Enablers..???

[underpants]

Do you think that enablers want to also, in kind, be enabled themselves?

 

How would they deal with someone who may (in a form of suppport) advise from a non enabling standpoint?

 

Let us not forget the wonderful escape of denial and how that plays into what advice (even if against many others') you would be more likely to respond to.

 

Thoughts?

 

Personally I find this sort of mind bend facinating.

[Trialbyfire]

May I change your terms of reference, just for my post?

 

Enablee = strokee

Enabler = stroker

 

Strokers have a slightly different mentality. In stroking someone, they justify themselves. This is in itself a form of self-stroking. Regardless, if the behaviour is unhealthy, it's all moot, ain't it?

 

When someone advises from a non-stroking standpoint, they're usually met with hostility since they're viewed as a threat to the behaviour of the strokee and the stroker.

 

Denial is part and parcel of the strokee. In order to live with themselves, beyond being stroked by the stroker(s), they need to deny that the behaviour is applicable to them, as the strokee.

[Taramere]

Do you think that enablers want to also, in kind, be enabled themselves?

 

How would they deal with someone who may (in a form of suppport) advise from a non enabling standpoint?

 

Let us not forget the wonderful escape of denial and how that plays into what advice (even if against many others') you would be more likely to respond to.

 

Thoughts?

 

Personally I find this sort of mind bend facinating.

 

When it comes to the helping process, there are two unhelpful extremes. Self congratulating tough love at one end, and collusive enabling at the other. Disclosure - I used to work in the field of child protection (I really know how to pick my professions...), and that's an area where poorly thought out intervention can have very serious consequences. So what you've raised is an issue that's important to me.

 

Anyone trying to help is liable to lapse into either of those extremes (tough love versus enabling) without proper training and supervision by other colleagues who are detached from the particular situation you're trying to help in. You have to start off by finding out a bit more about yourself through supervision during training and practice. Self disclosure, personal counselling, examination of your more selfish motives for wanting to help other people, navel-gazing etc.

 

Sounds like fun, but can actually be somewhat traumatic. The skills of lecturers, counsellors and practice teachers are variable - and all of us found out sooner or later what it was like to have our personal issues poked and prodded at by people who either disliked us, or who were just in the wrong job and not really equipped to carry out that kind of task. It teaches you just how valuable is the worker who can adopt an empathic, non-judgemental but effective approach to the art of helping.

 

In practice: say you've been told to visit a family, acccompanied by a police officer, where there's been a disclosure of abuse. Here are some basic rules I'd follow:

 

1. Be respectful and polite to the person you're visiting. You have to actually engage with the person, and that means showing a bit of warmth - regardless of your personal feelings about whatever it is they've been accused of. That's where "accepting the person but not the behaviour" comes into play. People sneer at that woolly sounding philosophy, but it's absolutely vital to understand what it means and be able to do it if you want a person to open up to you about very sensitive issues.

 

2. Be clear about your purpose. Encourage, and be honest in answering, questions they have about the potential implications of your visit. Don't be evasive, unless you want them to respond in kind.

 

3. Accept that they're going to be angry when sensitive issues are explored. Don't attack them for it, or react in a hurt, intimidated or similarly angry manner (but keep an eye out for signs that they're about to become physically aggressive - and leave without delay if you see those signs). Let them vent a bit, but bring the focus of the meeting back if it goes on for more than a few minutes.

 

4. Give muted responses to whatever you hear - regardless of how shocking. Your job is to get to the truth, not to express outrage on behalf of the rest of society.

 

5. That said, don't underplay the seriousness of the issues being addressed. Underplaying that seriousness would be where enabling, collusive behaviour comes into play.

 

You mentioned denial - which is a mechanism we all resort to from time to time in an effort to protect ourselves. It can be very destructive to rip away that mechanism without first exploring the fears that have led a person to employ it. "Forced exposure" would be another term for doing that. I personally would employ a lot of denial if someone I mistrusted, who I felt was motivated towards humiliating me, tried to address a very sensitive issue with me.

