From: mckenney@CIMS.NYU.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.sexual.abuse.recovery
Subject: Re: Tools for dealing with asar/life
Date: 20 Aug 92 17:09:39 GMT
Reply-To: mckenney@cims.nyu.edu
Followup-To: alt.sexual.abuse.recovery
Organization: New York University


    I had written a posting, and was waiting out the obligatory 24-hour
cooling-off period before posting it, when I saw Allen D. Taylor's
<taylor@hardy.u.washington.edu> article:

> The whole Relkie/Prisoner thing, not to them but to me, was an
> unfortunate incident that I happened to witness.  ...
>                            ...  My heart aches for Relkie and I
> both sympathize and empathize with her situation.  I feel great
> sorrow for Prisoner.  He, like I once was, is very confused and
> hurting.  That is all I intend to say about that incident.
>
> What upset my serenity more is the vitupretive diatribe I've
> witnessed among the witnesses of the Relkie/Prisoner incidents. (By
> referring to it as an 'incident' I am not minimizing it's impact on
> Relkie or Prisoner, but trying to put it in perspective within my own
> reality.) A lot of people have stated a lot of opinions concerning
> not only the incident, but other peoples opinions of the incident.

which pretty well described my feelings.  He also went on to make
a suggestion that I was going to make.


    I have a number of ideas/suggestions/requests as to how I wish
people would express themselves, which at first I was just going to
list, but when I finished, I realized that they are more than just
techniques, they really have something to do with how we view ourselves
and others.  So perhaps I should present them as "goals", to be striven
for.

BTW, remember that this is just my opinion, and Your Milage May Vary
(YMMV).  Take what you can use, and leave the rest. (Any more
Obligitory Disclaimers?)


(1) Use "I" sentences instead of "you" sentences.
    (Allen goes into more detail, and has his own slant on it, which
    may be useful, or more useful -- YMMV.)

    The idea is, instead of saying, e.g., "you're being manipulative",
    you say "when you say that, I feel manipulated."  More generally,
    instead of saying what is wrong in the other person's post, you say
    what about it bothers you.  The "you" sentences encourage people
    to defend themselves, while "I" sentences put the emphasis on
    figuring out a way to make things better in the future.  It sounds
    like a trick, and I used to think it was corny, but I find that it
    really makes people less defensive (well, most of the time....)

    Note that I have tried in this post to use "I" sentences.

    "I" sentences also remind us that if we are upset about something
    that someone else posts, especially if we are upset enough to post
    a response, it probably touches on one of our own issues.  I think
    that people responded to Relkie's situation so much because it
    reminded us so much of our own experiences as children in
    screwed-up families (and our wish to be saved from them.)  Starting
    with "your posting upset me because..." makes it more natural to
    segue into what the posting brought up out of the past.


    One thing occurred to me today that seems especially appropriate
    to this group:

	+ "I" sentences imply that my feelings are important. +

    I think a lot of us have grown up feeling that we don't really
    count, that our pain isn't important, and having learned that
    saying that we don't like something will have no effect (or even be
    punished.)  So the only way to influence people is to tell them
    they're wrong, or to scare them, or manipulate them, or whatever.
    If I say, e.g., "what you posted bothered me, because ...", instead
    of "you're wrong when you say ...," it implies that my being
    bothered is important enough for me to expect you to consider doing
    things differently.


(2) Please [try to] be direct and clear, even if it seems hurtful.
    By this I particularly mean: don't leave us to guess what you are
    talking about.  And be specific.

    (BTW, this is one I have a lot of trouble living up to, myself, or
    even figuring out a lot of the time.  I recently realized that
    I have a hard time figuring out whether I am being clear, since it
    didn't matter how I said things, my parents either didn't
    understand, or got it backwards.)

    That was one of the things that really bothered me about the
    postings I saw when Prisoner went to Canada to "save" Relkie (at
    least, I *think* that's what was happening):  the postings implied
    that very serious things were happening, but so much was left out,
    that I was left guessing and inferring much of the time.  I was
    left feeling more anxious about what was happening to her because I
    had no confirmation that my worst speculations were false.

