Enablers..???

[shadowplay]

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"?

 

Not sure if you're referring to me but I never called you jealous, SG.

[Tomcat33]

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

 

 

And what do you do, smack them around when they come to you in need? Spit in their faces and tell them to get their act together? Isn't that what tough love is?

 

I doubt it.

 

But in a metaphorical sense that is what a lot of people do annonymously here to others online.

 

 

Thanks Pandora.

[Star Gazer]

And what do you do, smack them around when they come to you in need? Spit in their faces and tell them to get their act together? Isn't that what tough love is?

 

I doubt it.

 

Interesting analogy.

 

Actually, when someone is acting like a petulant child, they usually get a spanking, verbal, virtual or otherwise - regardless if they're a friend, a family member, or a client.

 

When someone presents themselves as down and out, and yet creates their own drama (literally) and absolutely refuses to heed any advice ever given to them by posters here, and instead lashes out when they hear something they don't like (e.g., telling them that they are "*just* above average" and therefore must be jealous of their beauty ), I simply laugh at them and ignore them from that point forward. These same people, whenever a generalized comment is made, are the first to assume you're talking about them when you're not. Why? Because the world revolves around them and their point of view.

 

On the other hand, when someone is truly seeking help, and clearly open to what I and others have to say (both from the coddlers and those who dish tough love), they get a gentle nudge in the right direction. They get a well-rounded amount of advice from the LS community.

 

Thing is, IME here on LS, the posters you're impliedly referring to aren't actually truly seeking help. They start threads where they say they only want to "rant" and "vent." This tells me that they really aren't wanting any contrary input - they simply want people to nod and agree. They simply want validation - either in their viewpoint or in their behavior. They want to be told that how they are is perfectly acceptable, no need for improvement. That the person/people in their life are the root of the problem. These are the very same people who will tell another poster that they're incapable of giving advice. Why? Because they're incapable of taking it in.

[Star Gazer]

Not sure if you're referring to me but I never called you jealous, SG.

 

Yes you did, many times. An entire thread's worth, actually - which was entirely deleted because of the nonsense you and another poster spouted. I was "jealous," I was "*just* above average," and I "could stand to lose a few pounds." All your words.

[shadowplay]

Yes you did, many times. An entire thread's worth, actually - which was entirely deleted because of the nonsense you and another poster spouted. I was "jealous," I was "*just* above average," and I "could stand to lose a few pounds." All your words.

 

No, those weren't all my words. The weight comment was made by another poster. I've never even seen a picture of your body.

 

I never called you jealous. The only mention of jealousy I recall in that thread wasn't directed at you but Allina by another poster.

 

I did make the "just above average" comment but only after I felt you were randomly slighting my appearance, and I apologized for it later. You're right, it was petty.

 

But I won't take credit for things I didn't say.

[shadowplay]

SG, I just read your comment about me in a locked thread. It really irks me when people misrepresent what I've said in the past to someone who doesn't know me (in this case, Taramere). This poster didn't have the chance to see the interaction herself and come to her own conclusions.

 

Here's my side of the story.

 

I started what should have been an innocuous thread in the dating section of this forum about my inability to fall in love. TBF offered her "layman's diagnosis" that I have Narcissistic Personality Disorder. When I tried to argue otherwise, a few people jumped down my throat (including you). The thread devolved into a petty personal attack fest. Allina popped in to randomly call me a "slut." Ariadne responded that Allina was jealous of me in some way. TBF responded with "I doubt that. Have you seen Allina?" I got upset because I felt like TBF's comment was a way of indirectly condoning what Allina said. Then you responded with something like "Allina is more beautiful than Shadowplay both on the inside and out." That's when I wrote that you were "just above average."

 

I wasn't implying that I thought you were worse looking than me or jealous. I've never even written that I think I'm especially attractive. I wrote what I did because I felt like you were judging my appearance in an entirely inappropriate context, so I did the same with yours. I apologized later for doing this. I've never gotten an apology from you.

 

Bottomline: I have never called you jealous. You just read between the lines and assumed, mistakenly, that I was suggesting you were. I think you do have issues you unload on me, but jealousy isn't one of them.

[Star Gazer]

No, those weren't all my words. The weight comment was made by another poster. I've never even seen a picture of your body.

 

I never called you jealous. The only mention of jealousy I recall in that thread wasn't directed at you but Allina by another poster.

 

I did make the "just above average" comment but only after I felt you were randomly slighting my appearance, and I apologized for it later. You're right, it was petty.

 

But I won't take credit for things I didn't say.

 

You never apologized, and you did say those things.

 

Your post #15 in THIS thread doesn't help matters either. If you expect a white flag to be waived, you won't be seeing one from me when you put stuff like that out into the world.

[shadowplay]

You never apologized, and you did say those things.

 

Your post #15 in THIS thread doesn't help matters either.

 

Did you not get my PM two hours ago?

 

Nope, didn't say the other things. That's completely false and you know it.

 

I'm glad other people are finally catching on to your bullying ways. Just stop.

[Star Gazer]

Did you not get my PM two hours ago?

 

Nope, didn't say the other things. That's completely false and you know it.

