Everybody acts/talks like the above is dysfunctional, codependent, etc. etc.
I’d *love* to hear more people talking about why these are *good* things, *valuable* things, *important* things. Why we *should* care about each other, for example: What’s in it for *us*? Just *possibly*, good, strong relationships that we can actually *count* on in times of need?
I think the whole ‘lone cowboy’ think has gotten so completely out of control in American culture (and possibly elsewhere) that people can no longer see it for what it is: A complete, utter, bullshit MYTH.
***
We are NOT islands unto ourselves;
we are NEVER autonomous,
or self-sufficient
in any *real* or meaningful ways – these are all ILLUSIONS.
Think of the ways you depend on other people all the time - their good will, friendliness, and kindness, if nothing else. I mean, how could we even *function* on a day-to-day basis if we couldn’t assume at least a *modicum* of civility from our neighbors, etc.?
The only reason all this *works* at *all* is because *other people* make an effort, too. It’s *not* just us. Otherwise we’d be *constantly* grinding gears, gnashing teeth, getting cross-threaded.
And it’s true – miscommunication, anger, frustration, all of it happens *often*. But think how much *worse* it’d be if there weren’t all those people out their ‘oiling’ the machine, greasing the wheels, smoothing over the lumps and bumps of life to make our path, *and* theirs, easier?
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Sunday, May 29, 2011
MetaFilter to the rescue!
Didn't write down which thread this came from, but quoting it anyway:
http://ask.metafilter.com/184943/Love-vs-in-love-guy-language-translator
by catseye@3:39pm 3 May 2011
Any guy who only wants what he can’t haveFrom another thread,
isn’t the kind of guy you want.
http://ask.metafilter.com/184943/Love-vs-in-love-guy-language-translator
by catseye@3:39pm 3 May 2011
It might not suit you, but the best way I ever found for dealing with issues like this (the cryptic text messages, the ambiguous statements) was to refuse to decode them. They got, at most, about twenty seconds of my time to decipher, after which they fell into two categories:
a) things that made sense on face value, but might possibly maybe have meant something else (statements like 'no, I am not in love with you')
b) things that did not make straightforward sense.
Anything that fell into category a), I interpreted at face value. Anything that fell into category b), I filed under 'makes no sense' and disregarded.
This works really well when people are being straightforward and honest with you, since you're accepting what they say and not trying to read intentions and agendas into any of it. It also works really well when people are being all Mysterious and Elusive and want you to spend ages puzzling about what you've said, because you torpedo their whole strategy just by refusing to play along. Plus, it drastically reduced my time spent curled up on the sofa biting my nails wondering what 'nice to see you...? lol' might possibly have meant. Win-win.
Their need to 'help' is *not* more important
than my need to be left the hell *alone*, to 'stew in my own juices', if need be.
Maybe it’s that ‘good intentions --> road to hell’ thing again, where people expect – heck, I’ve even heard that saying, “You’ll take what you get and like it,” as if someone should be grateful for having something effectively shoved down their throat???!? What the fuck!
But then there’s the more ‘subtle’ kind, or maybe it’s devious? The kind I’m thinking of often leaves me feeling kind of ‘slimed’ if I accept it, but often I’m so focused on keeping the relationship, at any cost? or, not rocking the boat or whatever – god, it’s fucking complicated. Because there are all these social nuances/niceties/complexities (think Miss Manners) that vary from town to town and region to region and country to country and from one family to the next – no *wonder* I never fucking leave the house! It’s im*poss*ible to navigate all that shit without blowing an arm or leg off by unwittingly stepping on *some*body’s emotional landmine (metaphorically, I’m talkin’ metaphor here, not *actual* loss of limb...)
***
Chakra/meridian stuff: Noticed a roughness along the middle finger of my right hand, extending down into my palm - a long line of calloused skin that runs right down the heart chakra (both g and ex♥ asked me about it, and I didn't know the answer).
I *think* it's this: That I was 'trained' by the mu unit to take care of her, and in the process 'learned' that the only way I could get any tiny, smallest portion of my *own* needs met was by putting others' needs ahead of my own.
*stopping* with that habit/pattern, now - imagine screeching and squealing of brakes, massive U-turn as grasshopper wheels her armored vehicle into attack position. Go grassy! :-)
[Attack: As in, "Any y'all want to mess wit' *me*, y'all gonna have to contend wit' *Grassy* here. She's one *tough* mo-fo, and won't put up wid no *shit* from y'all." Or something like that. I *like* being my own super-hero! :-) ]
***
Edited to finish the heart meridian thing: First, it's really the heart *protector* meridian that runs down the middle finger - the one that would 'take care' of the self, like when you put your hand over your heart when something really gets to you emotionally - shock, whatever.
And second, I want to say: Once I realized this? That I was expending too much energy on 'what others think/say/do/expect' (and yes, I've had this realization *many* times before, under *many* circumstances and in *many* guises, but - who can say which one will actually get *through*, or, possibly, tip the balance?)
I began to shift the energy. Not so much in big ways, but more like the way you'd shift your weight from one foot to the other - minimal energy expenditure, but *man*! the *difference* it makes! Like shifting your perspective, your 'angle of view' *just enough* so that suddenly, all the things that were totally bugging the shit out of you? You can't even *see* them any more - they've gone out of focus, almost literally, no longer commanding your attention the same way. Kind of like stepping to the side a bit, only you hardly use any energy at all.
Cool, huh? Big, wide, happy grin here at new discovery :-) Look ma, no hands!
I realize I'm all over the map, here, but it all *does* fit together in some way or other - part and parcel, kit and kaboodle, something like that. I mean, the body and mind are *not* separate - it's just that we humans seem to use a lot of 'symbols' for our so-called 'thinking', and it *helps* to have a 'system' for - what - labeling things? making sense of them? Just like some people tell stories like the God story, or whatever, to make sense of their lives. I find the chakra/energy/meridian stuff *really* useful, and when I can link some psychological and/or emotional concept to some really tangible, physical aspect of my being and/or behavior, it helps. A *lot*. Because then I can use at as a sort of 'indicator' of my - progress? and, in the process, use a whole lot less energy. Which *matters*, because this stuff consumes a *lot* of energy. And I need it to use *less*, so that I have *more* for the *basics* of life, such as actual survival and whatnot.
Maybe it’s that ‘good intentions --> road to hell’ thing again, where people expect – heck, I’ve even heard that saying, “You’ll take what you get and like it,” as if someone should be grateful for having something effectively shoved down their throat???!? What the fuck!
But then there’s the more ‘subtle’ kind, or maybe it’s devious? The kind I’m thinking of often leaves me feeling kind of ‘slimed’ if I accept it, but often I’m so focused on keeping the relationship, at any cost? or, not rocking the boat or whatever – god, it’s fucking complicated. Because there are all these social nuances/niceties/complexities (think Miss Manners) that vary from town to town and region to region and country to country and from one family to the next – no *wonder* I never fucking leave the house! It’s im*poss*ible to navigate all that shit without blowing an arm or leg off by unwittingly stepping on *some*body’s emotional landmine (metaphorically, I’m talkin’ metaphor here, not *actual* loss of limb...)
***
Chakra/meridian stuff: Noticed a roughness along the middle finger of my right hand, extending down into my palm - a long line of calloused skin that runs right down the heart chakra (both g and ex♥ asked me about it, and I didn't know the answer).
I *think* it's this: That I was 'trained' by the mu unit to take care of her, and in the process 'learned' that the only way I could get any tiny, smallest portion of my *own* needs met was by putting others' needs ahead of my own.
*stopping* with that habit/pattern, now - imagine screeching and squealing of brakes, massive U-turn as grasshopper wheels her armored vehicle into attack position. Go grassy! :-)
[Attack: As in, "Any y'all want to mess wit' *me*, y'all gonna have to contend wit' *Grassy* here. She's one *tough* mo-fo, and won't put up wid no *shit* from y'all." Or something like that. I *like* being my own super-hero! :-) ]
***
Edited to finish the heart meridian thing: First, it's really the heart *protector* meridian that runs down the middle finger - the one that would 'take care' of the self, like when you put your hand over your heart when something really gets to you emotionally - shock, whatever.
And second, I want to say: Once I realized this? That I was expending too much energy on 'what others think/say/do/expect' (and yes, I've had this realization *many* times before, under *many* circumstances and in *many* guises, but - who can say which one will actually get *through*, or, possibly, tip the balance?)
I began to shift the energy. Not so much in big ways, but more like the way you'd shift your weight from one foot to the other - minimal energy expenditure, but *man*! the *difference* it makes! Like shifting your perspective, your 'angle of view' *just enough* so that suddenly, all the things that were totally bugging the shit out of you? You can't even *see* them any more - they've gone out of focus, almost literally, no longer commanding your attention the same way. Kind of like stepping to the side a bit, only you hardly use any energy at all.
Cool, huh? Big, wide, happy grin here at new discovery :-) Look ma, no hands!
I realize I'm all over the map, here, but it all *does* fit together in some way or other - part and parcel, kit and kaboodle, something like that. I mean, the body and mind are *not* separate - it's just that we humans seem to use a lot of 'symbols' for our so-called 'thinking', and it *helps* to have a 'system' for - what - labeling things? making sense of them? Just like some people tell stories like the God story, or whatever, to make sense of their lives. I find the chakra/energy/meridian stuff *really* useful, and when I can link some psychological and/or emotional concept to some really tangible, physical aspect of my being and/or behavior, it helps. A *lot*. Because then I can use at as a sort of 'indicator' of my - progress? and, in the process, use a whole lot less energy. Which *matters*, because this stuff consumes a *lot* of energy. And I need it to use *less*, so that I have *more* for the *basics* of life, such as actual survival and whatnot.
what you can afford, emotionally.
I mean, you'd never tell somebody they ought to be satisfied with, I don't know - a McD's burger? when what they really craved, and what their body probably actually needed was a big, thick, juicy steak, right?
You'd say that their so-called 'preference' for McD's was actually an addiction, a maladapted coping system that did the best it could with what it had for a long time, and now it can't tell the difference.
The thing that's *missing* from this - way of thinking? approach? - is that, just as not everyone can *afford* a big, juicy steak every time they have a hankering for one, sometimes people can't *emotionally* 'afford' the cost of doing things that other people have plenty of emotional resources to *do*.
This is convoluted, I *know* - thinking out loud, remember? sounding boards and all that...
So: People who tell you you 'should' stay in contact with *some*body just because it's better than nothing are telling you it's ok to eat junk food if that's all you can *get*. Because what's the alternative? Starve, right? And of course nobody wants to do that - though we may choose to be a little hungry and instead buy small quantities of the best food we can buy. But even that 'fails' as a choice - once you let your machine run low on *any* kind of fuel, it starts running *badly*, and then *other* things start to run amok. Kind of a dominoes chain of impending doom, or something.
Anyway, the *point* is, I wish people'd be fucking *consistent* about this stuff, and recognize how the so-called 'advice' they're giving with one side of their mouth is almost 180 degrees opposite to something they just said five *minutes* ago, or maybe two *seconds* ago, or possibly even in the other half of the very same sentence they just finished speaking.
