Use of the words abusive and controlling on MN

[SrAssumpta]

Recently there seems to be a surge in the dramatically unnecessary use of words like abusive and controlling on here and I really think I've become desensitized to it so I would imagine that's how real victims of abuse or people with genuinely controlling partners would feel too if they came on talking about their relationship, does that make sense?

A woman got told the other day she sounded controlling for making a meal plan ffs, I mean seriously? These words get thrown around now it's going to either lead to everyone thinking they're in abusive relationships or in fact controlling and the people who genuinely need to understand that their relationship isn't normal won't be able to see it because suddenly everybody is abusive or controlling.

"It's like people don't feel like inequality or being unhappy is enough of a reason to leave. Only abuse is enough"

Actually I totally agree with that, but I think that's more pronounced in real life, than on Mumsnet. On MN people are more likely to argue that "not being abusive" isn't a high enough bar to stay with someone.

Really? I have never come across a post which tells anyone that they or their partners are abusers for such a trivial thing, without any context, in well over a decade of being a member of MN.

This thread gives lots of examples where it happened.

As for the quote you have posted about children and dv, did I post that?

I don't recall doing so.

Simply not wanting to be in the relationship is enough to leave. For whatever reason.

"This thread gives lots of examples where it happened. "

No it doesn't, it gives about 2. The cake guy and another which I can't even remember. Most of the posts are saying they agree, but there aren't actually lots of examples of specific threads where somebody was told their DP was abusive about something v. trivial with no other context.

"As for the quote you have posted about children and dv, did I post that?" No that wasn't you. The reason I posted that was to show that although you are aware that DV by teenagers is a thing, some posters clearly aren't and were outraged by Lweji suggesting such a thing. Which suggests that they're not best placed to comment on DV.

I think it was more the way Lweji said it than what she said. I would be surprised if the majority of posters think children or teens can't perpetrate DV. But by that point in the thread, it was clear that it was a one-off from a stroppy teen, not part of an abusive trend. The mother herself was quite clear she wasn't being abused, though Lweji was at pains to tell her she was. You say there's nothing wrong with posters asking for further info to establish patterns of abuse, but if the further info makes it quite obvious that it's not an abusive relationship, maybe better to leave it there?

The other egregious example given was of a woman being told she was controlling for having a meal plan and asking her husband to cook something from the plan while she worked late. Just FYI. These examples are from the last week or so, and so they are the ones that people are most able to remember in detail, but there have been others.

Oh yes, I agree, if the OP then makes it crystal clear that this is a completely one off and she has no long term or underlying concerns, then obviously you should not keep going on about it, but of course the other problem is that often you have threads where the OP is outraged by the suggestion that her DH is abusive, when everything she's posted shows that he is. What d'you do there? Accept her version of reality, because she's been taught that abusive behaviour is normal, or try and get through to her? I don't know what the answer is and I think there probably isn't a one-size-fits-all solution to that.

I just disagree with the basic premise of the thread really,which is that MN is generally guilty of over-using the terms abuse and controlling etc. As others have said, it's inevitable that the relationship boards are going to disproportionately feature abusive behaviours, because people usually only post when they are in real distress and when people with broadly happy functional relationships want to post to whinge, it's usually fairly clear from quite early on, that there are no underlying issues.

I agree with those who are saying that in the RW, there is such a strong taboo on mentioning anything to do with abuse, that it is really important that this space is one where we can name the problem. I've known women in very obviously abusive relationships, it was clear to everyone in the room and nobody would tell them because it's just not the done thing to comment negatively on someone else's relationship, even when they ask you outright to give your view. It's so valuable to have Mumsnet, where people can actually get the truth. I think the occasional irritation with a poster you think might be pushing it and should shut up, is well worth putting up with because the value of women being able to support each other here is so great.

Amen to all of that, AskBasil.

I am not offended by your posts, Apple.

Just gobsmacked.

No it doesn't, it gives about 2. The cake guy and another which I can't even remember. Most of the posts are saying they agree, but there aren't actually lots of examples of specific threads where somebody was told their DP was abusive about something v. trivial with no other context.

There has been more I have posted 3 or 4 myself. But its too early to go through, maybe, later when I have had a coffee.

I just disagree with the basic premise of the thread really,which is that MN is generally guilty of over-using the terms abuse and controlling etc.

