My meandering thoughts about abuse

[kickassangel]

OK, so after much reading, taking part in threads on here, and just thinking, I'd like to just put down some thoughts. They are really quite random, but I'd love to have some feedback.

Typically, 'abuse' is seen as physical assault or verbal/emotional bullying.

I think (as will many of you) that there are far more subtle forms of abuse.

In fact, we could define abuse as any relationship where one person asserts power over another. This can be done in a myriad of subtle and complex ways, which can be close to impossible to identify, let alone deal with them.

Many relationships fall within that definition - in fact, almost all relationships contain some kind of power balance, where people try to gain the 'upper hand', even when done in a loving way with the best of intentions (e.g. parents trying to influence their grown up offspring)

Because it can be so subtle, anyone who feels overly controlled, dominated etc is probably a victim of abuse. It could just be the worker who doesn't feel appreciated by their boss - they are just being taken for granted.

The problem there is that it's possible to have 2 people who BOTH feel that the other one is trying to control them. If two people want to be the 'alpha' in a relationship, they will both feel that their voice isn't being sufficiently heard as they try to settle who is the more dominant one.

Children are less sophisticated at this process, and often their attempts become more easily defined bullying.

Often people who are upset within a relationship are told that they're 'too sensitive'. I'm not sure that it is ever OK to tell somebody that. How they feel is perfectly legitimate. How they react could well be more extreme than is called for (but who makes that decision?).

Many of the behaviours that we encourage in society actually enable bullying - e.g. don't complain, suck it up, rise above it etc.

Anyway - it's very jumbled, but those are my thoughts. I'd love to know if I'm making any sense at all

You are making sense. I think especially the point that it's never really ok to say someone is 'too sensitive'.

IMO it's good to get perspective, the way you do on an AIBU thread where people will say 'well, no, I wouldn't care about x' or 'no, I wouldn't be upset'. But you are right, saying 'you're too sensitive' is quite unpleasant really, and not helpful.

I think some of the things we say also encourage people (women?!) to make passivity a virtue - eg. 'be the bigger person' (which always means 'suck it up'). We do like making backing down into a female virtue, which is annoying.

An 'asserting power' definition is too vague, imo - most employment and parent-child relationships would then be 'abusive'. There needs to be some other criteria to meet, I think.

"Often people who are upset within a relationship are told that they're 'too sensitive'. I'm not sure that it is ever OK to tell somebody that."

I disagree about that. It sounds nice and supportive, but practically it's useless. Some people are too sensitive; things most people would shrug off, they take to heart, and it's not the end of the world to tell them to have a bit of perspective. Would we take seriously a man (or a woman!) who claimed that being constantly nagged to take the rubbish out was 'emotional abuse', even if they genuinely felt it was?

There's also the problem that when talking about someone's feelings, it's not in a vacuum - saying one feels abused in a relationship, implies that the other person an abuser. So if you don't feel that Y is an abuser, you have to conclude that X is not being abused, and thus should not feel abused.

Not sure any of that is well thought through, just giving you some thoughts/devil's advocate attempts.

No one would take being nagged to do something as being abused, in my opinion being abused is when someone makes your life hell, takes all your confidence away from you, takes your money, hits you and/or makes you feel to blame for everything that goes wrong.

These are the things I'm pondering.

I think that dealing with children is a different situation, although obviously abusing the power of a parent over a child is wrong. I don't think it has to be extreme to be abusive ( I would see it as on the milder end of a sliding scale ). An example I'm thinking of is the day that Dh got his a level results, his parents literally reduced him to tears in an effort to make him got to ThEIR choice of uni. It was fairly normal for them to be so adamant that he should do as he was told that it was abuse IMO.

I think it's the same at work. Of course the boss has power there, but if they need to assert it too strongly, then it starts to be abuse. It can certainly knock someone's confidence if their boss always reminds them of deadlines, checks their work etc

As for nagging - I assume you mean in a m/f relationship. Well, incescent nagging can start to hit that borderline.

ok - i'm thinking about examples such as -
expecting the other person to always put the bins out, but parking your car in the way, then getting really huffy when asked to move it (or find your keys)
telling someone something once - if they mishear/misunderstand/forget, be scathing/sneering so they feel stupid
always making 'jokes' about how bad someone's driving is, but insisting on being the one to have a few drinks so they have to drive.

All those things are so small by themselves, but to live with that attitude day after day becomes abusive. If someone gets upset by it, they are told that they're 'too sensitive' to get upset. Of course, it sounds ridiculous to get upset about a joke over your driving, but if you've lived with it for years, then it is upsetting.