 

I'm glad other people are finally catching on to your bullying ways.

 

No, I didn't. I've had you blocked for a long time now.

 

Keep it up, Shadow. Claim to apologize and then insult me again. People are already on to your ... um, "ways."

[shadowplay]

No, I didn't. I've had you blocked for a long time now.

 

Keep it up, Shadow. Claim to apologize and then insult me again. People are already on to your ... um, "ways."

 

If you've blocked me then how would you even know if I apologized? Furthermore, if you blocked me, and had no interest in talking with me over pm, then why did you randomly send me a pm earlier today calling me an "evil witch?"

 

I apologized for something I said about your looks. I won't apologize for something I notice about your behavior, because that's a legitimate criticism...one to which others have caught on as well.

[Tomcat33]

Interesting analogy.

 

Actually, when someone is acting like a petulant child, they usually get a spanking, verbal, virtual or otherwise - regardless if they're a friend, a family member, or a client.

 

Ok fair enough and you are entitled to make that call when you are face to face with someone and if your wellbeing, job, security, family etc are at stake then I don't see anything wrong with putting someone in their place when you feel compromised. But it's a really hard call to make when someone posts one post online of a situation, idea, feeling they are having.

Meaning are they trying to attack you personally (granted some posters do do that but they come and go rather quickly) or are they trying to reach out?

 

 

Firstly there are two kinds of posts out there, there are the kinds that are just here to vent which attract a lot of drama and back and forth and quite frankly they are just there to gather opinion nothing more nothing less and people can debate until the cows come home.

 

Then there are the posts that are reaching out for help.

 

I personally have no problem debating a topic and getting into a heavy back and forth of exchange in opinion but when someone is reaching out for help on a situation I always always always consider what state they might be in, no matter how petty of a scenario they are in or how complex. That sort of changes the tone for me, I put on my empathy hat and away I go and even though at times I may feel like smacking someone across the head and saying "what's wrong with you?" I can't and will not that since a person is more than likely in pain and I feel the need to respect that above anything else. But that's me.

 

 

When someone presents themselves as down and out, and yet creates their own drama (literally) and absolutely refuses to heed any advice ever given to them by posters here, and instead lashes out when they hear something they don't like (e.g., telling them that they are "*just* above average" and therefore must be jealous of their beauty ), I simply laugh at them and ignore them from that point forward. These same people, whenever a generalized comment is made, are the first to assume you're talking about them when you're not. Why? Because the world revolves around them and their point of view

 

 

Or it could be that they actually need validation they look up to and are easily influenced by what others say, again it's not an attack on to YOU it could be their own feelings of displacement. Maybe secretly they even care what you think or say about them.

 

 

On the other hand, when someone is truly seeking help, and clearly open to what I and others have to say (both from the coddlers and those who dish tough love), they get a gentle nudge in the right direction. They get a well-rounded amount of advice from the LS community.

 

I feel that is not really our call to make, it's really up to the poster to take away what they wish from it. If you feel your breath is being wasted, just move on? That's what I would do. I don't take it personally, I am not going to waste my time offering words of advice to someone who is just there to mock or pass the time because they are bored. You can sense who those generally are.

But even in the types of posts where the OP is rejecting every single person in sight I have seen them come back and ease up considerable the next time around. So even though they fight it it still sinks in...

They are just patterns people have. And if you watch out for them you can see who the ones that are just here to troll are and who are genuinely putting up a front but that do want help.

 

I can think of a few examples in the dating section of posters that came on full force with very controversial posts and they managed to pizz everyone off in one swoop. But then the next day they take out another thread that is not as crazy and actually that puts them in a more vulnerable state, some people are terrified of being vulnerable they want help but they are petrified of being judged and made to feel worse so they come on the offensive first.

 

 

 

 

Thing is, IME here on LS, the posters you're impliedly referring to aren't actually truly seeking help. They start threads where they say they only want to "rant" and "vent." This tells me that they really aren't wanting any contrary input - they simply want people to nod and agree. They simply want validation - either in their viewpoint or in their behavior. They want to be told that how they are is perfectly acceptable, no need for improvement. That the person/people in their life are the root of the problem. These are the very same people who will tell another poster that they're incapable of giving advice. Why? Because they're incapable of taking it in.

 

I wasn't talking about anyone in particular so there was nothing "implied" I am talking in completely general terms.

 

You know it can be very hard for someone who is opening up to complete strangers about something they may already feel ashamed of or vulnerable about and really put themselves up to be speculated on, but you have to think that the pain is so intense that they would rather endure a possible public lynching over having to continue in their pain. Does that mean we have to be there to stone someone to death? No it's not really an open invitation to do that. Again something to consider when we greet people with "tough love" and tough love is a weird concept too, because I can get tough love from a loved one because I know they ultimately want what is best for me but tough love is not received in the same manner from a complete stranger it is really off-putting actually...

 

I have seen many times people reach out and be met with nothing but criticism, amateur digs that are designed to hurt and nothing more.

 

Here's my side of the story.

