From: motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto)
Subject: Re: RFD: Codependency (Third Attempt)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:55:35 GMT

In article <_g-s0yb@SantaFe.edu> dgs@sfi.santafe.edu (David G. Simmons) writes:
>In article <1993Jan21.161415.11884@wam.umd.edu> angelai@wam.umd.edu (Angela I.) writes:
[Forgive me, I'm going to paraphrase to shorten this]
Angela suggests:
   ... there is nothing for recoverying children of addicts or codependents.

David responds:
We don't need a separate group -- traffic on that topic is light ...

I say:
*** maybe there is a REASON that traffic on that topic is light.
>>From the responses I got to a post to alt.recovery & alt.support,
More from Angela:

"some have even found the discussions in alt.recovery to be actually
damaging, since it primarily consists of addicts themselves, whose problems
>>partly the cause of the codependency. 
whose problems are, by definition, partly the cause of the codependency."
>
>I strongly disagree with the premise that addicts cause co-dependents, even
>partly.  Codependents *find* addicts to be with *because* they are co-dependent,
>and addicts fill a place in their disease process.  Addicts do not cause normal
>people to become codependent, except in the case of small children. (most
>"normal" people won't have anything to do with addicts *or* codependents) Recovering

I chime in again:
David, you are seriously blocking here.  The whole concept that Angela
is talking about is ACoA - Adult (now) Children (then) of Alcoholics (or
Addicts, if you want to be more general).  I didn't have a choice to
not be with my abusive parents.  Further, your statement "Codependents
find addicts to be with because they are codependent ..." proves that
the ACoA discussion should be separate from the alt.recovery discussion,
since further exposure to addicts only adds to the codependency.

It's attitudes like yours, ready to blame the victims for the abuse
perpetrated by addicts that caused me to abandon participation in
alt.recovery.  Your statement "most "normal" people won't have anything
to do with addicts *or* codependents" is just more abuse heaped on
INNOCENT people who were victimized by addicts.  Your whole post is
an expose' on the kinds of emotional abuse that addicts dump on the
people in their lives that turns them into codependents -- a child has
no power to fight back those kind of statements, and they can destroy
the fragile self-esteem of the child.

>from codependency requires that we learn to exist in the same world with
>addicts without it negatively affecting our lives. If we run away from all
>addicts, even those in recovery, all we are learning is to run away, not
>to change, grow and recover.  
Again, your perspective is twisted.  In early 1992, when I was posting
to alt.recovery, I frequently requested that abusive behavior and comments
toward recovering victims of abuse/codependency be curtailed in the
group.  Those attempts failed, because the participants would not accept
that their actions were abusive -- typical of abusive addicts.  To
recover from our abusive backgrounds, we need a place where we can talk
about our pain without fear of ridicule or further abuse.  I found that
alt.recovery was not that place -- it was full of abuse.

It is not a matter of running away, it is a matter of not accepting
abuse.  When you cannot stop someone from abusing you in any other way,
then you distance yourself from that person.  By calling this running
away, and saying that by doing so we will not grow, you are playing out
the "trap" set by addicts for their victims -- you are trying to make
abuse sound like it is good for us.

>
More from Angela:
 ... a separate ACoA group might be a good idea ...

>I think we should stick it out here in a.r and a.s.  If an addict gives you a 
>hard time, learn to stand up for yourself.  I know that the first time I was 
>able to tell an addict "that behavior is *not* acceptable, and it is you, not me,
>that has to change" was a major turning point in recovering from codependency. 

Oh, sure.  You can copy the tactics of the abuser when you are physically
capable of enforcing the threat or defending yourself.  You can even
convince yourself that you have recovered.  But what I have seen you
showcase in this post is not healthy behavior in my book.

>Besides the "opportunity for growth" here, it turns out that most addicts are
>*also* codependents (I'm ducking after that one! ;-), and we may be able to
>spread the message better, and farther, if we stay put, and speak our own
>truth about what we know and believe.  I think that all the proposed functions
>of a.r.d are already provided by a.r and a.s.  

Wrong.  The longer we "hang out" with addicts (in various stages of recovery)
and subject ourselves to their abuse, the more we inhibit our own recovery.
We need to be with people like ourselves who are aware of the pain of abuse
and recovering from that.  We need a safe place apart from the abusers so
that we can heal and go forward to live a normal life.  Our problems are
distinctly different from addicts.  Addicts chose to deny what the addiction
was doing to them and their families -- victims were forced by their
abusers to keep silent about the abuse and the abuser.  When you tell us
things like "Take the cotton our of your ears and put in in your mouth." that's
great advice for abusive addicts who don't hear the truth and spout nothing
but lies.  But for recovering victims, it is a re-establishment of the
enforced listening to lies and enforced silence from speaking the truth.
For a recovering victim, the exact opposite advice applies:  "Take the
cotton out of your mouth so you can voice the truth of what you experienced
and put it in your ears to block out the lies being told to you."

David, I'm going to pray for you because you need it.

>
Peace,
Mary Otto