 

I've seen a couple of other message boards where lots of tough love/forced exposure is employed, and where there's generally that have a very self-congratulating group feeling of "we change people's lives!" To me, that's delusional, and it's enabled by posters who are seeking group approval and therefore tell the group what it wants to hear. "You've changed my life!"

 

A message board might be the catalyst for someone getting counselling, or considering a fresh perspective - but if someone's locked in a pattern of destructive thinking and behaviour, then it's going to take professional intervention to help them out of it. I see Loveshack as being a social sort of place where people can banter, vent, have debates and indulge in a bit of mental masturbation (my favourite bit). If it gives a bit of support to those who would otherwise feel very isolated, then that's also great.

 

I think the problem that you and TBF have raised is that sometimes that support is more about people who are destroying their own lives or hurting other people colluding with eachother in saying "it's okay really....it's the rest of the world that has the problem, not us. We don't have issues...." Or the other form of enabling - people becoming so hooked on trying to relate to those people, that the message of "you're raising a pretty serious, concerning issue here" is completely undermined. Then people who take an opposing view dive in angrily and clumsily - with the result that everyone becomes more and more entrenched in their respective positions.

[Trialbyfire]

Messageboard challenges:

 

Since advice is given solely in text, it can be construed in many ways, reliant on the emotional state of the person reading it.

 

Also, there are more than enough people solely looking for validation v. help. It's pretty easy to spot this type of thread since the OP tends to argue down or deny anything that doesn't validate by claiming non-support or harshness of advice given. "I am so misunderstood".

[Lookingforward]

Messageboard challenges:

 

Since advice is given solely in text, it can be construed in many ways, reliant on the emotional state of the person reading it.

 

Also, there are more than enough people solely looking for validation v. help. It's pretty easy to spot this type of thread since the OP tends to argue down or deny anything that doesn't validate by claiming non-support or harshness of advice given. "I am so misunderstood".

 

closely followed by "this is my last post on LS"

[Trialbyfire]

closely followed by "this is my last post on LS"

While pouting. Of which is followed by a new screen name or come back for more attention with new threads.

[Taramere]

Messageboard challenges:

 

Since advice is given solely in text, it can be construed in many ways, reliant on the emotional state of the person reading it.

 

Also, there are more than enough people solely looking for validation v. help. It's pretty easy to spot this type of thread since the OP tends to argue down or deny anything that doesn't validate by claiming non-support or harshness of advice given. "I am so misunderstood".

 

 

You know how, when a thread develops on LS, you'll get a sense of the OP connecting with some posters and not others. Often the ones they'll tend to connect with most are those who say "I'm in a similar situation....that happened to me too. I can relate!"

 

I think people will often post a problem here primarily in the hope of just connecting with someone. Possibly someone who has had a similar problem to the one they're going through. The value of support groups being that people in them don't feel judged, because everyone's in the same boat. Nobody's going to look down on them for their drinking problem, drug misuse, mental illness, gambling problem or whatever else they're seeking help for.

 

Possibly most of them go their initially for validation. "I have this problem, but I'm still an okay human being. There are other people who've had the same problem or made this same mistake. They seem like perfectly nice, likeable human beings. I'm not alone here."

 

I haven't really read the addictions threads, but I'm guessing that a lot of them involve people with addictions in common supporting eachother in staying away from the substance/behaviour in question.

 

The Other Woman section is one that draws a lot of accusations of people enabling eachother/excusing hurtful behaviour. I get the impression that a lot of that is about people encouraging eachother to adopt an element of bravado about being part of a commonly stigmatised, alienated group. "We're sexier, more fun, thinner, more beautiful, more adventurous in bed" are some of the common themes I've read between the lines of many posts there. In contrast, many BWs will adhere to the "we're principled, loyal, decent people...and we're beautiful and good in bed" theme.