Gah.
Oh, the other thing I meant to say was, along the lines of being able to ‘afford’ to be around less-than-ideal people: The thing that ‘fills up your tank’ and allows you to *cope* with these people is: Having people who *don’t* rub you the wrong way in your life.
So: Having *strong* connections, somewhere, somehow, in your life, is what makes it possible to put *up* with these other ones. And there are a *lot* of the ‘non-optimal’ ones. So the more support you have, the better you’re able to handle all that.
You'd say that their so-called 'preference' for McD's was actually an addiction, a maladapted coping system that did the best it could with what it had for a long time, and now it can't tell the difference.
The thing that's *missing* from this - way of thinking? approach? - is that, just as not everyone can *afford* a big, juicy steak every time they have a hankering for one, sometimes people can't *emotionally* 'afford' the cost of doing things that other people have plenty of emotional resources to *do*.
This is convoluted, I *know* - thinking out loud, remember? sounding boards and all that...
So: People who tell you you 'should' stay in contact with *some*body just because it's better than nothing are telling you it's ok to eat junk food if that's all you can *get*. Because what's the alternative? Starve, right? And of course nobody wants to do that - though we may choose to be a little hungry and instead buy small quantities of the best food we can buy. But even that 'fails' as a choice - once you let your machine run low on *any* kind of fuel, it starts running *badly*, and then *other* things start to run amok. Kind of a dominoes chain of impending doom, or something.
Anyway, the *point* is, I wish people'd be fucking *consistent* about this stuff, and recognize how the so-called 'advice' they're giving with one side of their mouth is almost 180 degrees opposite to something they just said five *minutes* ago, or maybe two *seconds* ago, or possibly even in the other half of the very same sentence they just finished speaking.
Gah.
Oh, the other thing I meant to say was, along the lines of being able to ‘afford’ to be around less-than-ideal people: The thing that ‘fills up your tank’ and allows you to *cope* with these people is: Having people who *don’t* rub you the wrong way in your life.
So: Having *strong* connections, somewhere, somehow, in your life, is what makes it possible to put *up* with these other ones. And there are a *lot* of the ‘non-optimal’ ones. So the more support you have, the better you’re able to handle all that.
no such thing as self validation.
There jist ain’t no sich of a thing (quote from some musical, I think.)
See, to *me*, the idea of ‘self validating’ is like giving yourself a hug.
Try it, just try it.
Wrap your arms around yourself, and give yourself a big HUG!
Oh, so much BETTER now, yes?
No.
And THIS is the crux of why nearly *all* self-help bullshit doesn’t work:
It’s because we actually NEED other people.
And many of those basic human needs are about relationship, which, by definition,
includes other people.
Man, it’s *exhausting* to try to make a vehement point while typing. What I *really* want is to YELL this, LOUDLY – SCREAM IT AT THE TOP OF MY LUNGS to every person I see.
Because the alternative to ‘relationship’ is ‘navel gazing’, and *that’s* a pretty fucked up way to get *any* kind of need met (she says, comfortably ensconced in her own belly button :-)
I would go so far as to say that we can’t actually GROW UP
until we’ve *experienced* the kind(s?) of relationships that actually allow us to have needs, that recognize that NEEDS are NORMAL and part of a healthy, happy, whole existence.
Whew.
I feel like I’m battling against this massive *weight*, a whole *culture* full of bullshit that lies and lies
and lies
because we’re too scared to face
THE TRUTH:
We’re lonely.
We’re scared!
We NEED each other.
And?
We have no fucking clue how to *do* any of this stuff, because of multiple generations now of isolationist parenting and messed up child rearing practices that have left us all disconnected from each other and ever-more dependent on the teat of technology. Like that poor monkey baby in the experiment all those years ago, who was forced to cuddle up to a *stuffed* mama monkey because the mean experimenters had taken her *real* mama away...
Sad face.
I’ll just say it again: The idea of ‘self validation’ has about as much merit as ‘pulling oneself up by the bootstraps’ – which, if you’ve never *tried* it, is, actually, a physical impossibility.
Validation, to me, requires a viewpoint outside one’s own. Otherwise it’s just a self-referential feedback loop, like a tiger chasing its own tail, or some other useful metaphor that I can’t think of just now.
I *still* say:
We *all* need, and seek, ‘validation’, in the form of recognition, approval, appreciation and what have you – if you believe in Maslow’s hierarchy (and he’s not the only one who says this), then recognition, approval and appreciation from those around us is *paramount* to our mental health.
This ‘self validation’ notion comes from a messed up culture that values *achievement* and *goals* over relationships and people.
Fundamental grasshopper rule number one:
People should *always* be more important than things, including *money*.
Corollary:
If you find yourself focusing on *things* rather than *people*, it’s *most* likely because your relationships aren’t meeting the basic needs relationships are *supposed* to meet.
Plain and simple.
And that’s not about you - that’s about *we*, about *us*, about the collective *tribe* of humans who have, together, jointly, created this situation.
***
Of course it’s not that simple – those of us who were ‘trained’ properly by our parents learn techniques to get our needs met. And the experience of *having* our needs met taught us
a) It’s ok to have needs
b) If you ask, you will receive.
Those of us who had parents who were critical, or shaming, or unresponsive, or harsh, or who possessed any of a number of combinations of destructive relational behavior, probably *didn’t* get those needs met, and came away with varying degrees of dissatisfaction, loneliness, shame, fear, resentment, anger, what have you.
And as adults, we still carry those patterns with us.
Now this is basic dysfunctional family 101 stuff, I get that.
What I’m *trying* to suggest is that the solution that is proposed by dysfunctional people often creates as much dysfunction as it solves, akin to the ‘cure being worse than the disease’ situation.
I’m saying: Let’s get *rid* of labels like needy, and narcissistic, and *all* of them.
Let's say instead: ALL god’s chillun (or whatever your personal belief system leads you to express – I’m *not* a ‘god’ person, but I like the line ‘all god’s chillun’ :-)
ALL god’s chillun
gots needs.
DEAL with it.
Thank you, over and out.
See, to *me*, the idea of ‘self validating’ is like giving yourself a hug.
Try it, just try it.
Wrap your arms around yourself, and give yourself a big HUG!
Oh, so much BETTER now, yes?
No.
And THIS is the crux of why nearly *all* self-help bullshit doesn’t work:
It’s because we actually NEED other people.
And many of those basic human needs are about relationship, which, by definition,
includes other people.
Man, it’s *exhausting* to try to make a vehement point while typing. What I *really* want is to YELL this, LOUDLY – SCREAM IT AT THE TOP OF MY LUNGS to every person I see.
Because the alternative to ‘relationship’ is ‘navel gazing’, and *that’s* a pretty fucked up way to get *any* kind of need met (she says, comfortably ensconced in her own belly button :-)
I would go so far as to say that we can’t actually GROW UP
until we’ve *experienced* the kind(s?) of relationships that actually allow us to have needs, that recognize that NEEDS are NORMAL and part of a healthy, happy, whole existence.
Whew.
I feel like I’m battling against this massive *weight*, a whole *culture* full of bullshit that lies and lies
and lies
because we’re too scared to face
THE TRUTH:
We’re lonely.
We’re scared!
We NEED each other.
And?
We have no fucking clue how to *do* any of this stuff, because of multiple generations now of isolationist parenting and messed up child rearing practices that have left us all disconnected from each other and ever-more dependent on the teat of technology. Like that poor monkey baby in the experiment all those years ago, who was forced to cuddle up to a *stuffed* mama monkey because the mean experimenters had taken her *real* mama away...
Sad face.
I’ll just say it again: The idea of ‘self validation’ has about as much merit as ‘pulling oneself up by the bootstraps’ – which, if you’ve never *tried* it, is, actually, a physical impossibility.
Validation, to me, requires a viewpoint outside one’s own. Otherwise it’s just a self-referential feedback loop, like a tiger chasing its own tail, or some other useful metaphor that I can’t think of just now.
I *still* say:
We *all* need, and seek, ‘validation’, in the form of recognition, approval, appreciation and what have you – if you believe in Maslow’s hierarchy (and he’s not the only one who says this), then recognition, approval and appreciation from those around us is *paramount* to our mental health.
This ‘self validation’ notion comes from a messed up culture that values *achievement* and *goals* over relationships and people.
Fundamental grasshopper rule number one:
People should *always* be more important than things, including *money*.
Corollary:
If you find yourself focusing on *things* rather than *people*, it’s *most* likely because your relationships aren’t meeting the basic needs relationships are *supposed* to meet.
Plain and simple.
And that’s not about you - that’s about *we*, about *us*, about the collective *tribe* of humans who have, together, jointly, created this situation.
***
Of course it’s not that simple – those of us who were ‘trained’ properly by our parents learn techniques to get our needs met. And the experience of *having* our needs met taught us
a) It’s ok to have needs
b) If you ask, you will receive.
Those of us who had parents who were critical, or shaming, or unresponsive, or harsh, or who possessed any of a number of combinations of destructive relational behavior, probably *didn’t* get those needs met, and came away with varying degrees of dissatisfaction, loneliness, shame, fear, resentment, anger, what have you.
And as adults, we still carry those patterns with us.
Now this is basic dysfunctional family 101 stuff, I get that.
What I’m *trying* to suggest is that the solution that is proposed by dysfunctional people often creates as much dysfunction as it solves, akin to the ‘cure being worse than the disease’ situation.
I’m saying: Let’s get *rid* of labels like needy, and narcissistic, and *all* of them.
Let's say instead: ALL god’s chillun (or whatever your personal belief system leads you to express – I’m *not* a ‘god’ person, but I like the line ‘all god’s chillun’ :-)
ALL god’s chillun
gots needs.
DEAL with it.
Thank you, over and out.
Saturday, May 28, 2011
gotta remember this one.
Don't know where this came from, but I like it:
I'm polymerized tree sap and you're an inorganic adhesive, so whatever verbal projectile you launch in my direction is reflected off of me, returns to its original trajectory and adheres to you.
if he knows what he *says* he knows, then why does he
It also occurs to me that if he *knows* he doesn't like dealing with the emotional 'fallout' that comes from sleeping with a woman he doesn't know very well, maybe he shouldn't sleep with her in the first place.
Yeah, yeah - complicated. Not so simple.
But.
I think of 'near misses' I've had in the past, where we *could* have slept together, the attraction was there - but we didn't.
The most memorable, and impressive in hindsight, was a guy I was absolutely miserably in love with for nearly two years after meeting him, even though we only spent a week together (at a music camp) and I never saw him much again after that.
He said, when we were hanging out one night, and it seemed that some kind of physical thing might be imminent, that he 'knew things were different for women,' and he wanted us to still *like* each other if we met again sometime in the future, so we shouldn't have sex.
I was *really* glad he said that, because it was honest, and true.