 

I started what should have been an innocuous thread in the dating section of this forum about my inability to fall in love. TBF offered her "layman's diagnosis" that I have Narcissistic Personality Disorder. When I tried to argue otherwise, a few people jumped down my throat (including you). The thread devolved into a petty personal attack fest.

 

 

Ok I stopped reading after the bolded part...:laugh: Don't even get me started on what I think of the "diagnosis" that people have "NPD". Around here it is as reiterative as saying someone has low self esteem. I wonder if someone in the cyber pop psych world will coin a phrase for low self esteem and try to pass it of as a mood/personality disorder as well!

 

Anyway, your reaction does not surprise me, anyone who is met with resistance like that will just recoil. But it is a good example of how people can be made to feel really odd for what they are going though and on top of it to be made to feel like they have to explain themselves on false accusations is very frustrating and quite frankly it does not make someone want to open up any more or become more vulnerable to exposure.

 

I totally empathise with you.

[shadowplay]

 

 

 

 

Ok I stopped reading after the bolded part...:laugh: Don't even get me started on what I think of the "diagnosis" that people have "NPD". Around here it is as reiterative as saying someone has low self esteem. I wonder if someone in the cyber pop psych world will coin a phrase for low self esteem and try to pass it of as a mood/personality disorder as well!

 

Anyway, your reaction does not surprise me, anyone who is met with resistance like that will just recoil. But it is a good example of how people can be made to feel really odd for what they are going though and on top of it to be made to feel like they have to explain themselves on false accusations is very frustrating and quite frankly it does not make someone want to open up any more or become more vulnerable to exposure.

 

I totally empathise with you.

 

 

Thanks, TomCat. I really appreciate your understanding. It sucks to open yourself up in a vulnerable way and be told you're somehow "defective" by people who barely know you, especially when such an accusation is totally unfounded. It was nice to have an actual professional take a peak in and shut down the wannabe therapists. I guess I will just develop a sense of humor about it.

[JackJack]

Ok, that's it, all of you go to time out. Sorry.

[Walk]

It is not "enabling" to communicate without harsh words or stinging comments.

 

Part of my issue with labeling posts as "tough love" is the fact that posters aren't using effective communication to present their thoughts.

 

You sound like such a princess right now, it's astounding.

http://www.loveshack.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1754002&postcount=16

 

she's been solely thinking about herself the ENTIRE TIME.

http://www.loveshack.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1754240&postcount=57

 

To change it<snipped> is manipulative, controlling, and very selfish. And....bratty.

http://www.loveshack.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1754259&postcount=65

 

Its important to seperate a persons actions from the core person. The action was bad, the behavior was bad, the person is NOT bad. yet with these few quotes, the person has been attacked as flawed. It creates a defensive environment in which the person will shut down.

 

Defense arousal prevents the listener from concentrating upon the message. Not only do defensive communicators send off multiple value, motive and affect cues, but also defensive recipients distort what they receive. As a person becomes more and more defensive, he or she becomes less and less able to perceive accurately the motives, the values and the emotions of the sender. The writer's analysis of tape recorded discussions revealed that increases in defensive behavior were correlated positively with losses in efficiency in communication.(2)

 

In addition, there seems to be a lack of understanding in dealing with defensiveness in other people.

 

Number One: Stop trying to control the other person: For example, we can give up the idea of "getting through" to the other person, making her or him listen to us or admit something. Whenever we do that, are trying to force the other person to change. Such force creates war.

 

Number Two: Disarming questions— Focus on curiosity. Ask questions that aren't demanding or accusatory.

 

Number Three: Giving Feedback—Be honest without blame: We can tell the person what we are witnessing without trying to prove our point.

 

Communication is difficult to do well. Its important to find the best method for each person your speaking with in order to convey the message as clearly as possible. However, I don't see some members of this board attempting to find effective ways to communicate. They seem arrogant in their belief that what they say and what they mean will reach the intended audiences ears exactly as they meant. And they blame the reciever for taking the message in a way not intended.

 

Its not being an enabler simply because you choose to convey your post in a way that will be received by the OP.

[shadowplay]

 

Its important to seperate a persons actions from the core person. The action was bad, the behavior was bad, the person is NOT bad. yet with these few quotes, the person has been attacked as flawed. It creates a defensive environment in which the person will shut down.

 

Really important distinction there.

 

It is akin to parents who deal with a difficult child by telling him he is a "bad boy," leading him to believe he is fundamentally flawed. If someone displays unhealthy patterns of behavior, the focus should be on the destructive patterns themselves and their origin, not the individual's character. Making judgment calls about the "goodness" or "badness" of another's character is completely inappropriate and destructive on a board like this. We don't even know a fraction of enough about any given poster to make such a call -- we are only seeing a small facet of who they are. And even if we did, doing so would be unproductive.

 

People will often conform to others' expectations of them. If they are continually told they are bad, they may start to internalize that belief and behave in line with it. Many psychological studies have proved this to be true.

 

I've noticed that people who don't know much about the psychological profession tend to be the biggest proponents of "tough love." They are the first to accuse therapists of being coddling psycho-babblers, without really understanding the reasons therapists employ the methods that do.