Thats not how I take the OP. Recently there seems to be a surge in the dramatically unnecessary use of words like abusive and controlling on here it doesn't say that MN is generally over using, Its says that its increasing. Which I agree. Had it have said 'most of the time these women are not being abused' i would have disagreed.

The OP has clarified several times. She and others, including me, have also clarified about 6 or 7 times that we are not talking about the relationship board, for the reasons you mention.

I do agree that in RL abuse isn't talked about as much as it should. However I don't think that translates into it being helpful to throw these words about indiscriminately.

As for the stroppy teen I can only agree with Starling when she posted But by that point in the thread, it was clear that it was a one-off from a stroppy teen, not part of an abusive trend.

Everyone single person on mumsnet gives advice and relates their own experiences; I don't think you should be mollycoddled for it.

Where do you think you have seen an expectation of mollycoddling?
One poster here was incensed that I had not expressed sympathy to her for abuse suffered at the hands of her father and suggested she had some better than average insight into 'real abuse' as a result of her experience.
Is this the sort of thing you had in mind?

Hell, posters asking for advice in terrible situations are torn apart half the time if they use the wrong word or happen to read unsympathetically.
Really?
I presume you have examples from the entire history of Mumsnet to prove that 'half the time' posters are torn apart?
A key phrase here is 'half the time', whether we are to take it literally or to read it as an attempt to give a realistic idea of the scale of this 'problem' (that you have invented, for reasons of your own).
Is this what we might charitably call 'impressionistic' on your part? An exaggeration? Or perhaps it is a bad case of seeing only what you have decided must be true, or being completely blinkered.

Even self-identified victims of abuse get serious nastiness if they refuse to take people's prior advice. I think people take themselves way too seriously if they think that they should be lauded and beyond criticism just because they take the time to post on the relationships board. Scary that you think otherwise.

Scary, eh? Bejaypers.
What is perhaps more baffling than scary, to me anyway, and definitely more worrying, is that you make up stuff about what other people think or feel, and proceed to lambast them on that basis.
I doubt anyone has asked to be considered 'beyond criticism'.
What has been asked here is that people like you try to understand that just because you do not agree with advice given, those giving the advice are not necessarily wrong or nasty or any other adjective you care to use.

And lacking any examples so far of what you have claimed about 'serious nastiness' that happens half the time, or whatever, all we have to go on is the continuous harping on about a cake thread and some Teenagers board thing, which have been trotted out as examples of everything that is wrong with relationship advice here. Those who have a problem with the idea that abuse exists and manifests itself in a great variety of ways are really, really reaching, in other words.

Let's be honest, most of the posters there lack humility and any doubt in their diagnoses whatsoever but they don't have the skills or experience to do anything other than diagnose abuse. They don't know how to fix relationships. They don't know how to build self esteem or boundaries. They're not trained therapists. And when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

"Honest"? Judging by your execrable remarks, that seems to mean 'Let's continue to throw shit, without any regard for reality'.
Who are 'most of the posters' who fall so far short of your lofty standards? Someone else here used the phrase 'a small amount of posters'. Stop hiding behind insinuations. Name names.

The Relationships board is a talking space on a public forum. It is not meant to be therapy and MN makes that abundantly clear in the blurb. Trained therapists would not be able to sail under that flag here.

Honestly? What you really seem to want is the end of the Relationships board, presumably because you are in denial about domestic abuse in all its manifestations. While you await that, you are happy to smear people who post there.

Yes but it's boring.

Great, Spartans.

So the entire premise of people posting on Relationships and trying to help others is to be bulldozed based on at most half a dozen examples?

'Had it have said 'most of the time these women are not being abused' i would have disagreed.'
I really think I've become desensitized to it so I would imagine that's how real victims of abuse or people with genuinely controlling partners would feel too if they came on talking about their relationship, does that make sense?
This is in fact what the OP said note liberal use of imagination that is not informed by any knowledge of abuse or its effects, just someone with a bee in her bonnet who is sure most people talking about abuse are crying wolf and this pov that is not related to the reality of abuse has been reinforced by (Freudian?) use of terms like 'real abuse' and 'actual abuse' throughout the thread.

'Examples of what we're actually discussing on the thread which is the over/misuse of the words 'abusive' and 'controlling' rather than actual abuse and control.'
Bumbley is also confused.