Though I find it still galling - I'm *still* not sure that it's so much that 'women are different' as it is that we're held to completely different moral standards than men are. I mean, there isn't even an equivalent *word* for 'slut' that would shame a man the way a woman is shamed, and *feels* shamed, by such language. Which merely reflects the attitude of the culture at large, and not the ability of any single individual to withstand such huge, intense cultural pressure to conform to patriarchal expectations.
They shame us because it keeps us 'in line', which is how you treat something you perceive to be 'yours', as in, 'property' - it is *definitely* not the way you treat someone you perceive as an equal human being, someone you like and respect.
A little personal paradigm shifting going on here, methinks?
What I’d *like* is for him to take a little personal responsibility, instead of acting like this is all *me* and has nothing to do with him.
THAT’s what I’d like.
Yeah, yeah - complicated. Not so simple.
But.
I think of 'near misses' I've had in the past, where we *could* have slept together, the attraction was there - but we didn't.
The most memorable, and impressive in hindsight, was a guy I was absolutely miserably in love with for nearly two years after meeting him, even though we only spent a week together (at a music camp) and I never saw him much again after that.
He said, when we were hanging out one night, and it seemed that some kind of physical thing might be imminent, that he 'knew things were different for women,' and he wanted us to still *like* each other if we met again sometime in the future, so we shouldn't have sex.
I was *really* glad he said that, because it was honest, and true.
Though I find it still galling - I'm *still* not sure that it's so much that 'women are different' as it is that we're held to completely different moral standards than men are. I mean, there isn't even an equivalent *word* for 'slut' that would shame a man the way a woman is shamed, and *feels* shamed, by such language. Which merely reflects the attitude of the culture at large, and not the ability of any single individual to withstand such huge, intense cultural pressure to conform to patriarchal expectations.
They shame us because it keeps us 'in line', which is how you treat something you perceive to be 'yours', as in, 'property' - it is *definitely* not the way you treat someone you perceive as an equal human being, someone you like and respect.
A little personal paradigm shifting going on here, methinks?
What I’d *like* is for him to take a little personal responsibility, instead of acting like this is all *me* and has nothing to do with him.
THAT’s what I’d like.
Emotion phobia?
Still untangling 'stuff'...
Perhaps my need for nurturance and comfort is so strong that even ordinary kindness and generosity - but wait. I don't have this problem with waitresses or nice people I encounter in superficial situations - it only (? not sure about this?) seems to throw me when I get too close to somebody too fast in my desperate need for intimate (whether physical, emotional or both) contact.
I think that about sums it up, really, but I'll leave the rest of it here for safe-keeping.
I felt:
Set up
Hm, that’s pretty much *it* - the same ol’, same ol’, ‘fall for it’ routine – that somebody *seems* to be there for me when they’re really not. So I trust them, and then, just when I get close enough to *really* hurt myself if I fall – they yank the emotional rug out from under me.
So: I need to keep *my* balance - if 'leaning' on somebody I don't know makes me feel off-balance, then maybe I
shouldn't lean on them? Or, at least, not until I know them better and have taken some smaller 'risks' first.
And I shouldn't respond to their need to be 'helpful' if it makes *me* uncomfortable.
***
Googling (as usual) for ideas to help with this stuff, I came across the term “emotion phobia” in this article, 75 Nice Things People Say to Shut Up Your Feelings, which is here:
http://mindfulconstruct.com/2011/02/18/75-things-people-say-to-shut-up-your-feelings/
(Long-ish) quote from the article, bolds mine:
***
The following are the ideas I started with. I've put this part at the end for safe-keeping, but the 'answer' I was searching for is the stuff at the top, which is what I *really* need to keep track of.
I felt that g was ‘taking care’ of me in ways that felt wonderful; and: I *also* felt *suspicious*.
A ‘validation’, perhaps? of that – foreboding? comes to me in this thought:
What if what I experienced as ‘care-taking’ was actually him
micro-managing his emotional environment?
That is, any time anything seemed to have the potential to rock *his* boat, emotionally, he would – control the situation? or shift the conversation in a direction he felt more comfortable with?
This was not *universally* true with him, which makes this harder to suss out – but I think when it was just the two of us alone in a an emotionally close situation, this ‘mechanism’ of his came into play as I got closer to areas he didn’t want me to see yet. So rather than setting a boundary or expressing himself *as soon as* he got uncomfortable, he let me get closer and closer, until he was *so* uncomfortable that he felt he had no option other than to ‘throw me out’.
Which of course felt *horrible*.
Whoa nelly, gettin’ off balance again here. Find your center. What’s true? This is too much about the other guy and not enough about *me*.
Second try at focusing on *me* is at top of post.
***
More of what I’m thinking on the ‘micro-managing his emotional environment’ thing:
He senses me getting uncomfortable about something – cold, hungry, tired (almost as if I were a baby?) – and tries to head whatever it is off at the pass – as long as someone *else* was there with us, his concern was more about the dynamic between the *three* of us.
But as soon as it was just *two* - feels like I’m trying to turn my own brain inside out here – too much work – but if it helps me disengage, disentangle, then it’s worth it –
So maybe he ‘care-takes’ as a sort of pre-emptive form of self defense? It could be that the emotionally loaded talk the three of us had, me, g & f, pre-disposed him to that? Dunno.
Anyway. The above explanation would help make sense of what happened in a way that I can actually *work* with, in the absence of further open, honest, compassionate, caring conversation.
Hm.
Perhaps my need for nurturance and comfort is so strong that even ordinary kindness and generosity - but wait. I don't have this problem with waitresses or nice people I encounter in superficial situations - it only (? not sure about this?) seems to throw me when I get too close to somebody too fast in my desperate need for intimate (whether physical, emotional or both) contact.
I think that about sums it up, really, but I'll leave the rest of it here for safe-keeping.
I felt:
Set up
Hm, that’s pretty much *it* - the same ol’, same ol’, ‘fall for it’ routine – that somebody *seems* to be there for me when they’re really not. So I trust them, and then, just when I get close enough to *really* hurt myself if I fall – they yank the emotional rug out from under me.
So: I need to keep *my* balance - if 'leaning' on somebody I don't know makes me feel off-balance, then maybe I
shouldn't lean on them? Or, at least, not until I know them better and have taken some smaller 'risks' first.
And I shouldn't respond to their need to be 'helpful' if it makes *me* uncomfortable.
***
Googling (as usual) for ideas to help with this stuff, I came across the term “emotion phobia” in this article, 75 Nice Things People Say to Shut Up Your Feelings, which is here:
http://mindfulconstruct.com/2011/02/18/75-things-people-say-to-shut-up-your-feelings/
(Long-ish) quote from the article, bolds mine:
It’s the other person’s problemI find the whole article really helpful on the topic of invalidation, boundary-setting and recognizing when somebody’s blowing you off. The comments section contains some additional useful stuff.
Instead of looking at their own reaction and owning up to their own discomfort when you talk about something that’s “too” emotional — the other person blames you.
Makes it all your fault that they’re unwilling to get emotional, or to be fully present, or to genuinely accept that you feel the way you feel.
People who don’t want to experience their own negative emotions sure as heck don’t want you to express yours. Because then they might have to take response ability for their actions, connect with you, empathize, or get in touch with themselves — which they’ve (unconsciously) decided is way too painful.
You become someone else’s problem when you voice what they can’t accept in their own self.
Pay attention when someone deflects your feelings
Start to listen for those phrases in your every day. You’ll pick up on when people try to censor you.
You might decide not to let someone censor you. Or you might see how uncomfortable they actually are, and rethink how you can (casually) relate to them.
Emotion-phobic exchanges aren’t always the end of the world. Some might even be well-intentioned. But they can prick you when you don’t notice. So just pay attention.
Context matters too. You can’t pour your heart out to everyone. Emotional intimacy is exclusive, not open.
Just remember, you deserve better than emotional censorship.
***
The following are the ideas I started with. I've put this part at the end for safe-keeping, but the 'answer' I was searching for is the stuff at the top, which is what I *really* need to keep track of.
I felt that g was ‘taking care’ of me in ways that felt wonderful; and: I *also* felt *suspicious*.
A ‘validation’, perhaps? of that – foreboding? comes to me in this thought:
What if what I experienced as ‘care-taking’ was actually him
micro-managing his emotional environment?
That is, any time anything seemed to have the potential to rock *his* boat, emotionally, he would – control the situation? or shift the conversation in a direction he felt more comfortable with?
This was not *universally* true with him, which makes this harder to suss out – but I think when it was just the two of us alone in a an emotionally close situation, this ‘mechanism’ of his came into play as I got closer to areas he didn’t want me to see yet. So rather than setting a boundary or expressing himself *as soon as* he got uncomfortable, he let me get closer and closer, until he was *so* uncomfortable that he felt he had no option other than to ‘throw me out’.
Which of course felt *horrible*.
Whoa nelly, gettin’ off balance again here. Find your center. What’s true? This is too much about the other guy and not enough about *me*.
Second try at focusing on *me* is at top of post.
***
More of what I’m thinking on the ‘micro-managing his emotional environment’ thing:
He senses me getting uncomfortable about something – cold, hungry, tired (almost as if I were a baby?) – and tries to head whatever it is off at the pass – as long as someone *else* was there with us, his concern was more about the dynamic between the *three* of us.
But as soon as it was just *two* - feels like I’m trying to turn my own brain inside out here – too much work – but if it helps me disengage, disentangle, then it’s worth it –
So maybe he ‘care-takes’ as a sort of pre-emptive form of self defense? It could be that the emotionally loaded talk the three of us had, me, g & f, pre-disposed him to that? Dunno.
Anyway. The above explanation would help make sense of what happened in a way that I can actually *work* with, in the absence of further open, honest, compassionate, caring conversation.
Hm.
Friday, May 27, 2011
ooh, ooh -
- I like this, gotta spread it:
The only people for me are the mad ones,
the ones who are mad to live, mad to talk,
mad to be saved, desirous of everything
at the same time, the ones who never yawn
or say a commonplace thing, but
burn, burn, burn,
like fabulous yellow roman candles exploding
like spiders ac r o s s the stars.
~Kerouac
fighters vs. connectors?
I keep looking for 'organizing principles' to make sense of what's happening in my life, and had this (brilliant, if I may say so :-) flash of insight about different 'types' of humans that may have mixed together in our not-so-distant past (evolutionarily speaking) to create the unholy social mayhem that we currently refer to as 'dysfunction'.
The basic idea is (and yes, this is patched together from a bunch of stuff I've read, I did *not* originate this cold from nothing) that there are 'lovers' and 'fighters', and that the two 'types' go way back to cave days.
I first started thinking about this when reading Clan of the Cave Bear, which posed some interesting extrapolations based (I believe?) on what we 'know' about prehistory - ideas about CroMagnon and Homo Erectus and so on.
I don't remember the details, but the basic premise of the story is that two separate (but similar, and evolving - on parallel tracks?) evolutionary strains of humans, which had been geographically separated during the whole course of their separate evolutions, suddenly come across each other and try to figure out what the heck - power battles, the usual, ensue.