 

This is going a bit OT, but I've always suspected that "tough love" is a largely American invention, rooted in our pioneer history. I think it stems from the same vengeful impulse that makes us focus more on punishment than rehabilitation in dealing with criminals and addicts. It's not about what works, but what satisfies our aggressive urges. As a society based on individualism we also tend to shun and mock people who seem like victims rather than reaching out to them.

 

Of course this mentality is always dressed up with lofty rationalizations, but I believe it usually boils down to primitive, aggressive urges.

[Taramere]

I think it's hard to have generalised discussions about something like this without specific posts/discussions being referred to as examples. Or, even where they aren't, people thinking "hang on - that's me they're talking about."

 

I want to play Devil's Advocate a bit. TBF made the point about me, in another thread, that I've sometimes used tough love and mockery on the board myself. Which is correct - I have. Sometimes I'll be sarcastic or overly critical to a poster because I think they've invited it, and/or I'm in that kind of mood. I try to back off after one or two posts...and if I notice I have company in the form of another poster who's posting or adding to my sarcasm/criticism, then I'll stop.

 

One against one is fine, but as soon as you have a few posters berating one, even if it's well intended, it's too much noise. Too much scope for that "the critics having a bonding session at the expense of the criticised" for it to be helpful to the person being criticised - and even if it's not intended as a mobbing exercise, that's how it can feel to the person on the receiving end of it.

 

I think tough love is like the bad cop part of the good cop/bad cop routine. It can look insensitive - and often is. Often tough love does contain a certain amount of projection, frustration, anger and unhelpful intentions. But it can also be what makes people finally seek out/accept skilled, therapeutic intervention. Shadow, you mentioned that your therapist was horrified by some of the threads you printed out. Yet in some way, what she would perceive as "bad practice" on the part of those people who contributed to your threads may well have raised personal issues for/triggered thoughts in you that are a recurring problem. If so, then the two of you have themes to address in the counselling session. A focus which came about as a result of other people's "tough love".

 

The empathic counsellor gets to play the good guy. That's annoying and frustrating for the tough love advice giver who may well have had a mixed agenda - as we all do - but who has honour and good intentions on that agenda. Some of the frustration on that thread came from people feeling "hang on. we've invested a lot of time and effort giving this poster support and advice. Now other people who haven't had any involvement are coming in and daring to criticise the way we do it. What a damn nerve." A little bit like a hard working mother who has the kids all week and is doing the best she can watching estranged Dad come along, pick them up for the weekend and take them to McDonalds.

 

People get competitive in the helping process. I saw that working with adolescents. Everyone wanted to be the best helper. The one a difficult child would relate to, confide in.....disclose to. Petty jealousies abounded amongst staff because of this. Tough love versus the empathic approach was one of the most common sources of conflict. "Your noisy, tough approach doesn't create a safe environment for the children" "yours is too soft...bordering on collusive..."

 

We can only try to get the balance right between the two extremes. And none of us get it right all the time. It's very easy to get embroiled, lose perspective and start veering to either extreme - rationalising to yourself the need to do so.

 

The poster whose approach is being criticised most recently in this thread is someone who is used to working in an area where conflict is as natural as breathing. And conflict is natural and normal. Learning to deal with it effectively is an art and a really useful skill...but it's hard for women, because we're constantly given messages that amount to "avoid conflict...don't be competitive....be nice."

 

On this board, it's okay for argumentative women to join forces and round on the odd misogynistic visitor, but when they get into conflict with eachother...watch out! Which is, in my opinion, a little silly. What's wrong with being competitive? What's wrong with enjoying the challenge of engaging in and resolving conflict? The people who enjoy competition and conflict, and who are honest about that, have a lot to offer a board that's hopefully about personal development and learning conflict resolution skills, as well as emotional support.

[Jake Barnes]

I agreed with everything you said Taramere...what I read of it anyways...OK actually I didnt read much of it, but youre usually right

[Walk]

I think tough love is like the bad cop part of the good cop/bad cop routine. It can look insensitive - and often is. Often tough love does contain a certain amount of projection, frustration, anger and unhelpful intentions. But it can also be what makes people finally seek out/accept skilled, therapeutic intervention. Shadow, you mentioned that your therapist was horrified by some of the threads you printed out. Yet in some way, what she would perceive as "bad practice" on the part of those people who contributed to your threads may well have raised personal issues for/triggered thoughts in you that are a recurring problem. If so, then the two of you have themes to address in the counselling session. A focus which came about as a result of other people's "tough love".

I'm not understanding the paragraph above. What I read is you stated tough love is often insensitive, it contains projection, frustration anger and unhelpful intentions. But overall its a great thing because it drives a person to the point of seeking out theapeutic intervention? That's kind of like me having an issue with my H and having my best friend beat me until I sought therapy from someone who could actually help me. I may have finally gotten help, but I sure as hell wouldn't say my friend was helpful.

 

Maybe her therapist is right? I'd like to know (I'm honestly curious not being sarcastic) why you feel Shadow's therapist is incorrect in saying the posts on her thread were bad practice? Why is pushing Shadows buttons til she reacts with an outburst against it a good thing? Do you feel that because she's lacking in self-confidence that teaching her to lash back is a good thing? Or that by creating a reaction from her you feel it will cause her therapy sessions to go better? How does focusing Shadows attention on the negativity she receives helpful? How is pushing her til she loses control of her emotions helpful to Shadow?