 

There might be elements of truth in both arguments, but people cling to those positive images associated with whatever group they've allied themselves with. Look up to the posters who are in the same situation they're in, and do seem to be genuinely happy with it. That perhaps enables them to avoid taking a hard look at themselves and their lives and saying "this situation I'm in isn't all I'm cracking it up to be. However well others can - or say they can - handle it, I'm not happy. I need to make some changes."

 

I haven't read the OW section in ages, but I remember Newbby and Lady Jane both being very good posters who had a great deal of honesty and insight about them. Posters like that lessen the amount of enabling that goes on...but I'm guessing that a lot of the time they're plugging away at a fairly thankless task.

[Trialbyfire]

You know how, when a thread develops on LS, you'll get a sense of the OP connecting with some posters and not others. Often the ones they'll tend to connect with most are those who say "I'm in a similar situation....that happened to me too. I can relate!"

 

I think people will often post a problem here primarily in the hope of just connecting with someone. Possibly someone who has had a similar problem to the one they're going through. The value of support groups being that people in them don't feel judged, because everyone's in the same boat. Nobody's going to look down on them for their drinking problem, drug misuse, mental illness, gambling problem or whatever else they're seeking help for.

 

Possibly most of them go their initially for validation. "I have this problem, but I'm still an okay human being. There are other people who've had the same problem or made this same mistake. They seem like perfectly nice, likeable human beings. I'm not alone here."

 

I haven't really read the addictions threads, but I'm guessing that a lot of them involve people with addictions in common supporting eachother in staying away from the substance/behaviour in question.

There's support and then there's enabling/validation of negative behaviours. The ones that need therapy, can't be helped by therapy because they're so entrenched in denial. It's no use going to therapy, if you don't first admit you have a problem and that the problem resides with you.

 

The Other Woman section is one that draws a lot of accusations of people enabling eachother/excusing hurtful behaviour. I get the impression that a lot of that is about people encouraging eachother to adopt an element of bravado about being part of a commonly stigmatised, alienated group. "We're sexier, more fun, thinner, more beautiful, more adventurous in bed" are some of the common themes I've read between the lines of many posts there. In contrast, many BWs will adhere to the "we're principled, loyal, decent people...and we're beautiful and good in bed" theme.

 

There might be elements of truth in both arguments, but people cling to those positive images associated with whatever group they've allied themselves with. Look up to the posters who are in the same situation they're in, and do seem to be genuinely happy with it. That perhaps enables them to avoid taking a hard look at themselves and their lives and saying "this situation I'm in isn't all I'm cracking it up to be. However well others can - or say they can - handle it, I'm not happy. I need to make some changes."

 

I haven't read the OW section in ages, but I remember Newbby and Lady Jane both being very good posters who had a great deal of honesty and insight about them. Posters like that lessen the amount of enabling that goes on...but I'm guessing that a lot of the time they're plugging away at a fairly thankless task.

I don't recall Newbby but Lady Jane continues to provide good advice, while taking much needed extended breaks.

[Taramere]

There's support and then there's enabling/validation of negative behaviours. The ones that need therapy, can't be helped by therapy because they're so entrenched in denial. It's no use going to therapy, if you don't first admit you have a problem and that the problem resides with you.

 

Definitely, but to come out of denial I think a person either needs to feel very safe about doing so without having any admission of their flaws thrown back in their face....or (far less positively, and at the other extreme) it might be possible for a strong group to embarrass/shame them out of denial. In the latter instance it wouldn't surprise me if they run straight back to that place of denial and entrench themselves even further into it, as soon as they're removed from the group.

 

My preference on LS is for threads that are general rather than dealing with one particular poster's problem. I think the latter sometimes results in an overwhelming array of advice, sympathy, judgement and criticism - and way too much focus on that one particular problem, which will sometimes become blown out of proportion.