Ugg (my nickname for the shorter, darker, swarthier, less 'intelligent' but more - earth-connected? variety of human) and Nord (the taller, more upright, lighter-skinned and emotionally at a 'higher' [?] developmental level variety) discover that each has a few tricks to show the other, and they wrangle briefly for the upper hand - while Nord has the superior 'intellect' and supposed ability to connect, Ugg has more brute strength, cunning, and, when it comes down to it, a greater need to dominate as well as a greater - demand for loyalty? - from the rest of his 'pack'.
The two end up 'mating', and the offspring are, well - unpredictable.
The usual Russian roulette wheel of chance that runs the whole genetic lottery comes into play and throws out what *seems* to both Ugg and Nord to be a 'deformity'. The child is nearly abandoned, but someone in one of the clans takes pity on it and raises it, and it turns out, of course, to have special 'gifts' that neither of the two strains had heretofore possessed.
Diversity for the win, once again! (Will we understand that before it's too late? Remains to be seen. The human 'mind' seems, often, to *not* provide an evolutionary 'advantage', in the longer term.) Thanks here to Michael Pollan's - documentary? - film called The Botany of Desire, the segment of which tickled this latest train of though into life was the one on apple trees and the magnificent genetic diversity nature produces when left to her own devices and not interfered with. Bountiful cornucopia, indeed! The land of plenty, if only we'd stop fucking it up with stupidity and greed... sad grasshopper face here.
Credit here to other sources of ideas: Ishmael, a novel by Daniel Quinn; The Chalice and the Blade by Riane Eisler. Will list more as they come to mind.
***
Anyway, the main point: If we *are* all just random genetic conglomerations thrown out into the universe by this gigantic bingo spinner Ma Nature has dreamed up, then the diversity Pollan illustrates with his example on the biologically diverse possibilities posed by unfettered cross-pollination of apple trees would seem applicable to humans, too.
Which means: You might get an ‘Ugg’ mind in a Nord body, or vice versa; you might get a nearly pure Ugg *born* to a Nord parent. The possibilities for confusion and ensuing insanity are – overwhelming, to say the least.
Which is why tribe becomes so insanely important: We MUST have a larger pool of options for each and every human to choose from. This ties back into the ‘it takes a village’ idea of child-rearing: The current ‘nuclear family’ model is not only dysfunctional by design – I’d go so far as to say it’s actually destructive, that it literally destroys the fabric of human society by isolating us from our true peers.
***
The other thought I’ve been having is that, to *cope* with the ‘mixmatch’ (yes, that was intentional :-) created by the cross-breeding of two largely incompatible – species? to comply with Nature’s imperative for (drive toward?) genetic diversity
we end up with the ‘left/right’ brain thing. It’s almost a kind of built-in schizophrenia – if *half* of you is Nord, and half Ugg (or some other percentage) – how does the brain cope with competing and/or conflicting drives, desires, perceptions, motivations, etc.?
I can’t remember where I read this – several places, it seems to me, will reference if I can remember them – but that ‘traits’, meaning, personality traits, are not only genetic (to some degree? variable, depending on trait?) but that they also morph - that is, they learn, our genes actually take on the imprint of our surroundings as a survival mechanism. It’s like we’re part chameleon, only at a genetic, cellular level, not just with surface characteristics, behaviors, etc.
The *coping* mechanisms entailed by this kind of random genetic madness are endless. I would say that denial, spin, lying, ‘manipulation’, Ask vs. Guess - *all* of it – are just variations on a theme: How to cope with a world filled with people who look just like us on the outside, but who, underneath? could be *any* of a huge variety of random possible combinations of traits.
Now, I realize this may all seem obvious, but what *wasn’t* obvious to *me* is that, in *spite* of this massive diversity, randomness, what have you – we still seem to *expect* that other people will be just like us.
How fucked up is *that*????
Maybe there’s a strain that didn’t evolve like this, which is why *some* of us are more adaptable, more flexible when it comes to accepting other types of people?
In other words, ‘tribe’ for *some* of us, includes the whole of the human race, and the ‘selections’ we make are based more on personal preference than on attributes such as height, skin color, or other simple, superficial characteristics.
One thing certain Ugg types seem not to ‘get’ is that a woman is not merely a flowerpot full of dirt into which one inserts seed – she’s an actual human being with the same level of genetic diversity represented by Ugg’s lineage. She’s going to produce offspring possessing any of a wildly random assortment of possible combinations, based on the genetic pools the two of you collectively represent.
One of the things *I* struggle with in resolving my internal ‘predator’ (hawk, is how I think of her – whenever I hear a hawk’s high, thin call, I want to be up there circling with her, surveying the landscape from high above) with my internal – what – rabbit???? Not so crazy about *that* image, but it’ll do for now –
- is that the Nord part of me has compassion for Uggs in a way that may be detrimental to my physical, emotional and mental health. Which could explain a *lot*.
I started thinking about all this when ‘typing’ my family – Dad’s a gentle Nord, with a *little* warrior in him, but he’s mostly a Squishy (I keep thinking of different names and haven’t yet landed on a – typology? is that the word I want? Anyway, work in progress.)
He’s squishy in that he’s *physically* non-aggressive – but as a ‘connector’? He kind of sucked. But – on the other hand, he was actually a better Connector, in the long run, than the mu unit – which is why I think his system (emotional) got overtaxed, and he basically died of cancer.
Now, *I* think that with the proper kind of ‘tribe’ or ‘clan’ to spread things out a bit, without the essential ‘dysfunctionality’ of the nuclear family, people like my father would have had other people to turn to outside the ‘family’, and would have survived.
That must be the driver for all these psychological ‘movements’ – the culture (?) as a whole ‘knows’ that it needs to change in order to survive in the long run, and so these little ‘solutions’ keep popping up – self help, consciousness-raising (do people do that any more? Or was that just in the 60s and 70s?), social networking, etc.
***
After this most recent encounter with g, I was thinking about how so *many* men seem to be – conditioned? or is it, maybe, genetic? – to seek submissive women.
I, as a true Nord (or so I like to think – it mostly makes me happy to finally find my ‘type’, not that I think any type is ‘better’ than the other – each has her strengths and weaknesses, and *together*, when things are *working* well – well, I think combining the various types can be *amazing*, fantastic, unbelievable. *Finding* that ‘right’ combination is a whole *’nother* story, though...)
G seemed to like me to a *point* – the point at which I stood up to him too much.
I was reading yet another one of those ‘how to’ stories for women, this particular article was on ‘girlenergy’ vs. ‘boyenergy’ (!?).
It talked, yet a-fucking-gain (I don’t care if I NEVER EVER see this fucking trope EVER again – did I say, EVER????) about the idea that women are supposed to be passive, submissive, receptive, choose your – what – adjective?
She (the author) even went so far as to spell out how she’d basically given up her fucking power as an autonomous female in exchange for the so-called ‘rewards’ of being the possession of some asshole (Note: These are *my* words, not hers, of course – comprehension of the marriage racket is yet beyond me – I still hear ‘protection racket’ echoing in my mind every time I hear some woman willingly (?) submitting to the ‘bonds’ – yes, please *do* make note of the words used, the terminology, the language - it matters.
This is *not* hyper-analyzing – this is Emperor’s New Clothes stuff, stuff we ignore because it’s so pervasive, so ubiquitous, so un-freaking-believeably all-encompassing that we can’t even see it any more. Water we swim in, and all that...)
This writer basically stated outright that you have to give up up being a ‘take charge’ kind of woman if you want to be in a marriage.
Well, blow *that* for a lark. Though I have to say, I know *some* married women (including my sister-in-law) who *seems* to be in charge. But my *brother*’s made some irritating comments that hint that *he* certainly doesn’t see it that way, though he may give lip service to the idea to ‘keep the peace’ in the relationship... dunno. Not sure I’ll ever have the – patience? fortitude? whatever it is that’s needed? – to find out, either.
Ok, massive off-topic side-rant over (maybe? :-)
***
I feel like *I* am part Warrior Queen and part Squishy – I *love* to ‘take charge’, but at the same time I don’t actually need to dominate (which is an important distinction, one I’m wondering if most men are even able to perceive/make/distinguish?)
I want a partner to walk beside - like lioness and lion padding across the veldt, or lolling in the shade with their cubs; like a hawk, I want to circle the skies with my partner, flying free, yet depending on each other for companionship and comfort. Someone to have my back.
***
Possibly related link:
Are You a Connector?
http://www.gladwell.com/tippingpoint/tp_excerpt2.html
***
Not-exactly-related-but-interesting-in-a-tangential-sort-of-way link:
From MetaFilter, Dear Mr. Darwin: How is babby formed?
http://ask.metafilter.com/183878/Dear-Mr-Darwin-How-is-babby-formed#2647078
Quote from user endless_forms, an evolutionary biologist (bolds mine):
Maybe the ‘solution’ that selection hit upon over time is that women women were socialized to be nurturers, caregivers, caretakers, and those who didn’t were brutally slaughtered.
So over time, genetic memory has it that women will suffer a horrible fate unless *they* sacrifice *themselves* for the ‘good of society’?
Which would explain the whole ‘flower pot’ meme, and why women put up with it: It’s a form of cultural, universal Stockholm syndrome. “Do it or you’ll die, in other words, is, maybe, hard-wired into our genetic encoding?
***
So how do you explain a rebellious, warrior throwback like me? Who’s basically peace-loving, but fierce when roused, very protective of those she loves? Grasshopper the Great to the rescue.
Beams :-)
The basic idea is (and yes, this is patched together from a bunch of stuff I've read, I did *not* originate this cold from nothing) that there are 'lovers' and 'fighters', and that the two 'types' go way back to cave days.
I first started thinking about this when reading Clan of the Cave Bear, which posed some interesting extrapolations based (I believe?) on what we 'know' about prehistory - ideas about CroMagnon and Homo Erectus and so on.
I don't remember the details, but the basic premise of the story is that two separate (but similar, and evolving - on parallel tracks?) evolutionary strains of humans, which had been geographically separated during the whole course of their separate evolutions, suddenly come across each other and try to figure out what the heck - power battles, the usual, ensue.
Ugg (my nickname for the shorter, darker, swarthier, less 'intelligent' but more - earth-connected? variety of human) and Nord (the taller, more upright, lighter-skinned and emotionally at a 'higher' [?] developmental level variety) discover that each has a few tricks to show the other, and they wrangle briefly for the upper hand - while Nord has the superior 'intellect' and supposed ability to connect, Ugg has more brute strength, cunning, and, when it comes down to it, a greater need to dominate as well as a greater - demand for loyalty? - from the rest of his 'pack'.
The two end up 'mating', and the offspring are, well - unpredictable.
The usual Russian roulette wheel of chance that runs the whole genetic lottery comes into play and throws out what *seems* to both Ugg and Nord to be a 'deformity'. The child is nearly abandoned, but someone in one of the clans takes pity on it and raises it, and it turns out, of course, to have special 'gifts' that neither of the two strains had heretofore possessed.