 

The empathic counsellor gets to play the good guy. That's annoying and frustrating for the tough love advice giver who may well have had a mixed agenda - as we all do - but who has honour and good intentions on that agenda.

 

Sometimes the best of intentions still cause harm to others. I didn't mean to kick you and bruise your leg, but I still did. Does it make it all better because I didn't mean to hurt you? It still hurt, your still bruised... its not all better.

 

So even though their intentions are good, it doesn't mean its the right thing to do. I'm not saying there aren't some wild card exceptions to the rule where normal communication may no longer effective, but in general.. for the majority... I don't feel that getting frustrated at someone and being abusive to them in the name of "good intentions" is the most effective way to approach most posts. I see a lot of posts that push people into highly charged emotional states. The OP will lose his or her ability to logically rationalize why something may or may not be healthier for their life. Their mentality becomes one of fight or flight instead of cognitive reasoning. Its no longer rationally based, but emotionally based... and I don't know about you, but I honestly can't make good decision or process things very well in that state.

 

Can you name one thread in which posters became frustrated with an OP and it actually helped the OP open her/his eyes to the irrationality of his/her mindset? (long term eye opening, not 1 post and then right back to same ol' same ol') I can't recall any. Maybe I'm just spacing on the ones that would prove getting frustrated and tough on a person works. But the ones I recall, that technique has not resulted in long lasting (past 1-2 posts) results.

 

Some of the frustration on that thread came from people feeling "hang on. we've invested a lot of time and effort giving this poster support and advice. Now other people who haven't had any involvement are coming in and daring to criticise the way we do it. What a damn nerve." A little bit like a hard working mother who has the kids all week and is doing the best she can watching estranged Dad come along, pick them up for the weekend and take them to McDonalds.

I can understand that... I've felt that way on a couple of occasions here. But then I have to step back and realize "Hey! this isn't a child I'm dealing with." I am not the gate keeper to opinions, who gets to shoot down every one elses simply because I put my own (volunteer) effort into helping. The people who come here are adults. They are capable of living their own lives, or making their own decisions. I try to respect the fact that they can think for themselves and I leave the decision on who they wish to listen to up to them. Ultimately, I feel its an issue of respect. When we think of other posters as our children then we no longer respect them as independent human beings who are capable of making their own decisions.

 

The poster whose approach is being criticised most recently in this thread is someone who is used to working in an area where conflict is as natural as breathing. And conflict is natural and normal. Learning to deal with it effectively is an art and a really useful skill...but it's hard for women, because we're constantly given messages that amount to "avoid conflict...don't be competitive....be nice."

 

On this board, it's okay for argumentative women to join forces and round on the odd misogynistic visitor, but when they get into conflict with eachother...watch out! Which is, in my opinion, a little silly. What's wrong with being competitive? What's wrong with enjoying the challenge of engaging in and resolving conflict? The people who enjoy competition and conflict, and who are honest about that, have a lot to offer a board that's hopefully about personal development and learning conflict resolution skills, as well as emotional support.

 

Competitive to be a better person, or give better advice = good.

competitive to get the best zing in = not so good.

 

I don't have a problem with someone being aggressive, using their skills to gain competitive advantage in the workplace or using it to improve a relationship. However, I still do not see how calling someone a princess, a brat, spoiled etc is a healthy type of competition. To compare a statement that assisted in having the OP completely disengage from her own thread as simply a result of a "competitive" personality seems a bit like saying a guy set his boundaries by putting his wife in the hospital with a left hook. You didn't seem to find anything inappropriate with the statements quoted in my prior post which leads me to believe that in your opinion those are appropriate statements for a competitive person to make. Is that true? I also don't believe any one has ever stated that having competitive people on this board has been a bad thing, or a negative. Simply that some words are harmful, or at the least unhelpful, and there are more appropriate ways to communicate the vast wealth of knowledge some posters have without resorting to name calling.

[Taramere]

I'm not understanding the paragraph above. What I read is you stated tough love is often insensitive, it contains projection, frustration anger and unhelpful intentions. But overall its a great thing because it drives a person to the point of seeking out theapeutic intervention? That's kind of like me having an issue with my H and having my best friend beat me until I sought therapy from someone who could actually help me. I may have finally gotten help, but I sure as hell wouldn't say my friend was helpful.

 

Perhaps I worded it badly if that's the message you took from it. I'd certainly never condone anyone getting beaten. Or bullied into getting therapy. I think tough love is something people sometimes deliver in response to what they regard (rightly or wrongly) as other people's enabling. And that in those cases they'll do it in an effort to make the person take responsibility.

 

Like I said earlier, I've worked in those situations where there are a lot of conflicts about the "right" approach. All I can say is that nobody has the monopoly on that right approach. You could put someone in need of counselling in front of the most experienced, skilled therapist in the world - but if that someone is locked in the drama triangle whereby they're not going to respond to anything other than persecution or rescuing, they're probably not going to be ready to respond to the therapist.