 

General threads inviting people to swap insights and methods of dealing with certain difficult situations are less threatening for people to air personal issues/experiences on. Threads where people are open about their imperfections and can laugh at themselves as well as at eachother. I think that creates the environment where a person is likely to feel safest about taking the first steps out of denial.

[Trialbyfire]

Definitely, but to come out of denial I think a person either needs to feel very safe about doing so without having any admission of their flaws thrown back in their face....or (far less positively, and at the other extreme) it might be possible for a strong group to embarrass/shame them out of denial. In the latter instance it wouldn't surprise me if they run straight back to that place of denial and entrench themselves even further into it, as soon as they're removed from the group.

 

My preference on LS is for threads that are general rather than dealing with one particular poster's problem. I think the latter sometimes results in an overwhelming array of advice, sympathy, judgement and criticism - and way too much focus on that one particular problem, which will sometimes become blown out of proportion.

 

General threads inviting people to swap insights and methods of dealing with certain difficult situations are less threatening for people to air personal issues/experiences on. Threads where people are open about their imperfections and can laugh at themselves as well as at eachother. I think that creates the environment where a person is likely to feel safest about taking the first steps out of denial.

There are no safe harbours in life. If one needs a safe harbour, perhaps this is where to start the rebuilding process.

[underpants]

Thanks so much for the imput everyone.

 

Tara, you post was spot on. I will be printing that and reading it again so that I can attempt to incorporate more of those tools in my life. Thank you.

 

It is a hard line to walk between being offensively supportive and the doormat enabler. I am always striving to improve this balance. However, I find it to be very individual based. It can prove difficult enough in real life, let alone over the internet. My original post was a shot in the dark at both.

 

The sensitive ranges between people and the grab bag of defense mechinisms/reactions you could be met with. Not to mention our own flavors of personality.

 

Sometimes offering help or support can feel like walking into a mindfield.

[GPFan]

Hi underpants,

 

You have asked an excellent question and have received first-class, thought-provoking responses in turn.

 

To answer your question, yes I do believe that enablers would expect to be enabled in return. They are giving the type of support they wish to receive themselves.

 

An enabler grants permission, if you will, resulting in the enabler providing a measure of self-justification. Most human-to-human are interactions are circular like this.

[Star Gazer]

While pouting. Of which is followed by a new screen name or come back for more attention with new threads.

 

While asking people not to be mean because they're oh so sensitive right now.

[Trialbyfire]

While asking people not to be mean because they're oh so sensitive right now.

Same issues, different minute, hour or day.

[luvmy2ns]

For a person who has (had) no idea from whence this thread sprang, many others (not you Shadowplay) came to mind. There is also a tendancy among many of the "enabler" types to often want to ram their opinions down the throats of those with a viewpoint that doesn't match their own biased one.

[Nevermind]

I didn't view this thread as related to anybody in particular, and I didn't think the responses were cut out to target one person in particular. I think you had something to say, shadow, and this felt like a good opportunity. However, I do not think that either SG nor TBF were talking about you.

 

I agree with Taramere, and have to admit that I myself often tend to go to arrogant tough love category. Will work on it.

[Tomcat33]

I am a firm believer that people already know what they are going to do at a crossroads before they even reach out for advice. Having said that, what is "enabling advice"? Telling someone to do one thing is no more enabling than telling someone the opposite.

 

People reach out for help to be understood, because something is making them feel BAD. The last thing they need is to be told "you are a horrible at conducting your life and therefore are an even worse human being". I see that a lot around here not in those exact words but the general idea is definitely conveyed and by some the opposite of doing that is considered enabling.

 

 

A lot of definitions get bastardised around here and used erroneously all the time. And sometimes because a person disagrees with a post they are quick to label it "enabling"

 

The important thing is does a person feel strong enough to listen to that warning bell that guilt is, and do they get enough positive reinenforcement in order for them to feel strong enough to follow through with what their voice is telling them to do?

It will never happen with criticism and finger pointing. NEVER.