Diversity for the win, once again! (Will we understand that before it's too late? Remains to be seen. The human 'mind' seems, often, to *not* provide an evolutionary 'advantage', in the longer term.) Thanks here to Michael Pollan's - documentary? - film called The Botany of Desire, the segment of which tickled this latest train of though into life was the one on apple trees and the magnificent genetic diversity nature produces when left to her own devices and not interfered with. Bountiful cornucopia, indeed! The land of plenty, if only we'd stop fucking it up with stupidity and greed... sad grasshopper face here.
Credit here to other sources of ideas: Ishmael, a novel by Daniel Quinn; The Chalice and the Blade by Riane Eisler. Will list more as they come to mind.
***
Anyway, the main point: If we *are* all just random genetic conglomerations thrown out into the universe by this gigantic bingo spinner Ma Nature has dreamed up, then the diversity Pollan illustrates with his example on the biologically diverse possibilities posed by unfettered cross-pollination of apple trees would seem applicable to humans, too.
Which means: You might get an ‘Ugg’ mind in a Nord body, or vice versa; you might get a nearly pure Ugg *born* to a Nord parent. The possibilities for confusion and ensuing insanity are – overwhelming, to say the least.
Which is why tribe becomes so insanely important: We MUST have a larger pool of options for each and every human to choose from. This ties back into the ‘it takes a village’ idea of child-rearing: The current ‘nuclear family’ model is not only dysfunctional by design – I’d go so far as to say it’s actually destructive, that it literally destroys the fabric of human society by isolating us from our true peers.
***
The other thought I’ve been having is that, to *cope* with the ‘mixmatch’ (yes, that was intentional :-) created by the cross-breeding of two largely incompatible – species? to comply with Nature’s imperative for (drive toward?) genetic diversity
we end up with the ‘left/right’ brain thing. It’s almost a kind of built-in schizophrenia – if *half* of you is Nord, and half Ugg (or some other percentage) – how does the brain cope with competing and/or conflicting drives, desires, perceptions, motivations, etc.?
I can’t remember where I read this – several places, it seems to me, will reference if I can remember them – but that ‘traits’, meaning, personality traits, are not only genetic (to some degree? variable, depending on trait?) but that they also morph - that is, they learn, our genes actually take on the imprint of our surroundings as a survival mechanism. It’s like we’re part chameleon, only at a genetic, cellular level, not just with surface characteristics, behaviors, etc.
The *coping* mechanisms entailed by this kind of random genetic madness are endless. I would say that denial, spin, lying, ‘manipulation’, Ask vs. Guess - *all* of it – are just variations on a theme: How to cope with a world filled with people who look just like us on the outside, but who, underneath? could be *any* of a huge variety of random possible combinations of traits.
Now, I realize this may all seem obvious, but what *wasn’t* obvious to *me* is that, in *spite* of this massive diversity, randomness, what have you – we still seem to *expect* that other people will be just like us.
How fucked up is *that*????
Maybe there’s a strain that didn’t evolve like this, which is why *some* of us are more adaptable, more flexible when it comes to accepting other types of people?
In other words, ‘tribe’ for *some* of us, includes the whole of the human race, and the ‘selections’ we make are based more on personal preference than on attributes such as height, skin color, or other simple, superficial characteristics.
One thing certain Ugg types seem not to ‘get’ is that a woman is not merely a flowerpot full of dirt into which one inserts seed – she’s an actual human being with the same level of genetic diversity represented by Ugg’s lineage. She’s going to produce offspring possessing any of a wildly random assortment of possible combinations, based on the genetic pools the two of you collectively represent.
One of the things *I* struggle with in resolving my internal ‘predator’ (hawk, is how I think of her – whenever I hear a hawk’s high, thin call, I want to be up there circling with her, surveying the landscape from high above) with my internal – what – rabbit???? Not so crazy about *that* image, but it’ll do for now –
- is that the Nord part of me has compassion for Uggs in a way that may be detrimental to my physical, emotional and mental health. Which could explain a *lot*.
I started thinking about all this when ‘typing’ my family – Dad’s a gentle Nord, with a *little* warrior in him, but he’s mostly a Squishy (I keep thinking of different names and haven’t yet landed on a – typology? is that the word I want? Anyway, work in progress.)
He’s squishy in that he’s *physically* non-aggressive – but as a ‘connector’? He kind of sucked. But – on the other hand, he was actually a better Connector, in the long run, than the mu unit – which is why I think his system (emotional) got overtaxed, and he basically died of cancer.
Now, *I* think that with the proper kind of ‘tribe’ or ‘clan’ to spread things out a bit, without the essential ‘dysfunctionality’ of the nuclear family, people like my father would have had other people to turn to outside the ‘family’, and would have survived.
That must be the driver for all these psychological ‘movements’ – the culture (?) as a whole ‘knows’ that it needs to change in order to survive in the long run, and so these little ‘solutions’ keep popping up – self help, consciousness-raising (do people do that any more? Or was that just in the 60s and 70s?), social networking, etc.
***
After this most recent encounter with g, I was thinking about how so *many* men seem to be – conditioned? or is it, maybe, genetic? – to seek submissive women.
I, as a true Nord (or so I like to think – it mostly makes me happy to finally find my ‘type’, not that I think any type is ‘better’ than the other – each has her strengths and weaknesses, and *together*, when things are *working* well – well, I think combining the various types can be *amazing*, fantastic, unbelievable. *Finding* that ‘right’ combination is a whole *’nother* story, though...)
G seemed to like me to a *point* – the point at which I stood up to him too much.
I was reading yet another one of those ‘how to’ stories for women, this particular article was on ‘girlenergy’ vs. ‘boyenergy’ (!?).
It talked, yet a-fucking-gain (I don’t care if I NEVER EVER see this fucking trope EVER again – did I say, EVER????) about the idea that women are supposed to be passive, submissive, receptive, choose your – what – adjective?
She (the author) even went so far as to spell out how she’d basically given up her fucking power as an autonomous female in exchange for the so-called ‘rewards’ of being the possession of some asshole (Note: These are *my* words, not hers, of course – comprehension of the marriage racket is yet beyond me – I still hear ‘protection racket’ echoing in my mind every time I hear some woman willingly (?) submitting to the ‘bonds’ – yes, please *do* make note of the words used, the terminology, the language - it matters.
This is *not* hyper-analyzing – this is Emperor’s New Clothes stuff, stuff we ignore because it’s so pervasive, so ubiquitous, so un-freaking-believeably all-encompassing that we can’t even see it any more. Water we swim in, and all that...)
This writer basically stated outright that you have to give up up being a ‘take charge’ kind of woman if you want to be in a marriage.
Well, blow *that* for a lark. Though I have to say, I know *some* married women (including my sister-in-law) who *seems* to be in charge. But my *brother*’s made some irritating comments that hint that *he* certainly doesn’t see it that way, though he may give lip service to the idea to ‘keep the peace’ in the relationship... dunno. Not sure I’ll ever have the – patience? fortitude? whatever it is that’s needed? – to find out, either.
Ok, massive off-topic side-rant over (maybe? :-)
***
I feel like *I* am part Warrior Queen and part Squishy – I *love* to ‘take charge’, but at the same time I don’t actually need to dominate (which is an important distinction, one I’m wondering if most men are even able to perceive/make/distinguish?)
I want a partner to walk beside - like lioness and lion padding across the veldt, or lolling in the shade with their cubs; like a hawk, I want to circle the skies with my partner, flying free, yet depending on each other for companionship and comfort. Someone to have my back.
***
Possibly related link:
Are You a Connector?
http://www.gladwell.com/tippingpoint/tp_excerpt2.html
***
Not-exactly-related-but-interesting-in-a-tangential-sort-of-way link:
From MetaFilter, Dear Mr. Darwin: How is babby formed?
http://ask.metafilter.com/183878/Dear-Mr-Darwin-How-is-babby-formed#2647078
Quote from user endless_forms, an evolutionary biologist (bolds mine):
Sex is, as you’ve observed, costly, and requires explanation. A popular explanation is that sex begets variation, and variation is good because it gives selection more to act upon [...]The problem with this is that it requires individuals to sacrifice for the benefit of populations. Biologists have known that this basically doesn’t work since shortly after Van Valen proposed it in the 60’s. Also, frankly, variation is often bad. If you’re well-adapted to your environment, why on earth would you want your offspring to be any different from you?***
Well, one observation is that environments change. Therefore, it might be good to have variable offspring just in case the environment is very different from yours. This is called the “Lottery” model of sexual reproduction. Like a good theory, it makes very specific predictions – particularly that sexual reproduction should be found in temporally heterogenous environments, such as high latitudes and high altitudes. However, those are precisely the regions where asex is observed to predominate. An important researcher in the field, Graham Bell, wrote a book on the subject, (The Masterpiece of Nature) where he gathered all the available comparative ecological data. It’s a lovely coherent sensible theory which has been rejected by the data, and is not considered important by researchers in the field. It also has weakness on a mathematical-theoretical level; the kinds, amounts, and timescales of change required seem implausible in real biological situations.
Maybe the ‘solution’ that selection hit upon over time is that women women were socialized to be nurturers, caregivers, caretakers, and those who didn’t were brutally slaughtered.
So over time, genetic memory has it that women will suffer a horrible fate unless *they* sacrifice *themselves* for the ‘good of society’?
Which would explain the whole ‘flower pot’ meme, and why women put up with it: It’s a form of cultural, universal Stockholm syndrome. “Do it or you’ll die, in other words, is, maybe, hard-wired into our genetic encoding?
***
So how do you explain a rebellious, warrior throwback like me? Who’s basically peace-loving, but fierce when roused, very protective of those she loves? Grasshopper the Great to the rescue.
Beams :-)
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
one nice thing?
He said he’d had a similarly intense dynamic with the last person he was ‘involved’ with, but he *distinguished* that - pattern? - from 'ours' by saying that she was very angry about a lot of things, whereas *I* seemed *not* to be.
So, yay! I’m making progress with anger, as ‘validated’ by g. :-)
So, yay! I’m making progress with anger, as ‘validated’ by g. :-)
right side of my brain? or: blood from stones?
[blogger ate it, dagnabit – trying again:]
Ok: So, there's this little kid part of me that can't filter properly, can't 'block out' undesirable stuff - can't separate the good from the bad.
Am thinking that it comes from a time in infancy when I literally couldn't escape the mu unit, because of lack of motility, etc. Captive audience. Literally.
So I didn't learn to filter out 'unwanted' things - the only option I had was to tune out - I couldn't escape it (the *thing*) - it followed me, pressed in upon me, gave me no room to escape. It NEEDED me, in some unbearable, horrible, awful way that I couldn't stand. I felt that I was suffocating, sometimes literally.
***
Now? As an 'adult'? ( :-)
I reach for what I want
ask for what I need
and, like that small child who reached
but was rebuffed
occasionally still find myself in that
emotional place:
very small
no power.
So.
Help thyself, Grassy!