 

I think that properly done, tough love is more veering towards the adult approach...but because it generally does contain elements of anger, impatience and frustration, it's often more emotional than rational. If the person on the receiving end of it feels that the "tough love" giver cares about them but is angry with them, then that needn't be a bad thing at all. Say you have an individual drinking too much. Their friends and family recognise it, but they refuse to. People tactfully try to suggest an AA group, but they resist. Eventually it might be that friends and family reach the point where they say "we love you, we care about you - but we've had enough. We're not going to engage with you until you join that group and get some help."

 

That might be what it takes to get the person towards the help they need. People are by no means always open to therapeutic intervention, and that's what I mean when I say that tough love is sometimes helpful and necessary. But unless it comes from people who you know genuinely do care about you it's probably just going to feel like random judgement and criticism.

 

Maybe her therapist is right? I'd like to know (I'm honestly curious not being sarcastic) why you feel Shadow's therapist is incorrect in saying the posts on her thread were bad practice?

 

Again, I can't have worded that as clearly as I hoped I had, because what I intended to say was yes - some of what has been on Shadow's threads may be ill-advised attempts to help that actually made her feel worse (I don't know, because I haven't read them). However, we feel bad when someone hits a nerve. If something someone says hits a nerve with Shadow and upsets her, then that's something to take to her therapist so that they can figure out "why does that, in particular, upset you? Has this person hit on some negative belief you have about yourself? Let's use this to try to identify where some of the thinking you have about yourself may be faulty or overly negative and generally destructive."

 

When people tell you "truth hurts, doesn't it?!" I think what that really mean is "I've found your sensitive spot. I've found a negative belief you have about yourself." After all, everyone has their own version of the truth.

 

Why is pushing Shadows buttons til she reacts with an outburst against it a good thing? Do you feel that because she's lacking in self-confidence that teaching her to lash back is a good thing? Or that by creating a reaction from her you feel it will cause her therapy sessions to go better? How does focusing Shadows attention on the negativity she receives helpful? How is pushing her til she loses control of her emotions helpful to Shadow?

 

If you see other posts I've contributed lately, you'll maybe get a better feel of how I see things. I'm not in the camp that says "badger someone until they lose control and lash out." Actually I'm not in any particular camp other than the one that probably most people here inhabit - ie always trying to figure out what the best response might be in a particular situation. Which can mean not getting too trapped in any one approach.

 

What I see on this site lately totally reminds me of that work with the adolescents. The drama triangle. The "persecuting" tough love which initially doesn't get questioned, leaving those who use it with a sense of power and righteousness. Then the backlash, as "rescuers" start piling in on "persecutors". Labels such as bullying, sanctimonious etc get bandied around and it never ends.

 

Abusers isolate their victims...but rescuers can also isolate people. How? By giving them the message that "You can trust me - but not others who are out to persecute you. I have the skills to nurture you through this. They haven't got those skills. They have nothing valid to offer you in this process of you becoming a stronger and more confident person."

 

And that's something therapists have to watch out for. I've got a close friend who sometimes likes to act as my therapist - and with the best will in the world, I see her doing that to me sometimes. Friends do that to eachother a lot - instinctively, I think. Mothers sometimes do it with their children. Creating a nice, cosy dependency trap.

 

And this is just me going off at a tangent. I'm not suggesting, Walk, that you're subscribing to that at all. I thought the post you made in another thread was very much about empowering the person you directed it towards. You also made comments in your last post which were consistent with the notion that there are lots of different ways of helping a person, and we shouldn't be too quick to disrespect or dismiss someone else's approach simply because it differs from our own.

 

But to carry on with the dependency trap thing (which I think is what people who attack the notion of "enabling" are sometimes worried about - neglecting to consider whether they themselves are creating some dependency with the "critical parent" approach). Other people in the client's life might well not be perfect. They may have methods of communication that are upsetting or stressful to the client...but the point of therapy is to help the client to manage this. Not to isolate them from the harsher elements of the world, or to force everyone else to change who they are for the benefit of the client.

 

However, I still do not see how calling someone a princess, a brat, spoiled etc is a healthy type of competition. To compare a statement that assisted in having the OP completely disengage from her own thread as simply a result of a "competitive" personality seems a bit like saying a guy set his boundaries by putting his wife in the hospital with a left hook. You didn't seem to find anything inappropriate with the statements quoted in my prior post which leads me to believe that in your opinion those are appropriate statements for a competitive person to make. Is that true? I also don't believe any one has ever stated that having competitive people on this board has been a bad thing, or a negative. Simply that some words are harmful, or at the least unhelpful, and there are more appropriate ways to communicate the vast wealth of knowledge some posters have without resorting to name calling.

 

I agree that name-calling and insults aren't healthy - but it happens, and it will always happen. And I think we all do it sometimes. God knows, in the past couple of days I've seen the odd snide comment about myself on this board as a result of me commenting on another thread. It's hardly the end of the world. There are times I've been sarcastic or insulting to people - primarily because I was in that kind of mood or looking for an easy laugh. Other times because they've dished it out to others so I think they should experience a bit of it in return. And I've hoped that they're able to just shrug it off. Some people can't.