[Tomcat33]

While asking people not to be mean because they're oh so sensitive right now.

 

 

 

Have you ever talked to or seen in person one of the people that reach out for help, say around here? Have you ever stopped to wonder what these people are TRULY going through and what they might be feeling? Ever cared to analize what it was that lead them to be in the state or sitatuation they are in? Actually sit there and visualise the state of events that leads a person to make a choice that is deemed as wrong by society?

 

I strongly recommend you do that, you actually meet or talk to someone who is down in the dumps knee deep over their heads in wrongful doings but so extremely lost, distressed and messed up about it that they just can't tell their right from wrong. I bet your attitude would change very fast if you could see and the level of pain they are in, if it does not you are made out of rock.

 

Having worked with suicidal teens a fair bit on help lines and having the opportunity to meet some of these kids in person let me tell you, a call is just a call but when you can see a person filled with emotions, when you look into someone's eyes and see their soul is aching that voice takes on a whole new meaning. If you can keep that in mind when dealing with people who are in distress but cannot see through a computer screen, regardless of how petty their choices are in your books, you will never have to make a cold comment like that again.

[Taramere]

People reach out for help to be understood, because something is making them feel BAD. The last thing they need is to be told "you are a horrible at conducting your life and therefore are an even worse human being". I see that a lot around here not in those exact words but the general idea is definitely conveyed and by some the opposite of doing that is considered enabling.

 

I agree, and this is a handy quote for me to use as a springboard for some further discussion about the bastardisation of certain psychology terms and theories as more and more people become superficially familiar with them. Instead of being used to promote change in an insightful, positive and therapeutic way, those theories start getting employed willy nilly (and sometimes totally unnecessarily) as a means of attacking other people and suggesting that they're weak/fundamentally flawed.

 

On this site, that might lead to the very opposite of positive enabling, which is about empowering people. It might become this worrisome thing I've seen on Loveshack where co-dependency is encouraged. "You're a f*cked up person, I'm afraid. You can't possibly conduct a relationship or a life, or make a decision on your own. You're not together enough. I think you may suffer from co-dependency. Thank God you have us here to keep you right!"

 

Encouraging dependency on this site and on the people who use it. That stance can be the point at which nurturing parent and persecutor have a meeting of minds. "We both want what's best for this poster..." "that we do...." Once nurturing parent and persecutor start bonding, tough love can enter very quickly into the equation...bringing with it melodramatic warnings, unnecessarily catastrophic thinking and humiliation of the person it's targeted at. That kind of persecution - what you described there - can have the same effect as enabling in that it switches the focus to drama instead of change. I like this definition in wikipedia of enabling

 

Enabling is a term with a double meaning.[1]

As a positive term, it references patterns of interaction which allow individuals to develop and grow. It is also used in counselling and in the broader context of problematic behavior, to signify dysfunctional approaches that are intended to help but in fact may perpetuate the problem.[1] A common theme of enabling in this latter sense is that third parties take responsibility, blame, or make accommodations for a person's harmful conduct (often with the best of intentions, or from fear or insecurity which inhibits action). The practical effect is that the person themselves does not have to do so, and is shielded from awareness of the harm it may do, and the need or pressure to change.

 

So enabling, in a negative sense, would be where one person colludes with another in destructive behaviour...and that kind of collusion discouraged objective examination of a very real problem, and the initiation of changes to address that problem.

 

The term "validation" in wikipedia

 

In psychology and human communication, validation is the reciprocated communication of respect which communicates that the other's opinions are acknowledged, respected, heard, and (regardless whether or not the listener actually agrees with the content), they are being treated with genuine respect as a legitimate expression of their feelings, rather than marginalized or dismissed.