ASK.
TELL.
And fucking take no prisoners.
This is *not* about:
nice
right or wrong; this is about: SURVIVAL. At a basic, bare bones, emotional level.
Seek ye not
blood from stones.
Please.
***
And?
The need for control comes from
having none - or, having no ‘power’, that is.
Ok: So, there's this little kid part of me that can't filter properly, can't 'block out' undesirable stuff - can't separate the good from the bad.
Am thinking that it comes from a time in infancy when I literally couldn't escape the mu unit, because of lack of motility, etc. Captive audience. Literally.
So I didn't learn to filter out 'unwanted' things - the only option I had was to tune out - I couldn't escape it (the *thing*) - it followed me, pressed in upon me, gave me no room to escape. It NEEDED me, in some unbearable, horrible, awful way that I couldn't stand. I felt that I was suffocating, sometimes literally.
***
Now? As an 'adult'? ( :-)
I reach for what I want
ask for what I need
and, like that small child who reached
but was rebuffed
occasionally still find myself in that
emotional place:
very small
no power.
So.
Help thyself, Grassy!
ASK.
TELL.
And fucking take no prisoners.
This is *not* about:
nice
right or wrong; this is about: SURVIVAL. At a basic, bare bones, emotional level.
Seek ye not
blood from stones.
Please.
***
And?
The need for control comes from
having none - or, having no ‘power’, that is.
the 'upper hand'.
There's something else that's bugging me, getting under my skin, sticking in my craw, chapping my ass: This 'older woman' thing.
Seems to be about *defining* the 'relationship', which is - a power and control thing, right?
I mean, *are* there guys who actually *want* to be in an actual equal relationship?
Because defining things that way suggests a power imbalance that I don't accept. I mean, if *women* were writing the 'rules', we sure as hell wouldn't be saying 'the older woman'. We'd talk about it as if it was completely normal, just as a man, oh, say, ten or even 20 years older than his partner is considered 'normal' these days.
FUCK your double standards and the bullshit horse they rode in on.
You don't get to have it both ways.
Either: Women are EQUAL, and you LIKE it that way, and therefore you'll STOP with this fucking bullshit; or? You're lying through your fucking TEETH - you LOVE the fucking power differential, and will go to any lengths necessary to maintain it, up to and including tying yourself in complete fucking verbal, emotional and psychological knots to keep the other person baffled, bewildered and bemused by your fucking
BULLshit.
Seems to be about *defining* the 'relationship', which is - a power and control thing, right?
I mean, *are* there guys who actually *want* to be in an actual equal relationship?
Because defining things that way suggests a power imbalance that I don't accept. I mean, if *women* were writing the 'rules', we sure as hell wouldn't be saying 'the older woman'. We'd talk about it as if it was completely normal, just as a man, oh, say, ten or even 20 years older than his partner is considered 'normal' these days.
FUCK your double standards and the bullshit horse they rode in on.
You don't get to have it both ways.
Either: Women are EQUAL, and you LIKE it that way, and therefore you'll STOP with this fucking bullshit; or? You're lying through your fucking TEETH - you LOVE the fucking power differential, and will go to any lengths necessary to maintain it, up to and including tying yourself in complete fucking verbal, emotional and psychological knots to keep the other person baffled, bewildered and bemused by your fucking
BULLshit.
being attracted to people from whom you feel both - flirtation and distancing at the same time?
[not happy with the title (wishing for something more elegant or eloquent - esthetics, don't you know) - but it's a work in progress, I guess what's *most* important is to try to catch the feeling, continue the trail of breadcrumbs...]
Layers, layers.
I grew up with
dismissive
detached
discounting
parents, which left me feeling often
INVALIDATED
INVISIBLE and
POWERLESS.
***
And now, in the present moment?
A quick swirl of flirtation, a passing fancy, a close encounter - these are the flavors of unrequited love, unconsummated passion, the person who always holds something back.
It's a power and control tactic, a self-preservation *habit* learned in early childhood to keep oneself safe from dangerous 'others' - parents, siblings, (non-)friends, etc.
This all comes up because I've had a close encounter with a guy just now, and am in the process of disentangling myself from same. It's *him* I'm talking about, being the person who's 'emotionally distant', or who seems to - simultaneously draw me in and push me away?
I want to keep the locus of 'control' inside mysel, so I'm tryng to understand who owns what, who's *doing* what. Whether I can get him to 'admit' (?) to what I'm talking about or not? Hm. Guess it depends how I frame it - obviously an accusation will put him on the defensive. I'm trying to get away from *blaming* the other person, instead *trying* to just recognize the pattern and see what *I* can do to change *my* part of it.
And if he's willing to discuss it? openly? and possibly even take responsibility for whatever part *he's* playing in the dynamic?
Awesome. UnfuckingbeLIEVEable, really.
Because this is *exactly* the kind of relationship I've been *striving* for for oh-so-long! Yay, Grassy!!! :-)
Stick with
what *I* feel.
And see what happens.
***
One difference seems to be that this time? With *this* guy?
We're *talking*, openly, acknowledging bits and pieces.
The part that's hanging me up is his - unwillingness? inability? to recognize and/or accept, basically COP to, his role in this. Which pushes a *big* button for me from *my* past.
So. Disentangling. Thoughts:
Possibly related links:
Texting and Emotional Distancing
Against Love: Love Politics Revisited
Quote from an article on "7 Tactics That Can Tank A Relationship":
Another thing that's pissing me off that I can't seem to communicate to him *why* it's pissing me off: He says his attraction to me is "just the older woman thing."
Well, fuck THAT bullshit - I'm 4 years older than him, for fuck's sake, that hardly counts as 'older'. Bullshit sexist double-standards fucking *still* in play in this bright, shiny, oh-so-progressive (not!) year of 2011.
Yeah. Tables turned? No one whould bat an eyelash at a *man* 4 years older. It's fucking BULLshit, and I'm not buying it.
Also? It's yet another distancing maneuver. It categorizes me, labels me and dismisses me, so that he doesn't have to treat me as a *person*, an individual, someone with unique characteristics all my own.
I'm not part of some fucking category, for fuck's sake!
Whew. Close call, grassy :-)
Grassy the GREAT to the rescue, on her shining steed, once again! Lance at the ready to hoist all fucking moronic male IDIOTS upon their own BULLSHIT (petards). Or something like that.
Layers, layers.
I grew up with
dismissive
detached
discounting
parents, which left me feeling often
INVALIDATED
INVISIBLE and
POWERLESS.
***
And now, in the present moment?
A quick swirl of flirtation, a passing fancy, a close encounter - these are the flavors of unrequited love, unconsummated passion, the person who always holds something back.
It's a power and control tactic, a self-preservation *habit* learned in early childhood to keep oneself safe from dangerous 'others' - parents, siblings, (non-)friends, etc.
This all comes up because I've had a close encounter with a guy just now, and am in the process of disentangling myself from same. It's *him* I'm talking about, being the person who's 'emotionally distant', or who seems to - simultaneously draw me in and push me away?
I want to keep the locus of 'control' inside mysel, so I'm tryng to understand who owns what, who's *doing* what. Whether I can get him to 'admit' (?) to what I'm talking about or not? Hm. Guess it depends how I frame it - obviously an accusation will put him on the defensive. I'm trying to get away from *blaming* the other person, instead *trying* to just recognize the pattern and see what *I* can do to change *my* part of it.
And if he's willing to discuss it? openly? and possibly even take responsibility for whatever part *he's* playing in the dynamic?
Awesome. UnfuckingbeLIEVEable, really.
Because this is *exactly* the kind of relationship I've been *striving* for for oh-so-long! Yay, Grassy!!! :-)
Stick with
what *I* feel.
And see what happens.
***
One difference seems to be that this time? With *this* guy?
We're *talking*, openly, acknowledging bits and pieces.
The part that's hanging me up is his - unwillingness? inability? to recognize and/or accept, basically COP to, his role in this. Which pushes a *big* button for me from *my* past.
So. Disentangling. Thoughts:
Emotional detachment as a power and contol tactic.Remember that, once again, grasshopper: Meeting of NEEDS is paramount. The VERY MOST IMPORTANT THING OF ALL. (not shouting, just trying to catch my *own* attention with a VERY IMPORTANT thing to remember.)
Being attracted to someone who - withholds? certain - praise? Working this one out. He says I'm 'cool', but he won't say he likes me - can't quite put my finger on this one yet.
Letting someone else define me, vs. seeing myself reflected in their eyes?
Framing? Use *my* frame instead of *theirs*.
Emotional detachment is unnatural? As in, goes against human nature? Expand rationale: Humans are tribal, connective beings - a huge part of our very brain structure is devoted to the management (? thinking out loud) of emotions, which are basically like 'indicator' lights telling us whether a 'connection' is working for us properly or not, i.e., whether it's meeting our needs.
Possibly related links:
Texting and Emotional Distancing
Emotional distancing only has the appearance of safety. Squelching feelings is just as bad as hoarding them. Remember that everyone is afraid, relationships require a tremendous amount of talking about feelings. You have a far better chance at lasting beyond those easy, glorious, mushy beginnings the more you practice sharing feelings. It’s the practice of sharing that builds trust and intimacy. Stop relying on texting to take the easy way out.Emotional Distancing in Counseling
...behaviours are not driven solely by our conscious intentions. You may already be aware that our emotional brain directs us in ways we are not always concious of. And, as I have tried to illustrate on this site, most people underestimate the power of our reptilian brain's influence over our motivations.Fight or Flight: How Emotional Distance Ruins Marriage
Our nervous system is energy efficient. As such, it tends to avoid, or compels us to move away from activities, behaviours, and even emotions that appear too stimulating to manage. When emotions are too difficult to experience, an individual reflexively withdraws in order to calm their inner psyche before they are ready to re-engage.
While emotional withdrawal provides temporary relief and time for the nervous system to regain balance or homeostasis, if used chronically, this response will ultimately negatively impact how we feel about ourselves not to mention the health of our relations with others.
The solution? Don't worry so much about your fight response — that instinct to duke it out verbally. Instead, focus on your flight response — the instinct to avoid your partner. If we can learn to spot the distancing pattern in our relationships, we can help prevent family problems and divorce.(Note: Link doesn't lead to complete article, dagnabit!)
Against Love: Love Politics Revisited
Quote from an article on "7 Tactics That Can Tank A Relationship":
5. Discounting***
This is a dysfunctional strategy used for dealing with differences. It typically occurs when one person expresses their feelings or preferences, their dissatisfactions or upset about the other’s behavior or some aspect of the relationship. The person who’s listening discounts the other’s feelings thoughts or concerns by ignoring them, dismissing them or minimizing their importance. The listener may feel threatened by what’s being said. Maybe they’re afraid of conflict, or they think their partner is highlighting differences between them that may be insurmountable. Sometimes they’re afraid something is going to be asked of them – that they’re going to have to change.