Here's the thing, Bumbley:
A thread is posted. Someone describes a problem.
It is clearly a case of abuse or controlling behaviour to some posters, but to others it is clearly not.
And so what we are left with is people disagreeing.
Just because some people think there is no abuse or attempt to control does not mean those words are being used too much. All it means is that people are disagreeing.
(Of course, it could also mean they are not as familiar with mechanisms of abuse or control as others are, but heyho.)

You keep on using the term 'actual abuse' but you have so far refused to produce a definition for that, so that the rest of us may be enlightened and stop stupidly crying abuse and control where they do not exist. Would you care to give it a shot?

Nobody who claims it is so clear that abuse is not happening is willing to hazard a definition of what abuse is, or to share the standard they use when deciding what in their eyes is abuse or control, aside from a very tentative and bet-hedging effort from Spartans, "Fwiw there is no one defininition of abuse. Ranging from actions that take away someone's rights to repeated violence" --

[Spartans]
Is this your understanding of abuse?
What exactly do those items look like?

How do abuse and control start?
Do they tend to escalate?
Are there some things that may seem small and out of the context of the relationship that are actually important indicators that an individual will abuse and seek to control?

Yes this is in fact about the relationship board and people who post there, who are the subject of insinuation and many vicious digs on the part of some posters, and that is very clear and in fact has been explicitly stated by posters here.

I wasn't "incensed", math. Merely mentioned it to point out your hypocrisy and double standards.

I do wish you would stop trying to smear anyone who disagrees with you as 'in denial about domestic abuse'. It makes you appear unable to debate in a reasoned way when you repeatedly assume bad faith in anyone who disagrees with you. If you want to see how to debate, look at AskBasil's posts. I may not agree with everything she posts, but she is rational and measured.

math

Oh no! I said "half the time" - no idioms allowed on mumsnet! It's too serious for that!

math

Please don't stop posting though! It's really fun to watch you contorting to make 1 + 1 = 3.

As for naming names and linking threads in relationships, you are clearly trying to get the thread deleted because you know it's not allowed. It was different with Lweji because she asked for the link, it was her posts and she was linked to from AIBU.

Let's not pretend that you won't be the first to report those posts to MNHQ AND to refer to the thread (I'm sure untruthfully) once it disappears.

Starling:
'I've said above that I was regularly abused by my father. I've also said that I minimised it in my head because I was too regular, or too violent. I don't see any sympathy or support from you about that. convenient just to ignore my experiences, I guess. Or don't you believe me? Perhaps you think I'm exaggerating?'

You were either pretty steamed about something I said or hoping to embarrass me. Which was it?

Here is rational for you:
[SmillasSenseofSnow]
'Are you seriously suggesting it's possible to define what isn't abuse without first defining what is?

I have not done any smearing. I don't need to -- as long as nobody comes up with a proper definition of abuse, the willful ignorance and denial of those in agreement with the OP will continue to shine forth all by itself. Until people here start coming up with definitions of abuse that show they actually understand what it is, I think it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that they do not understand what domestic abuse is.

Apple:
Would you like to clarify for Spartans' benefit whether you have referred to the Relationships board in your posts here?

Very fine treading of lines in your last post there, and full marks for being so measured and reasonable, not to mention rational. I jest.

In light of your realisation that you haven't a leg to stand on wrt frequence of overuse of certain terms, approximately how many times have you seen the phenomenon that has inspired your contribution here?

Starling:
Would you care to comment on the following aspects of Apple's post here --

1. Bad faith. Please refer specifically to the term 'untruthfully' as well as the machiavellian scenario I stand accused of attempting to engineer.

2. The idea that someone can be accused in advance no less of spoiling a hatchet job on some quite identifiable posters who shall apparently remain anonymous here, by reporting posts to MN.
   Is there some noble purpose that is being accomplished by all this insinuation?

3. Liberal use of imagination i.e. 'if I think it, it must be true' see (1) above. (This is a similar leap to the one in the OP's opening paragraph)

4. Maybe look at rationality too while you're at it.

I was hoping to point out your hypocrisy. If you found that embarrassing, that's up to you.

Would you like to come up with a "proper" definition of abuse? You obviously have one that you'd like to share with the group.

And there was me thinking your use of the phrase 'half the time' was somehow related to the OP's 'surge'.

