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.

Starling , it's interesting that you've spotted a problem in the first sentence of your 9.41 post, and then perpetuated it in the rest of your post...

'MN' is not a gestalt entity, it's a board open to everyone. I could go onto a thread right now and post 'No wonder your husband punched you, you're clearly annoying', and it wouldn't mean that MN is encouraging people to stay in violent relationships, it would mean I was being a dick. If someone is being a dick on a thread, you should report.

I can categorically say I have never seen a thread on Relationships where the consensus is abuse, where I have had any doubt in my mind at all that it is. That's really the benchmark we ought to be looking at.

Mumsnet doesn't have to be a gestalt for there to be identifiable trends on the boards.

math, I ignored your comment about double-think because it was nonsense and trying to see past your convoluted straw man arguments is making me tired.

Please stop arguing with assumptions you've made about people's intentions and thoughts. Try just sticking to their words.

And as for your post at 10.23... Oh dear me. Really. If you have a definition, just post it. Here's quite a good one: www.thehotline.org/is-this-abuse/abuse-defined/

Now, will you be drawn on whether you feel buying cake at the end of a first date is abusive?

Math, you say 'all it means is people are disagreeing'. But in my experience there is a crowd of 'it's abuse' posters who are monumentally intolerant of any dissent from their dogma as labelling anything abuse.

And they tend to jump en masse on anybody who disagrees with them.

I wasn't talking about the relationships board, but now you mention it, I make a point of avoiding that board for exactly that reason. The advice on there isn't balanced, because just like on this thread certain people become incredibly aggressive should anybody suggest that the slightest bad mood or minor tiff isn't necessarily the start of a cycle of abuse.

Because of that only people who have signed up to one specific pretty extreme form of interpretation tend to post on there. The lack of balance tends to mean that quite a few people are given very bad advice. I suspect an awful lot of people are also put off posting in there for exactly that reason. The relationship boards might prove more useful for a larger amount of people if there was a bit more balance and posters weren't afraid of the sort of hysterical response we've seen on this thread to any dissent.

YANBU

Excellent post LazyLohan

"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."

Yes I agree with that. "Real abuse" reminds me of "real rape". It's a way of minimising something that is real, by comparing it with something that is a more violent manifestation of that reality. So emotional abuse isn't real, because it doesn't involve being punched and being raped by your husband isn't real, because it doesn't involve a balaclava-clad stranger.

"there are very powerful voices advising similar courses of action in every situation and that challenging them can be difficult"

Again, I very much doubt that there are many posters who advise similar course of action in every situation. As for being difficult to challenge, that's not really a valid criticism. You can either shrug and say "Sod it, no-one's going to listen to me on this thread, I can't be arsed to post on it" or you can go ahead and challenge them if you're feeling obstinate and know you have plenty of time to waste today. You can't really complain if people stick to their arguments and refuse to be swayed by your's, that's just the nature of debate. All you can do is state your case, engage with their arguments (if they're genuine and you can be arsed) and accept that you win some, you lose some.

"the sort of hysterical response we've seen on this thread to any dissent."

Hysterical response to any dissent? I've dissented from the main premise of this thread and I don't think I've been met with an hysterical response. The general opinion of this thread, is that MN'ers are hyperbolic in their use of abusive, toxic etc. and are doing damage by doing so. The people who disagree with that view, are the dissenting voices here.

I am not going to reference any particular thread but an example of similar advice being given in every situation are the ones where the response is "Your MIL/ parent/ sibling is a narcissist. These people are incapable of change. Go NC now-you will never look back. Do not respond to any overtures from them-this is hoovering. Send all communication back unopened".

Now this may be good advice in certain extreme circumstances but sometimes it is said easily and the "adviser" doesn't know whether the other party is willing to change or reflect on their behaviour because they have very little information. There are powerful voices expressing these opinions and sometimes I don't think they are very helpful.
If OP debates this advice the "Why are you still in contact with these people?" question is posed.

I don't think talking about "real abuse" is very helpful-but there is a difference between sustained abuse and control and a horrible row when someone behaves badly.
A few people are nasty bastards but most are complicated characters with strengths and weaknesses.

I do appreciate your concern about "real abuse" being reminiscent of the use of "real rape" to minimise and deny e.g. "date" rape and rape within relationships. I think in this thread it's being used to distinguish between abuse and cases where there is clearly no abuse but some posters are saying there is, such as the cake case. At least, that's how I read it.

Oh, come on, the cake thread was bats. ONE poster said he sounded abusive; everybody else laughed about it. You can't make a solid argument out of an infinitesimal number of examples. Well, you can if you're the Conservative government talking about benefit recipients, but that's another thread.