Occasionally a listener minimizes the other’s worries or concerns believing that they are being helpful. Or they don’t know what to do with the other person’s upset so they ignore it. Or they try to make the problem go away by coming up with a quick solution. The person who’s being discounted feels frustrated, belittled and misunderstood. Instead of being able to move on and drop the issue, they usually try even harder to be heard or to have their feelings acknowledged.
Discounting is a defense against experiencing another person’s upset. It’s a response aimed at aborting communication about a topic. While the listener may not realize it, they are actually trying to protect themselves from being distressed by the speaker’s disappointment or upset feelings.
Another thing that's pissing me off that I can't seem to communicate to him *why* it's pissing me off: He says his attraction to me is "just the older woman thing."
Well, fuck THAT bullshit - I'm 4 years older than him, for fuck's sake, that hardly counts as 'older'. Bullshit sexist double-standards fucking *still* in play in this bright, shiny, oh-so-progressive (not!) year of 2011.
Yeah. Tables turned? No one whould bat an eyelash at a *man* 4 years older. It's fucking BULLshit, and I'm not buying it.
Also? It's yet another distancing maneuver. It categorizes me, labels me and dismisses me, so that he doesn't have to treat me as a *person*, an individual, someone with unique characteristics all my own.
I'm not part of some fucking category, for fuck's sake!
Whew. Close call, grassy :-)
Grassy the GREAT to the rescue, on her shining steed, once again! Lance at the ready to hoist all fucking moronic male IDIOTS upon their own BULLSHIT (petards). Or something like that.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
deaf, dumb and blind kid
What if I CAN hear things others can’t?
What if there *are* some of us who are
more tuned in
more aware
more present?
What if some of us *do* see, do hear,
more fully, completely, complexly?
We *have* to find others like ourselves, or else we’ll go
completely fucking INSANE.
***
The lyric is from a song by the Who, Pinball Wizard, which I heard a lot as a kid, and always wondered at its ‘meaning’, until one day I read or heard somewhere that it been written on a dare, or possibly a bet? to see if a ‘nonsense’ song could be written that would reach the top 10 or top 40 or some such thing. Which I think makes the song even *better*...
***
I was always taught, by my father, especially, to *never* think I was
special
important
or
*better* than anyone.
It was ok for him (and *others*) to
put *me* down
make fun of *me*
knock me on my ass.
It was just ME who had to always
be good
need nothing
ask for nothing
take up no space.
Sad grasshopper face :-(.
***
It took me a long, LONG time, most of my life, really, to get hip to his trip, to ‘catch’ him at his game. The game he still plays in my head, though he’s been dead half my life...
So: Don’t EVER buy into the bullshit that words have no effect, no power.
Words are THE most powerful, BECAUSE:
They are insidious.
They seep into our brains, our spirits, our psyches, our souls, and pervade, or sometimes invade, our mental space to such an extent that it’s like
an echo chamber, a
recording stuck in an eternal playback loop.
***
That ‘deaf, dumb and blind kid’?
He’s everywhere, and, sadly, he (or, sometimes, she) isn’t even interesting enough to play a mean pinball.
He’s just this mindless, senseless, numb blob that
TAKES UP SPACE
fills it up from one side to the other with
noise
stench
unnecessary movement.
How to explain?
It’s like:
Your senses are on full gain all the time – there *is* no ‘off’ switch, no volume control knob.
You don’t want to *break* the thing, or tamper with it, or disable it – it’s YOU, it’s who you ARE, it’s an essential part of your BE-ing, just like your eyes and nose and whatever.
I mean, *sure* it might make it *easier*, maybe even for *you* as well as those around you if you
fit, better
conformed
knuckled under.
But then you wouldn’t be YOU
any more, would you?
You wouldn’t even be somebody *else* - you’d just be this tree
with all the limbs chopped off
like some asshole with a pruning shears came by and
LOPPED them all off
leaving your ‘personality’
on the ground
in a mindless
senseless
heap.
Death. Or as good as.
What if there *are* some of us who are
more tuned in
more aware
more present?
What if some of us *do* see, do hear,
more fully, completely, complexly?
We *have* to find others like ourselves, or else we’ll go
completely fucking INSANE.
***
The lyric is from a song by the Who, Pinball Wizard, which I heard a lot as a kid, and always wondered at its ‘meaning’, until one day I read or heard somewhere that it been written on a dare, or possibly a bet? to see if a ‘nonsense’ song could be written that would reach the top 10 or top 40 or some such thing. Which I think makes the song even *better*...
***
I was always taught, by my father, especially, to *never* think I was
special
important
or
*better* than anyone.
It was ok for him (and *others*) to
put *me* down
make fun of *me*
knock me on my ass.
It was just ME who had to always
be good
need nothing
ask for nothing
take up no space.
Sad grasshopper face :-(.
***
It took me a long, LONG time, most of my life, really, to get hip to his trip, to ‘catch’ him at his game. The game he still plays in my head, though he’s been dead half my life...
So: Don’t EVER buy into the bullshit that words have no effect, no power.
Words are THE most powerful, BECAUSE:
They are insidious.
They seep into our brains, our spirits, our psyches, our souls, and pervade, or sometimes invade, our mental space to such an extent that it’s like
an echo chamber, a
recording stuck in an eternal playback loop.
***
That ‘deaf, dumb and blind kid’?
He’s everywhere, and, sadly, he (or, sometimes, she) isn’t even interesting enough to play a mean pinball.
He’s just this mindless, senseless, numb blob that
TAKES UP SPACE
fills it up from one side to the other with
noise
stench
unnecessary movement.
How to explain?
It’s like:
Your senses are on full gain all the time – there *is* no ‘off’ switch, no volume control knob.
You don’t want to *break* the thing, or tamper with it, or disable it – it’s YOU, it’s who you ARE, it’s an essential part of your BE-ing, just like your eyes and nose and whatever.
I mean, *sure* it might make it *easier*, maybe even for *you* as well as those around you if you
fit, better
conformed
knuckled under.
But then you wouldn’t be YOU
any more, would you?
You wouldn’t even be somebody *else* - you’d just be this tree
with all the limbs chopped off
like some asshole with a pruning shears came by and
LOPPED them all off
leaving your ‘personality’
on the ground
in a mindless
senseless
heap.
Death. Or as good as.
Sunday, May 8, 2011
emotional abuse (?) and later life dissociation - links, mainly
[Edited to add: Disjointed thoughts cobbled together in a hurry on a slow and intermittent internet connection - wish it was smoother, cleaner, tidier, prettier, more perfect - but? It is what it is: A storage bin for random thoughts that help me deal with stuff.]
In the last few years I've been uncomfortably aware of a 'schism', a 'split' in the two sides of me (left, right) that I experience as a literal split in my vision (stronger or weaker depending on how much stress I'm dealing with at any given moment - there are times when the two 'sides' seem to work together quite 'normally' [? how would I even *know*?? what 'normal' is, I mean, having no baseline experience to remember or compare to?]).
I imagine a fracture line that runs from the top of my head, slightly left of center, where I part my hair (possibly coincident with falling on my head off a bicycle in 1993?)
I think my psyche took opportunistic advantage of this physical event, which was quite traumatic - I was traveling through Europe with a boyfriend at the time, we were midway through a three-month cycling tour - and this blow to the noggin left me reeling, literally, with a brief bout of amnesia (about half an hour to an hour, I'd say) which was *extremely* jarring (nyuk nyuk).
I think I was looking for a way out of admitting to myself that I'd made a *big* mistake in being with this guy (we'd bought a house together, but had made no emotional commitment whatsoever, and it was becoming ever more clear that this guy was emotionally *not* on my side), and it's occurred to me that the 'jarring' of the amnesia knocked a few things loose, literally. Perhaps my brain took advantage of the temporary confusion to shuffle things around a bit and 'split' off those unmanageable, unpalatable feelings relating to 'that guy' and put them somewhere where they'd pose less of an immediate 'problem'?
Dunno, just an idea. But as this 'healing' is occurring, along with the fractured left/right vision thing, and some weird thing going on with my left eyebrow, and weird patches of gray showing up and then disappearing again in my hair - well, it certainly *feels* as if all these things are somehow related - like a psychological shifting that is finally, after all these long years, restoring my mental 'landscape' to its original (or as close as I can manage) configuration, now that the original 'stressors' are gone, and I'm managing to minimize (interpersonal, at least) stress with other humans as much as possible.
The 'split' jogs across my body at an angle where my gallbladder was cut out - I often feel as if someone cut a major power cord during that process, as if my 'will' were disabled - like severed the main powerline to a machine, or something. And my body has re-routed nearly *everything* to *try* to cope with the absence of a major organ (Western 'medicine' is *really* stupid about the gallbladder and its importance to the overall healthy functioning of the body).
***
I'm thinking that shaping a child's personality may be like working metal - maybe, in the right hands, a 'weak' metal may be alloyed with a stronger one, or a metal with complementary properties, such that the end result is stronger than either element would be on its own.
And conversely, an improperly handled metal may be subject to warping, cracking, checking, or fracturing when subjected to later stresses - heat applied unevenly or too quickly. I'm thinking of something like tempering steel - there must be some 'artistry' involved, some knack, some 'eye' for when the metal needs to be suddenly cooled, or when the heat needs to be applied slowly and evenly.
In any case, a 'bad' parent, I think can 'build in' some character flaws in a child's personality not unlike a crystalline structure such as, say quartz? which is subject to fracturing along a fault line because of the stone's brittle nature.
Unlike a stone, however, I think a child's basic nature (?) can be alloyed with the parent(s)' strengths (and/or weaknesses, of course) to form an end product that is either stronger (more able to cope with life stresses) or weaker (less able) than that child would have been without that parent's influences.
An inept parent can do INCALCULABLE damage in preparing (or *not*) a child for future survival, in all kinds of ways - emotional, psychological, intellectual, financial, etc.
All this is a long-winded lead-up to say that, in the last few years I've become aware of a massive vertical split in my *own* psyche, that I experience visually, and is almost as if someone had taken an axe and cracked my skull, slightly left of center (?! :-), leaving me with a fault line that ran in a jagged, skewed path throughout my body.
That fault line waited, like a fracture in a crystalline stone (and I think my personality was somewhat brittle and crystalline, like the quartz I mentioned).
I have removed some of the strongest of the influences that were keeping my personality in that fragile and brittle state - the corrosive, acidic people who kept me constantly unbalanced, unsettled and unsure of myself, who made my life feel like a house of cards built on quicksand...
...and am *learning* (yay, grasshopper!) to 'invite' (?) in more people who are good at *strengthening* me the ways I *need* to be strengthened.
So it's an ongoing process.
It feels a bit like a zipper is being closed between the two halves - I was cleaved, but not cleanly - can't think of an analogue, but the 'fault' line is kind of a zig zag that jogs back and forth across my body - it seems almost like a map, a literal 'history' of my life, contained in the very cells of my being. It just needs someone to read it, to slowly, patiently, painstakingly, carefully
put Humpty back together again, *trying* to not leave out any essential bits in the process (sorry, gallbladder! I miss you!)