 

Mockery of those who are regarded as seeking validation is a popular Internet message board sport. So is mockery of attention-seeking...implying that the desire for validation and attention is restricted to the weak, needy and therefore (in many people's eyes) despicable - rather than being a universal, normal aspect of human functioning. It's not the desire for attention and validation that's a problem. Problems lie in the more destructive methods people employ to get those things

 

One of my favourite theories: The drama triangle. It's psycho-jargon, but as this thread deals with the common (and often misguided or ill-intended) application of psychology terms, it seems to fit in. When we express anger or disdain towards those who we regard as

 

a) victims (who we perceive as wanting to remain victims)

b) rescuers who are actually perpetuating the victimhood and therefore enabling it...or disabling change

 

we risk rolling, ourselves, into the third corner of the drama triangle. The persecutor. Anyone who finds themselves in an angry, emotional state where they feel compelled to quarrel with and deride what they perceive as a victim or an enabler has probably entered into the drama triangle.

 

Sometimes we're drawn into it by someone else manipulatively playing the victim role (ie as when we get the odd trolling thread here from a new poster who's just out to stir), or we become overly preoccupied with the notion that anyone who has a problem and lacks confidence is deliberately playing attention seeking victim and should therefore should be called out for it. Or we might just tend towards the persecutor role or the drama triangle generally from a combination of personal issues, circumstances and temperament.

 

Theories about the drama triangle say that people who are drawn towards it will tend to jump from one role to another. The persecutor, when called out by others, will start gravitating to the victim role "I had good intentions. None of you see how X is trying to manipulate you. X set me up for this..." Maybe X did, maybe they didn't....but the willing persecutor will often to anything rather than acknowledge their responsibility in the drama triangle. Or they might overcompensate by becoming super-nice. As with where A aims a barbed, spiteful at B, then turns to C and starts dripping love, empathy and sugar sweetness....then, when they tire of that, returning to the persecutor role.

 

We all start from the point of helpless victim in life, and use various mechanisms as we get older to escape that feeling. Playing rescuer or persecutor to the extent that we get locked in drama are two of the more dysfunctional methods....and the more we do it, the more anyone inhabiting the rational adult stance will sense that we're doing it because much as we deny it, we're feeling weak and uncertain (victimlike) ourselves right at that point.

 

Some of the recent drama-laden threads have brought these theories (which I find very useful as reference points) back to the forefront of my mind. I think most of us get into the drama triangle at times...especially on this board. Internet message boards and drama triangles seem to go together as do strawberries and cream at Wimbledon.

[Taramere]

It's arguable that your typical therapist/social worker and patient relationship, can be described as such.

 

Indeed it can. That's one of the reasons, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, that people in those roles have to have regular supervision. I've been through it myself a lot. In that kind of supervision (ie where you and your approach to therapeutic work with a client are being put under the microscope by a senior colleague) it can be pretty painful and humiliating.

 

Especially if they help you to become aware that you are getting overly embroiled emotionally - and are starting to either rescue or persecute the client as a result. And people do. With the best will in the world, even the most empathic, well meaning and rational counsellor can fall into the drama triangle without proper supervision.

 

The same can be said of people on this board. Just because it's an open forum where there's no requirement for contributors to be trained or skilled in counselling, that doesn't mean people who are becoming destructive in their advice giving shouldn't be called out for it in the same way that a paid counsellor would be.

[Taramere]

In order to be a proper drama triangle of persecution, etc, there's never positive reinforcement. It's strictly a form of negativity.

 

Any trained counsellor or self-designated supervisor should read up on his/her facts and get to know the entire situation, before passing judgement on anyone. It's like stepping into WW2, after the bombings of Hiroshima/Nagasaki and taking the stance that America was the aggressor...

 

TBF - as a positive stroke, you're a smart, good looking and successful woman. Less positive stroke - you're not perfect. You don't always get it right...and I think you'll probably respond to that by paying lip service "I know I'm not perfect" before being defensive in a way that suggests the thought of you not always being perfect isn't really something you can accept.