I understand what you mean - having 'abuse' be a whole spectrum based on the assertion of power, kind of like the legal definition of battery ranging from the lightest touch to a savage beating.

But I think that because of the depths of some events in 'real' abusive relationships, it just isn't fair to put the same label on beating your partner as on frequent sneery jokes.

yes - more that it's on a spectrum, but with an underlying attitude that one person thinks their views/wants/needs etc are more important than another's, and that they will use all sorts of techniques to further that goal.

the gentle 'drip drip' approach, whilst not as traumatic, can eventually be pretty effective at undermining someone.

To not acknowledge that, or to blame the victim by saying that they're 'too sensitive' is a harsh judgement. I do know one rl example of a woman who got so nervous driving with her husband in the car that she'd be shaky & make mistakes - just because of how often he'd 'joke' about her driving. If she got grumpy/upset about his comments, he'd say that she was over-reacting.

That's the kind of scenario I mean - and then I wonder: how many relationships are like that?

There are thankfully few of the 'full on' physical/verbal abuse relationships, but I have seen/encountered quite a few where one person just HAS to be the 'top dog' & employs many different approaches to get there.

I just think that all too often our 'don't make a fuss' mentality kicks in when we should be standing against this type of behaviour.

Hmmm I have always defined abuse (in my head) as when someone uses someone else, or aspects of someone else's life, and used to their own advantage with no regard for that person.

So most easy example is sexual abuse: using someone's sexualness to suit yourself, with no regard for them.

But it could be the same with emotions: Please would you do XYZ, it would make me so happy - even if the person hates doing it and feels uncomfortable doing so.

Or uni choices. Or

yes.

you see, I somehow absorbed the idea that it didn't 'count' as abuse unless it was violent or vv verbal/emotional manipulation.

having read some things (posts from people about feminism, Simone de Beauvoir's The Second Sex etc.) there is a broader range of examples.

It just seems so common to tell people to 'get over it' and I wonder if we should so much.

I'm not suggesting that every tiny upset should be labelled as abuse, or that the person feeling upset should then react, other than acknowledging their feelings, but I don't think we should dismiss those feeling either.

I think if a person feels abused, then they are, even if they can't articulate why or how.

At least that's been my experience.

yes, teacup, i think that too. but then I wonder about relationships where both the people feel that way - could they both be right? what about people who are so self-centred that they feel put upon/abused just for every time that they don't get their own way?

I know there will prob never be a cut & dried definition, but I do think we should be more open about how people often try to manipulate others, why that's wrong & how to overcome in. I'm not looking for a revolution, but I think telling people not to be so sensitive is the wrong response.

maybe even the self-absorbed person, if someone listened to them, but then pointed out why they didn't get what they want, could be benefit more.

I'm a teacher, and see how often kids try to work out the pecking order within their groups, and how that can be quite damaging/upsetting etc. even when we try to help the ones who are upset, we often tell them that 'rising above it' or learning not to show their feelings, is the way to deal with that.

I'm not so sure we've got it right

I agree that abuse is a spectrum, though I'm not so sure it should be considered a linear one. It's more dimensional than that. It cannot be said that verbal abuse is less serious than physical. Most victims of physical abuse will tell you that the emotional/verbal/psychological abuse was the hardest to deal with and recover from.

IME really 'good' abusers never lift a finger. These are the people who project an outwardly affable/respectable public persona and are often so reasonable to the point of being impossible to live with (because the person they are living with has to be as 'perfect' as they imagine themselves to be, which is, of course, impossible). THe victims of these abusers are the ones who never go out not because of fear of a beating, but because of more insidious fears - such as extreme 'hurt' from the 'abandoned' partner. These are the women who become distanced from their family not because the abuser has forbidden them to see them or physically prevented it, but because the abuser has very cleverly sown the seeds of discontent. The most dangerous abuser is the one that manages to manipulate the mindset of the victim without the victim ever being aware of it.

Some women recognise physical abuse or full-on name-calling verbal abuse as wrong and they leave. But often they have put up with years of more subtle abuse preparing them for an escalation in abuse. Those who stay are usually so messed up by the time the first punch is thrown that it is easy for the abuser to convince them that it's all their own fault and/or they deserved it.

yes - and that's why I think it's so important to acknowledge how someone feels about a situation, even if it seems petty. If the person who inflicted the hurt gets away with it, they're learning the tricks of the trade.

I think with abuse there is an element of intent. The abuser is deliberately trying to hurt/undermine/control the other person, even if this motivation is hidden from themselves and they're unaware they're doing it. This is different to sarky jokes or nagging, which can be just habit or thoughtlessness (ie it wouldn't hurt them to be slagged about their driving, so doesn't occur to them that it would affect someone else).
So it's possible you have a couple who both receive those behaviours.
What makes it NOT abuse is when you can tell the other person how you feel, you are not to afraid to 'criticize' them, they respect your feelings and thoughts enough to listen, and are horrified for having hurt you and would desist from doing so.