This thread is among a few that stick in my mind: Roast dinners. The posters who spotted signs of abuse were bang on - it wasn't all about dinner, the guy was an absolute arse. I'm happy to say the OP has kicked him out.

One quote was "I agree with everyone you need the Relationships board, this isn't a light-hearted thread about roasts really." Precisely the sort of reply some PP here prefer to mock.

Yep. Because in every couple which has argued about what to eat for lunch the husband has turned out to be a mad rapey bastard.

That's not what Garlick is saying though, is it. She's saying that sometimes people spot signs of abuse, and that's because there is more to it, and it turns out to be abuse. OBVIOUSLY not every time.

And on the camembert thread - ONE poster suggested that the OP sounded "controlling" and EVERY ONE ELSE jumped on that poster from a great height.

Yeah,Thumb. But because almost everybody who posts on relationships is told they're being abused for the most innocuous stuff eventually that sort of scattergun approach is statistically going to find someone who has a moan about their P leaving their pants on the floor or not washing up is going to turn out to be someone who is genuinely abused.

So sitting back and smugly saying 'Oh we know the signs of abuse' is absolute rubbish. It's just that if you tell everyone they're being abused eventually you will find someone who moans about the bins not being put out who is being abused. That's just maths.

And it's convenient to ignore the fact that 100 other people may have been labeled abused when they haven't been just to get to that point.

Actually, that roast dinners thread contains some perfect examples of the bullying abused posters sometimes get on here, when they don't react as they "should" to the advice given to them: from this page, just in the first few posts, we have such gems as "You are beginning to irritate me too, OP" and "Why are you with him?" www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/2230843-To-hate-Sunday-roast-dinners?pg=3

Just let me check - are you accusing me of smugly saying "we know the signs of abuse" - or is that aimed at people on the Relationships board in general?

Garlick, you said that The posters who spotted signs of abuse were bang on.

I'm saying that isn't necessarily because some posters are so skilled at spotting the signs of abuse that they are always right and their declarations of abuse should always be accepted. It's probably because if you have a blanket policy of telling 95% of posters that they're being abused then inevitably some of those posters are going to turn out to be abused. But it doesn't mean every poster who has a row with their partner about what they eat for Sunday lunch is being abused or that the 'signs' are fail safe and reliable indicators.

I just don't think that it's fair to characterise posters as having a sort of "blanket policy" of telling other posters they're being abused.

I don't think anyone's got blanket policies, I think people you think are giving the same advice, are probably just going on threads where similar dynamics are being described and speaking as they find.

"I do appreciate your concern about "real abuse" being reminiscent of the use of "real rape" to minimise and deny e.g. "date" rape and rape within relationships. I think in this thread it's being used to distinguish between abuse and cases where there is clearly no abuse but some posters are saying there is, such as the cake case. At least, that's how I read it."

^^This. I thought that was fairly obvious.

The problem is as MAtha says though isn't it? It just isn't always obvious.

I don't think anyone has a deliberate blanket policy but I do think the same uncompromising advice can be given to varying severity of difficulty. I think its more to do with projection than anything else.
Sometimes there may be alternative ways forward before considering more extreme solutions.

Also the "My husband is late home and is working on his computer at all hours" Someone will soon say "I'm sorry OP but there's an OW involved. Well, perhaps but perhaps not. It can be projection.
All abuse is real abuse but there are degrees of controlling behaviour. Sometimes LTB or go NC isn't the first line answer. Its a depressing POV that no-one can change.

Remember that there is Mn World with the accepted moral stance and Mn norms and then the world that people actually live in.

Have we had toxic yet?

Askbasil, obvious that the words 'real abuse' were being used on this thread to distinguish between abuse and situations such as the cake buying incident where it clearly wasn't abusive.

But that's the problem isn't it.

It's not obvious.

There are a few times when it's pretty obvious and most people agree, but for every obvious one, there will be at least 20 where some people think it's obviously not abuse, some think it's obviously abuse and some people need more info to decide.

Basically what Mathaanxiety was saying.

Anyway, I suspect that a conclusion will never be reached on this.

Ah yes, someone popped up on a recent thread where the OP's bf was not the best sort of person, suggesting pretty much out of the blue and on next to no evidence, that there was an OW. Again, other people refuted this suggestion - it seemed a bit far-fetched!

I do know what you're saying about it, these words are sometimes used in inappropriate circumstances - but mostly I don't think they are.
I also understand the devaluation aspect of over-using the words - but think that more people are likely to have their eyes opened to what is happening to them, than end up with a false idea of their situation.

As Basil said though - there's not going to be a conclusion or resolution on it - people aren't going to stop posting or using those words.

AskBasil - this thread is about the situations where it is obviously not abuse but a few people try to say it is.

Anyway, this has all been said before in several different ways and some people just want to make it into something it isn't. OP YANBU.