 

It's not necessary to know a situation 100% to see when someone's got embroiled emotionally and has started to lose their objectivity. It's not the end of the world, for God's sake. A bit of tough love doesn't kill anyone, but it's just not always as effective or as positive as the people using it want to think. Everyone gets it wrong sometimes. I think on this occasion you did - but there's no point in arguing the point forever more. We'll simply have to do the usual agreeing to disagree thing.

[Tomcat33]

In order to be a proper drama triangle of persecution, etc, there's never positive reinforcement. It's strictly a form of negativity.

 

Any trained counsellor or self-designated supervisor should read up on his/her facts and get to know the entire situation, before passing judgement on anyone. It's like stepping into WW2, after the bombings of Hiroshima/Nagasaki and taking the stance that America was the aggressor...

 

 

Well with that concept how is a therapist supposed to assist one person going though some trials and tribulations with external relationships!?!?

 

 

I don't agree you need to read up on all the sides in order to asses a situation/person you just need to use your power of reason and you need to ALWAYS keep the patient's BEST interest in mind. Keeping the best interest in mind of a patient can ONLY be assessed by getting to know THEM, by getting to know what makes THEM tick what is best of them. NOT yourself, but THEM. You get to know your patient, and you build trust, you asses what their life is made up of and what types of things makes them tick and then you come to a conclusion of what is best for THEM, within the boundaries of what is also best for all those around them. But utlimately people don't MAKE people do things they can only offer words of support of disagreement or what have you.

 

Of course no one gets paid to give advice here and people all come with their own agendas but a lot of the time people don't want or need to be told what to do, since they already know what to do, they just want to feel understood. Here's a concept I completely adhere to, anyone person that turns to others for advice is already on the right path, they already know that what they are feeling should be acted upon regardless what the voices in the head say. A person who is oblivious to the wrongfulness of their actions does not reach out.

 

It's as if a person shows up at an AA meeting and they are greeted with "you worthless peice of shiiiit drunk you can't do anything right can you, look at you and how low you have sunk?" Would you stay at an AA meeting if they greeted you like that? NOT A HOPE.

But if instead you are told, "yes we need to accept that you are an alcoholic and it is your poor choices that lead you here but behind every poor choice there is a reason, so let's get to know those reasons..." then who would turn away from that?

 

 

Understanding is not necessarily agreeing with someone it is simply acknowledging what another human being is going through whether you agree with their choices or not. But it is really hard to understand when your power of comprehension is being clouded by anger, resentement and hypercriticism and your own unresolved issues in any given situation is usually what will drive those reactions in yourself. So if you feel so strongly/passionate about a person's choices to the point where you cannot distance yourself enough emotionally to understand that they are their own person with their own set of limits and expectations out of life, then it's probably best not to try to guide them..

 

Taramere you mentioned something to the effect of giving people the power to choose for themselves, and that is exactly my personal philosophy, I don't adhere to this idea that we should undermine or dismiss people's OWN power of choice. I see this a lot, people who don't trust another adult's power to choose and I know of a few posters that go into a scenarion exactly like "here is what you WILL DO, otherwise I will be offended," rather than "what do you feel you should do and let's discuss why" kind of attitude.

[Star Gazer]

Question: Why can a woman call another woman nuts/selfish/bratty and then be labed as "jealous," whereas a man can call the same woman nuts/selfish/bratty and no one says a word?

 

Why do we always assume a woman dishing out hard advice to another woman is "jealous"?

[Star Gazer]

Have you ever talked to or seen in person one of the people that reach out for help, say around here? Have you ever stopped to wonder what these people are TRULY going through and what they might be feeling? Ever cared to analize what it was that lead them to be in the state or sitatuation they are in? Actually sit there and visualise the state of events that leads a person to make a choice that is deemed as wrong by society?

 

Yes, I have. With friends, family members, clients, and people I work with through charitable/volunteer organizations.

[PandorasBox]

"A person who is oblivious to the wrongfulness of their actions does not reach out".

 

I like that, and so true.