Yes, good point.

An abuser, if tackled, would just switch to another tactic whereas other people would be genuinely sorry and stop.

I think everyone has the capacity to be abusive in isolated incidents within a relationship e.g. say something out of order because you are tired, take their partner for granted for a period of time etc. But being abusive is much more than that. An abusive person does it regularly and systematically, they doesn't recognise distress in the other partner (or don't care) and another thing I think is important to note - they are unlikely to be able to change their behaviour for more than short periods of time. Oh and their behaviour generally escalates.

I disagree with ecclesvet that saying someone is "too sensitive" is productive in any way. It invalidates their feelings and the vast vast majority of people are not over-sensitive especially when what they are upset about is put in context. Yes getting upset about a single comment may seem an over-reaction but as seen on countless threads here on MN, people very rarely get overtly upset about just one comment. There is normally a history of other comments behind it. Telling someone how they should feel about an incident isn't supportive and can be counter-productive. It is also what the abuser would do.

I think your first sentence is what I've been trying to articulate - that it is possible for people to feel abused/show abusive tendencies, without that being what the relationship is really about. So, when I/dh are tired or stressed from work, and snap at the other person, this could go on for weeks. but if challenged, we'd apologise, feel bad that we did that etc & change our behaviour.

That kind of explains, I think, relationships where both people feel upset. It could well be that they are in the wrong relationship & showing their worst personality traits. Change the situations, and they'd both improve.

Whereas a true abuser would keep going, and not care (or even enjoy) the pain they inflicted.

So, do all abusers know that they're doing it, and can they change?

How does someone end up like that?

As a teacher, I see some (very few) students & wonder if they'll develop emotionally & start to show empathy, or whether they'll carry on trying to push their pov onto others. Can I do anything to help/hinder the process?

Young kids have no idea about sympathy for others (it's part of why they can be so hard to deal with). So at what stage is it worrying if a young person doesn't show empathy/sympathy?

Also, many abusers tend to have a particular target, rather than everyone around them. So, is it possible to spot that as someone grows up & tackles it, or not?

I don't think all abusers know consciously what they are doing. I mean everyone knows if they hit someone, it's wrong. But constant undermining, belittling etc could be more a consequence of say - internalised misogyny - on some level they believe their role is to keep a woman in her place. Or maybe some parents believe what they are doing is discipling their child, but the discipline they mete out is actually abusive.

just musing really.

I like to think that I'm getting better at spotting people like this, and just disengaging from them as much as possible, but it can be hard to really know what some people are like until you know them well.

I have definitely had some bosses who I sit with a little 'lalala not listening' sound track in my head as they had a tendancy to go on about things & keep pushing way beyond the bounds of normal discussion.

I had an interesting discussion with a friend who was in an abusive relationship. She was with him for two years and was besotted with him, while he liked her but didn't love her and really didn't want to be with her. She was supportive to him in a very hard time in his life and as a result he felt obliged to stay with her which over time made him massively resentful of her. He began to be quite abusive towards her, belittling her, criticising her, not calling her and just generally treating her like shit. She did try to get him to see what he was doing and he would change for a few weeks then go back to treating her badly. Eventually they broke up and later when they spoke he admitted that he'd been abusive and that he was very ashamed of his behaviour. He said he couldn't pinpoint why he had behaved that way and he gave no excuses for it. He is now in a relationship with another girl and by all accounts is a great partner (though I suppose the potential is there for him to be abusive again).

My friend was quite philosophical about the whole thing, although she admits it was a horrible experience. In her view a unique set of circumstances led to the abuse. Basically they were totally wrong for each other but she didn't read the signals that he didn't want to be with her and he was too cowardly to break up with her so they carried on making each other miserable.

I believe this situation can arise where a person who isn't normally abusive can become so temporarily. I know to my shame that I treated one partner very badly in the past because he was such a nice guy that I held back from breaking up with him but I couldn't hide my lack of attraction for him and I did make him feel like shit more than once. That was a failing on my part and I haven't been abusive since.

yes - I'm pretty sure that being with the 'right' person brings out the best in us, and being with the wrong one brings out the worst.

i also think that most people (maybe all) are able to be abusive in certain circumstances - that the fighting spirit people need to survive comes out in ways that we wouldn't predict, and that often abuse is just layers of civilisation kind of warping that into EA rather than 2 people having a fight then walking off in different directions.