereaction". If anything a public forum allows for a back and forth, while a book is just ingested.

So my personal feeling on the matter is that is completely acceptable to talk about your childhood openly. It is not revenge to point out the pain that others forced on you. It is not revenge to deliberately not care about the people who deliberately did not care about you. If so then we need to start caring about scam artists, right?

 

[LovePrevails]

 

I read through all the comments and what struck me as odd was this idea that talking about it openly on a public forum is worng. That Facebook is for "surface interactions". No, Facebook is words that are visible on a surface. Just like books are words that are visible on a surface. So to me there is no real distinction bewteen the two that would lead me to believe Facebook is just for "surface intereaction". If anything a public forum allows for a back and forth, while a book is just ingested.

So my personal feeling on the matter is that is completely acceptable to talk about your childhood openly. It is not revenge to point out the pain that others forced on you. It is not revenge to deliberately not care about the people who deliberately did not care about you. If so then we need to start caring about scam artists, right?

 

 

 

thanks for putting things in perspective

 

I was asking because I was close to it and wanted to make sure I wasn't in the wrong

[Lowe D]

It says I have to log in.  Can someone post a transcript?

[Lowe D]

So my personal feeling on the matter is that is completely acceptable to talk about your childhood openly. It is not revenge to point out the pain that others forced on you. It is not revenge to deliberately not care about the people who deliberately did not care about you. If so then we need to start caring about scam artists, right?

Although I can't see the comments, I think this is a good observation, and I think it makes sense.  When I was very young, my mother told my siblings and me, explicitly, that we must never talk about what went on in the house, with anyone on the outside.  This is a common experience in abusive families.

 

[Dave Bockman]

I would have ejected from the conversation when she used the word 'blame'. Bullshit weasel word.

[LovePrevails]

 

I would have ejected from the conversation when she used the word 'blame'. Bullshit weasel word.

 

 

 can  you clarify?

[Dave Bockman]

She is using the word 'blame' in a pejorative way. She is through her sentence structure mocking the very real and righteous assignment of responsibility for inflicting trauma by inferring that if we do so, we are avoiding self-knowledge in favor of 'the easy way out'

Parent-blaming
is often used as a quick-fix to personal problems. By blaming their
parents for their problems, grown children can focus their attention on
other people instead of engaging in the self-reflection needed to
confront difficulties head-on. They can oversimplify and complain about
family rather than learning from the past and making positive changes.

To blame someone is to correctly assign responsibility for a negative action or manifestation of an action to that person..

 [edit] I also found this video by Daniel Mackler very helpful:

[view:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGTWltPSedQ]

[LovePrevails]

thanks, make sense