I think I'm going through what's known as a 'healing crisis' as this process is going on - all kinds of weird mental and physical symptoms.
Fortunately, I think I'm one who is easily able to 'dissociate', or 'distance' myself from what's going on, which is great as a coping mechanism in times of stress; *not* so great, maybe? in ongoing, day-to-day dealings with other humans.
So melding the two 'halves' of me back together is - interesting, to say the least.
Anyway, following along with this idea of dissociating as a protective mechanism, I hunted down the following links today.
***
From
http://s99.middlebury.edu/PY204A/STUDENTS/That%20other%20group/dissociative_disorders.htm
From
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Dissociative+disorders
From
http://mindbodyintegrativecounseling.com/?p=250
From
Parents' Verbal Abuse Leaves Long-Term Legacy
http://www.keepyourchildsafe.org/library-one/page26.html
Abstract of Teicher's NIMH study, Sticks, stones, and hurtful words: relative effects of various forms of childhood maltreatment here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16741199
In the last few years I've been uncomfortably aware of a 'schism', a 'split' in the two sides of me (left, right) that I experience as a literal split in my vision (stronger or weaker depending on how much stress I'm dealing with at any given moment - there are times when the two 'sides' seem to work together quite 'normally' [? how would I even *know*?? what 'normal' is, I mean, having no baseline experience to remember or compare to?]).
I imagine a fracture line that runs from the top of my head, slightly left of center, where I part my hair (possibly coincident with falling on my head off a bicycle in 1993?)
I think my psyche took opportunistic advantage of this physical event, which was quite traumatic - I was traveling through Europe with a boyfriend at the time, we were midway through a three-month cycling tour - and this blow to the noggin left me reeling, literally, with a brief bout of amnesia (about half an hour to an hour, I'd say) which was *extremely* jarring (nyuk nyuk).
I think I was looking for a way out of admitting to myself that I'd made a *big* mistake in being with this guy (we'd bought a house together, but had made no emotional commitment whatsoever, and it was becoming ever more clear that this guy was emotionally *not* on my side), and it's occurred to me that the 'jarring' of the amnesia knocked a few things loose, literally. Perhaps my brain took advantage of the temporary confusion to shuffle things around a bit and 'split' off those unmanageable, unpalatable feelings relating to 'that guy' and put them somewhere where they'd pose less of an immediate 'problem'?
Dunno, just an idea. But as this 'healing' is occurring, along with the fractured left/right vision thing, and some weird thing going on with my left eyebrow, and weird patches of gray showing up and then disappearing again in my hair - well, it certainly *feels* as if all these things are somehow related - like a psychological shifting that is finally, after all these long years, restoring my mental 'landscape' to its original (or as close as I can manage) configuration, now that the original 'stressors' are gone, and I'm managing to minimize (interpersonal, at least) stress with other humans as much as possible.
The 'split' jogs across my body at an angle where my gallbladder was cut out - I often feel as if someone cut a major power cord during that process, as if my 'will' were disabled - like severed the main powerline to a machine, or something. And my body has re-routed nearly *everything* to *try* to cope with the absence of a major organ (Western 'medicine' is *really* stupid about the gallbladder and its importance to the overall healthy functioning of the body).
***
I'm thinking that shaping a child's personality may be like working metal - maybe, in the right hands, a 'weak' metal may be alloyed with a stronger one, or a metal with complementary properties, such that the end result is stronger than either element would be on its own.
And conversely, an improperly handled metal may be subject to warping, cracking, checking, or fracturing when subjected to later stresses - heat applied unevenly or too quickly. I'm thinking of something like tempering steel - there must be some 'artistry' involved, some knack, some 'eye' for when the metal needs to be suddenly cooled, or when the heat needs to be applied slowly and evenly.
In any case, a 'bad' parent, I think can 'build in' some character flaws in a child's personality not unlike a crystalline structure such as, say quartz? which is subject to fracturing along a fault line because of the stone's brittle nature.
Unlike a stone, however, I think a child's basic nature (?) can be alloyed with the parent(s)' strengths (and/or weaknesses, of course) to form an end product that is either stronger (more able to cope with life stresses) or weaker (less able) than that child would have been without that parent's influences.
An inept parent can do INCALCULABLE damage in preparing (or *not*) a child for future survival, in all kinds of ways - emotional, psychological, intellectual, financial, etc.
All this is a long-winded lead-up to say that, in the last few years I've become aware of a massive vertical split in my *own* psyche, that I experience visually, and is almost as if someone had taken an axe and cracked my skull, slightly left of center (?! :-), leaving me with a fault line that ran in a jagged, skewed path throughout my body.
That fault line waited, like a fracture in a crystalline stone (and I think my personality was somewhat brittle and crystalline, like the quartz I mentioned).
I have removed some of the strongest of the influences that were keeping my personality in that fragile and brittle state - the corrosive, acidic people who kept me constantly unbalanced, unsettled and unsure of myself, who made my life feel like a house of cards built on quicksand...
...and am *learning* (yay, grasshopper!) to 'invite' (?) in more people who are good at *strengthening* me the ways I *need* to be strengthened.
So it's an ongoing process.
It feels a bit like a zipper is being closed between the two halves - I was cleaved, but not cleanly - can't think of an analogue, but the 'fault' line is kind of a zig zag that jogs back and forth across my body - it seems almost like a map, a literal 'history' of my life, contained in the very cells of my being. It just needs someone to read it, to slowly, patiently, painstakingly, carefully
put Humpty back together again, *trying* to not leave out any essential bits in the process (sorry, gallbladder! I miss you!)
I think I'm going through what's known as a 'healing crisis' as this process is going on - all kinds of weird mental and physical symptoms.
Fortunately, I think I'm one who is easily able to 'dissociate', or 'distance' myself from what's going on, which is great as a coping mechanism in times of stress; *not* so great, maybe? in ongoing, day-to-day dealings with other humans.
So melding the two 'halves' of me back together is - interesting, to say the least.
Anyway, following along with this idea of dissociating as a protective mechanism, I hunted down the following links today.
***
From
http://s99.middlebury.edu/PY204A/STUDENTS/That%20other%20group/dissociative_disorders.htm
People who have outside support to help them cope with trauma are less likely to experience dissociation. In fact, most well-supported adults and children can face extremely traumatic events without developing dissociative defenses (Sikes, 1998). Trauma victims need someone to help them see that life is still worth living, regain their self-esteem, and understand what happened. Trauma is defined by some existentially as "the loss of faith that there is order and continuity in life" (Adams, 1994). Trauma often results in a feeling of hopelessness, a feeling "that one's actions have no bearing on the outcome of one's life" (Adams, 1994). Children who were raped by an adult need someone to help them deal with their disappointment in the world, to understand why an adult would behave that way, and to keep them from blaming themselves: "the psychological disequilibrium that follows trauma [stems] from the shattering of the victim's fundamentaln assumptions that the world is essentially benevolent, that our lives and life events have meaning, and that we are essentially worthy and lovable" (Adams, 1994). Those who have support will probably be able to metabolize the painful experience. Unfortunately, without outside help, especially if traumatic events happen repeatedly, the trauma may be overwhelming and impossible for the victim to process: the "magnitude of exposure, prior trauma, and social support appear to be the three most significant predictors for developing chronic PTSD" (Van der Kolk, 1987).***
Often people do not look for assistance or can find none, especially when painful events are inflicted by the parent(s). It is therefore difficult for them to recover self-esteem, correct distortions in perspective, or feel emotions that should be connected to the trauma. These people will most likely dissociate the memories and live with the effects or seek help later in life when it is more difficult to diagnose and treat. When these people present themselves for therapy, it takes time for many therapists to uncover the trauma behind whatever symptoms brought them there: "Depending on the severity of the abuse, the patient may have mild to moderate dissociative pathology hidden beneath the presenting problems of character pathology, loneliness, and difficulties in relationships" (Adams, 1994). Though recently psychologists are more aware of the possibility of dissociate disorders, "Survivors of childhood abuse often accumulate many different diagnoses before the underlying problem of a complex post-traumatic syndrome is recognized" (Adams, 1994).
Some people can dissociate more easily than others. Those that dissociate extremely easily may lose consciousness of surrounding events in response to minor anxiety. Dissociation can be a gift or ability in a living environment of constant negative experiences (Sikes, 1998). In fact, it is hypothesized that not only chemical differences, but the ability to dissociate, separates those who develop a dissociative disorder from those who are schizophrenic or psychotic, unable to protect their central egos from the information of painful life events. Dissociative people are able to separate disturbing events from everyday consciousness so they will not interfere with everyday functioning. However, the memories of these events, though hidden or separated into pieces, do not disappear. They often intrude into the people's lives in impairing ways:
Patients often experience repetitive intrusions of elements of the traumatic experience despite all efforts at denial and suppression; these repetitions may include recurrences in thought (e.g., nightmares, recurrent obsessive ideas) or emotions (e.g., panic attacks or weeping episodes with or without conscious awareness of association with the trauma), or behavioral reenactments of aspects of the trauma (e.g., compulsive verbalizations, recurrent expressions of the traumatic experience through gesture, movement, or artistic production). Adams, 1994
From
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Dissociative+disorders
The moderate to severe dissociation that occurs in patients with dissociative disorders is understood to result from a set of causes:***
[...]
* the lack of a supportive or comforting person to counteract abusive relative(s)
From
http://mindbodyintegrativecounseling.com/?p=250
There is something key about words to the human psyche. Educational researchers have found that the number of words that a child hears or sees before the age of three is the single biggest predictor of future success. Early on, word exposure affects brain development. Word usage is fundamental to human development and interaction.***
Somewhat similar to the way ants relate to each other via chemicals, humans relate to each other via words. We are social creatures. Human social life is amazingly complicated and much of it involves words. We depend on accurate feedback from each other to improve our functioning. We depend on language to increase cooperation and enhance survival. We use words to learn and teach. We use words to connect, express support and affection. Misuse of language can wreck havoc in any of these functions. Verbal and other emotional abuse is a misuse of a language function.
Conversely, when talking about verbal and other forms of emotional abuse, too much focus is placed on the literal meaning of the words when responding to verbal abuse or talking about how to heal from it. If we focus on just the words when responding to emotional abuse, we won’t be effective because it is the use of the words to control, manipulate, hurt, dominate or ruin (as in reputation or sanity) that is the problem. For instance, arguing about content with someone who is rationalizing in the first place is a losing battle – s/he will probably just continue to rationalize.
From
Parents' Verbal Abuse Leaves Long-Term Legacy
http://www.keepyourchildsafe.org/library-one/page26.html
Indeed, verbal abuse during childhood can scar people deeply, a new study suggests. It was headed by Martin Teicher, M.D., Ph.D., director of the Developmental Biopsychiatry Research Program at McLean Hospital, which is affiliated with Harvard Medical School. Results were published in the June American Journal of Psychiatry.
Abstract of Teicher's NIMH study, Sticks, stones, and hurtful words: relative effects of various forms of childhood maltreatment here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16741199
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