    Similarly, when Relkie posted her warning recently, what made me
    uncomfortable was that she didn't just out and say "Prisoner took
    advantage of me, and he's the APS administrator, so be a little
    cautious in your dealings with him", but instead left us to figure
    out who she was talking about.  I think it was that that came
    across as "manipulative," at least for me.  (I'm not flaming her
    for it -- see point #3.)  I feel a lot less anxious and more able
    to deal with things when people explain to me what is going on in
    simple terms.

	In addition to maybe cutting down on misunderstandings, I think
	that being "clear and direct" is important for us ourselves.

    For one thing, being unclear and indirect is one way that
    screwed-up families tell each other things without ever having to
    admit to what they are saying: like the "I'm warning you..."
    without ever saying what you're doing or what they will do to you
    (although most of the time it's much more subtle.)  What they don't
    say, you can't refute.  What nobody talks about, "didn't happen."
    (And what you don't say, they can't jump on you for.) It's also
    more threatening when they are vague, because you are left to
    imagine what they will do.  And we learn to communicate that way
    ourselves, for lack of better examples, and end up perpetuating
    things.  Being clear and direct is a way of not living the way our
    families taught us to live.

    Also, being unclear and indirect is a way for us to kind of "tell"
    without breaking (and having to banish) the "don't tell" rule.
    If someone says, "my mother was abusive", he hasn't really said
    what happened, and someone -- even he -- could imagine that he
    meant that she took away his toys sometimes.  If he says, however,
    "my mother would chase me around the house screaming `die, you
    disgusting blind freak!'" we can all get a sense of how horrible
    that was.  It's much more real -- and painful.


(3) Try to give each other a break.  (Several posts have suggested this.)

    By this I mean, when something someone posts upsets you, consider
    the possibility that the other person didn't mean it the way you
    thought (s)he did.  And even if (s)he did, maybe it was because
    (s)he misunderstood.  We're not perfect, and even if we had had
    perfect childhoods, we still wouldn't be perfect.  When you
    respond, assume that the other person has good intentions.

    For example, I assume that Relkie did not mean to manipulate us
    with her "warning" post.  I would assume she is doing the best she
    can and figure, for example, maybe she hasn't had any role models
    for how to communicate in what I might imagine to be a "proper"
    way.  And, if I would make any suggestions (well, to be honest, I
    already did...) try to make them as from one struggler to another.

    Inside of most of us is, I believe, a scared, hurt, confused little
    kid, who really wants positive relationships with other people, and
    can't figure out why nothing (or so little) seems to work.  I think
    we need to remember this, even when (s)he posts something that
    pushes our buttons, even if (s)he seems to make a habit of posting
    things that push our buttons:

	+ If we try to *understand* the person who   +
	+ bothers us, I believe we will understand a +
	+ little more about ourselves.               +


(4) Try to look for the positive things in what the other person posts,
    even when you disagree with a lot of what (s)he says.  And
    consider which negative things can just be ignored.

    (I'm starting to see postings which look a lot like the
    point-by-point refutations and counter-refutations that are so
    popular -- and, IMHO, so pointless -- in other USENET groups.
    Maybe some things don't need to be answered?  Or maybe only in
    E-mail?)


*whew!* It looks like a tall order to me.  If we -- If *I* manage this
stuff even half the time, I'll be halfway to Perfect Enlightenment.

Well, now that I've got *that* off my chest, I'll go back to lurking....



--
Alan McKenney        E-mail:  mckenney@cims.nyu.edu         (INTERNET)
Courant Institute,NYU,USA     ...!cmcl2!cims.nyu.edu!mckenney   (UUCP)
ObDisclaimer: these are MY opinions!  Not NYU's! All MINE! MINE! MINE!
Newsgroups: alt.sexual.abuse.recovery