 

If I was feeling very vulnerable and took to heart some of comments that have been made about me lately, or got the kind of comments Shadow and other posters have had in their threads, no doubt I'd appreciate gentler posters who would offer sympathy. And if I insulted someone and I found out they were upset about it, I'd attempt to offer either an apology or some balancing positive stroke....but sometimes you just have to shrug and accept that people will hold grudges/resentment and just give up on it.

 

Ideally I think, you try to help a person get to that place where they can shrug off the odd bitchy comment or unflattering name and hopefully remove themselves from the defensive stance where they feel compelled to protect themselves from every insult or judgement.

 

I don't disagree with your approach at all, Walk. For the most part it's quite similar to mine. I would think that your natural tendency is towards rescuing, and from what you've said you obviously recognise the potential pitfalls of being a rescuer.

 

I'm wordy at the best of times, but this is becoming a thesis!

[Walk]

I'm wordy at the best of times, but this is becoming a thesis!

 

Wordy, but really good. Gave me a lot to think about.

 

In your work with groups that get into these drama triangles, what methods or actions can a person take to disrupt the drama triangles? Actions that won't isolate victims, yet strike enough of a chord in the people participating in the drama triangle to focus more on the best interest of the person they are attempting to help?

 

You said that rescuers can also isolate people. I've seen this first hand when someone will PM me with what I consider very big problems without posting a thread for others to add their thoughts or advice to. (I know I have views on relationships that can sometimes lead people in a bad direction) However, the few times this has occured, and I've finally nudged the person enough to create a thread and get more feedback from other people, the blood bath occurs. In one occurance, the girl got crucified for irrelevant details that weren't even part of the problem she was seeking advice on. I was horrified and felt like I'd lead the lamb to slaughter. I haven't seen that poster on LS since then.

 

Which makes me question.. if a person is not at a point in their life yet where negative comments can be ignored, and they don't have the tools to successfully deal with hostile confrontation, is it worse to be isolated by a rescuer until the person feels comfortable enough with the problem to bring it to light with the harshest critics? Or worse for them to avoid the hostilities and deal with only a select few people?

 

I saw another thread where a woman posted about a situation which potentially could have been an acquaintence rape. I don't know if her story was true, or not, but within two pages the replies were so negative and so critical that the woman has never come back. No one helped that woman, no one seemed to care to help, and part of me still believes that with a more open mindset the truth may have come to light... whether its a reality that she cheated, or was raped. But no one helped her to embrace her situation and deal with it in a positive manner.

 

How does one person, or two people, stop the drama triangle?

 

I'd really like to hear your thoughts on this.

[Taramere]

Wordy, but really good. Gave me a lot to think about.

 

In your work with groups that get into these drama triangles, what methods or actions can a person take to disrupt the drama triangles? Actions that won't isolate victims, yet strike enough of a chord in the people participating in the drama triangle to focus more on the best interest of the person they are attempting to help?

 

Thanks, Walk. Your posts are making me think hard, and I appreciate that.

 

To take it to an extreme example. Say you've got conflict building up in a group, and it results in someone going apesh*t to the extent that they have to be physically restrained. Sometimes staff who took a really confrontational approach seemed to push for it to get to that stage where physical restraint became necessary.

 

Some of them took the firm view that it was therapeutic for the children. Others would say "that's rationalisation. You're anxious for control, and you're engineering the situation so that it'll reach a stage where you feel justified in taking physical control."

 

Anyway. Let's say it does get to that "physical restraint" stage which is drama taken to its final conclusion. I think theories relating to physical restraint have changed since I worked in that area, but essentially two members of staff would use a technique which was supposed to be painless (but which did, on occasion, result in children sustaining broken limbs in some establishments). A third member of staff would remove other children from the area.

 

None of the staff involved in the restraint would speak to the child other than to tell them in calm, detached tones that they would be physically restrained until the situation had calmed. Then there would be silence, because when someone's reached the point where they need to be restrained, the thinking is that there should be no stimulation. They're face down so that they can't see. Other children are removed from the area so that they can't hear shouting/panic. Staff remain silent. The rationale underlying all of that is open to argument..and, as you can imagine, I always had plenty to say about it. My main points of concern were

 

a) that people didn't focus on non-physical methods of de-escalating drama, and often seemed extremely keen to progress towards that controlling, physical restraint part.

 

b) those who were very taken with the whole TCI (Therapeutic Crisis Intervention) thing were like zealots regarding the "It's not about control. it makes children feel safe" thinking." In my opinion anyway. I thought it was absolutely about control, whether staff wanted it to be or not. I also questioned whether it made children feel safe. Particularly as injuries occurred on occasion.

 

And no, apart from the training course, I was never directly involved in a physical restraint. The only time I witnessed one was when I was on shift with two very large and aggressive female members of staff who were totally into the whole restraint thing (I think they would have liked to have restrained me too, truth be told).

 

Anyway, with that method, you are isolating the victim (or perpetrator of violence, depending on how you want to look at it). You're separating them from other people who aren't in control of their actions and who are likely to worsen the drama with their input.