Or perhaps 'surge' was an empty phrase too? Come to think of it, it is certainly very vague and subjective.

This is becoming quite the verbal Twilight Zone.

I'm not talking about Apple's posts... It's not my job to either defend or analyse them. You seem to think you're arguing with a gestalt who are responsible for what each other says, not a collection of posters who all happen to disagree with you.

I'm talking about your smear attempts. Are you prepared to admit that the majority of those you're debating with aren't trying to deny abuse exists, or do you stand by your insulting assertion?

I personally do not have a definition of abuse because it's so amorphous. In many cases (e.g. hateful speech, physical violence) it's really very clear. In other cases, it's cumulative little things, and you really need more context before you can make a judgement about a situation. I can't see an occasion when buying cake at the end of a first date could be abusive, though, can you? Any chance of a straight answer on that, btw, or are you going to continue to dodge?

In the last couple of days, I've seen several posts which have been harsh to a poster in an abusive relationship (on AIBU), when that poster wasn't reacting well to the advice given. The worst one was a poster whose partner repeatedly treated her like a child - after a few pages, another poster said (paraphrasing) "You say he treats you like a child, well I'm not surprised going off your last few posts!" I have other examples.

Good thing your attempt failed or you might have ended up feeling regretful, given the onion-like layers of double think that it involved, Starling.

Wrt definition of abuse, I asked first. I am still waiting, and scratching my head at all the coyness from people who are clearly not shy about forthright and emphatic expression.

Maybe people are not interested enough to do a little research. Or maybe they are satisfied that they know what it isn't and that that personal and possibly completely uninformed (who knows?) perspective is all that matters.

I don't think I failed in pointing out your hypocrisy. You were being hypocritical, I pointed it out. Job done. I never claimed to have another aim in mind.

"I asked first"! Dear God. Are we back in the playground? If you have a definition, do give it. I've already said I don't.

I take great exception to the terms 'real abuse' and 'actual abuse' Starling.

I would like to know what parallel universe people live in if they think these are terms that are reasonable or in any way appropriate to use.

People who use those terms 'smear' themselves. So do people who do not seem to understand the implications of the OP's pov, and apparently there are many. I have smeared nobody and have not attempted to smear anyone. So that conversation you wish to have with me is not going to happen.

I also take exception to those who categorically state that they know what abuse is not, while refusing to be drawn on what exactly it is.

There are sound definitions that are used in law enforcement, by agencies that offer support to abuse victims, and by well respected experts/authors. Very little research will yield a decent working definition.

You are correct to state that it can be a matter of 'cumulative little things'. You are however misrepresenting MN reality by harping on about some rare examples of posters treating others harshly and insisting that 'you really need more context before you can make a judgement about a situation' as if most cases of abuse that are posted about here are nebulous and unknowable quantities and there can never be enough background knowledge to form an accurate judgement of what is happening. That is just hairsplitting.

It absolutely is possible to form an accurate judgement of what is going on. The people who agree with the OP are convinced this is possible (based on what must be a really poor understanding of what abuse is, if they think it is a term being flung about injudiciously of late here on MN). What we are looking at is a posse of posters who cannot fathom the fact that others disagree with them, and splutter on and on and on about real abuse and actual abuse vs minor issues while refusing to provide any hint about the location of the dividing line.

And since Apple and others have made it abundantly clear that this thread is in fact about the Relationships board and certain people who post there I do not understand how you can be so adamant that all we are talking about is the cake thread and the one involving the teenager and three or four others Spartans claims to have unearthed along with the post you quote from some AIBU thread. The examples that have been trotted out are being used to question all relationship advice on MN and especially that on Relationships, as your own post illustrates. (see your remark on context).

Patience, Starling. You are not the only pebble on the beach.

I am waiting to see what all the rest of them come up with.

Perhaps my remark about double think went over your head?

Wow-just came back to this thread and its really taken off. I hope that no-one is goaded into posting anything that gets it deleted because its so important. No-one is saying that abuse doesn't happen just that there are very powerful voices advising similar courses of action in every situation and that challenging them can be difficult and also that there is sometimes projection from people who have been in bad relationships with their partner or family or have experienced infidelity.
Even for professional therapists it is difficult not to project your own experiences-that's why they have a lot of supervision. It's more a caution about being careful.