 

You said that rescuers can also isolate people. I've seen this first hand when someone will PM me with what I consider very big problems without posting a thread for others to add their thoughts or advice to. (I know I have views on relationships that can sometimes lead people in a bad direction) However, the few times this has occured, and I've finally nudged the person enough to create a thread and get more feedback from other people, the blood bath occurs. In one occurance, the girl got crucified for irrelevant details that weren't even part of the problem she was seeking advice on. I was horrified and felt like I'd lead the lamb to slaughter. I haven't seen that poster on LS since then.

 

That's not your fault, Walk. You didn't want her to become overly dependent on you for advice, and that's really sound. It's just a pity she got the reaction she did, but that's message boards for you. It's why I think general discussions are often better than people disclosing their own personal stuff for others to leap on like vultures. I don't know about you, but in real life I seldom hear people talking in quite as blunt terms as get employed online between strangers. And even if blunt terms are employed, tone and body language can soften the message.

 

Which makes me question.. if a person is not at a point in their life yet where negative comments can be ignored, and they don't have the tools to successfully deal with hostile confrontation, is it worse to be isolated by a rescuer until the person feels comfortable enough with the problem to bring it to light with the harshest critics? Or worse for them to avoid the hostilities and deal with only a select few people?

 

You've definitely got a point. Like baby steps? Start off with one trusted person who will support that individual to gradually build up their support network? That's probably how good therapists work. There's no point in hurling someone into a wolves' den and telling them "just deal with it." I think People sometimes need assistance in becoming equipped to deal with it, as you've suggested.

 

I saw another thread where a woman posted about a situation which potentially could have been an acquaintence rape. I don't know if her story was true, or not, but within two pages the replies were so negative and so critical that the woman has never come back. No one helped that woman, no one seemed to care to help, and part of me still believes that with a more open mindset the truth may have come to light... whether its a reality that she cheated, or was raped. But no one helped her to embrace her situation and deal with it in a positive manner.

 

How does one person, or two people, stop the drama triangle?

 

I'd really like to hear your thoughts on this.

 

I don't think one person can stop the drama triangle. If I think I'm in one, I'll consider my own position first, and I'll try to shift into adult mode. A friend of mine is a habitual persecutor. One time I discussed the drama triangle theory with her, and without me saying so she flushed and pointed to the "persecutor" corner of the triangle. Then she said "that's me, isn't it?" And I tried to explain that it can be any one of us. As can victim and rescuer.

 

If someone's capable of accepting that they sometimes behave like a sh*t, feels compelled to address it but doesn't get ridden down with guilt about it, then they're probably in a better position to control themselves with regard to the drama triangle. If a person's locked in denial whereby "I'm right. They're wrong and I'm right" then they're probably going to be too defensive to leave that role. "I am not playing persecutor/rescuer/victim." As though getting embroiled in dramatics is a heinous crime that carries the death penalty. Once a person is capable of saying "yeah - I got a bit carried away there. It happens..." it's probably easier for them to get into rational mode.

 

But if people don't want to leave the drama triangle, then probably all you can do is leave them there and focus on not getting drawn in yourself. Which is where I sometimes fall down.

[Ssheena]

First of all, I have not read the entire thread yet. My response it to the OP's original question, call for discussion.

 

I have seen on this forum this dance between people. A) x happened, I don't want it to happen, I refuse to let it happen, etc. B) x happened to me, I refuse to see things as they are, I don't want to accept it etc, etc. A and B start cross-posting and supporting each other and telling each other not to give up and that oh, such and such is a good sign you are going to get back together etc., etc.

 

A and B both refuse to listen to or take any of the action plans that have been recommended to them and continually come back and cry and whine and "what should I do" over and over and over again.

 

Yes, both want to be enabled. Yes, both want to believe that little glimmer of hope that they will get their x's back, they will get married, life will be good, that they both provide for each other.

 

Now, I'll read the rest of the thread.

[Arise_Serpentor]

i've been reading this thread very carefully!

StarGazer, are you sure you aren't jealous just a bit? I mean, its only normal bless your heart!

[Lishy]

I find in incredulous it when the people who cannot take one bit of tough love decide to do to others what they hate themselves! That does not make sense to me

 

Tough love is one thing but bullying is another ... It cannot be tolerated anymore, it is so not fair on the poster who has decided to share a problem!

[johan]

Overall, I agree with Taramere and Walk and some of the insightful others on this thread. What they said is important to understand for anyone who is sincerely interested in providing useful advice. For those who aren't sincerely interested, there's not a lot that can be done.

 

Making statements that call into question a person's fundamental character or that demand change that is too great to take on all at once is not helpful advice. Statements that include ridiculing someone or being dismissive cannot possibly be considered sincere attempts to help.

 

But I know there are those who aren't as interested in helping as they are in being proven right or winning. Or who feel genuine disgust at what they see in the person who is exposing a problem. Those people will never be helpful, in spite of their protests to the contrary. And they will be posting on this board for as long as it exists.

 

I think this is an excellent discussion. But I think it's only going to be engaged in by people who agree with each other. Those who would benefit most from it will not participate, because just like their victims, they will also be faced with something that is too big to take on or that they frankly dismiss.