Re: The Denial of History: Clinical Implications of Denying Child Abuse

[Guest guest]

Annie,

Thanks for sharing! This is really interesting--I'm going to read more of it

later, but I think it's great that people do recognize that not all abuse is

so obvious, and that parents can and do deny it (ahem, fada....)

Holly

On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 9:30 PM, anuria67854 wrote:

>

>

> I think this is a good read:

>

> " Dr. Sorotzkin, a clinical psychologist, makes a powerful case study for

> both the prevalence of and the denial of child abuse by parents. While overt

> abuse is almost always universally condemned, the author believes that more

> subtle forms of child abuse are very common and may have the same

> unfortunate effects as grosser forms of mistreatment. "

>

> Here's an excerpt:

>

> " RANGE OF PARENTING DEFICIENCIES

>

> It needs to be emphasized that when we speak of deficiencies in parenting

> practices, we are referring to a wide range of phenomena. At one end of the

> spectrum, are the overtly abusive parents, either physically or emotionally.

> This includes parents who believe that their children's purpose in life is

> to fulfill their own, often immature, emotional needs. They do not hesitate

> to manipulate their children's emotions to this end. Even this type of overt

> abuse is not always obvious to others, since these same parents are often

> very pleasant to other people as they have a strong need to gain the

> approval of others.

>

> In the mid-range of the spectrum are parents who are not initially abusive.

> However, they are rigid and inflexible, and so tend to over-react to their

> children's difficulties resulting from learning problems, lack of

> motivation, or even normal childhood misbehavior. They tend to see these

> problem behaviors in a very negative light, and even more significantly,

> they often attribute malicious intent to the child (Dopke & Milner, 2000;

> Strassberg, 1997). These parents can often be identified by the negative and

> disparaging manner in which they refer to their children: " He's a

> self-indulgent truant " ; " She's a free loader " ; " He's using his learning

> disability as a convenient excuse for his laziness " , etc. (This issue is

> discussed in more detail in the " Parental Attitudes " section.)

>

> At the other, more positive end of the spectrum are parents who are very

> caring and giving to their children and rarely have negative interactions

> with them. However, they are mostly focused on their children's behavior and

> cognitive development, with little attention paid to their emotional life.

> Research has shown that a dismissive attitude on the part of parents to

> their children's emotional life has far-reaching negative implications for

> their later adjustment (Gottman, Katz, & Hooven, 1996).

>

> Children whose feelings are neglected or negated respond by neglecting

> their own emotional needs, and focus instead on being well-behaved (,

> 1996). Many become perfectionistic, striving to please their parents at all

> costs (Sorotzkin, 1985, 1998). Eventually, and inevitably, it becomes clear

> to them that they cannot be perfect, and so they give up their quest and

> become depressed and/or act out their resentment and frustration. It is easy

> to see that when a rebellious child comes from such a family, it would be

> difficult to perceive the connection to his or her family life, since these

> families are indeed high-functioning " good families. "

>

> Here's the link to the entire article for those interested in reading more:

> http://primal-page.com/sorotzki.htm

>

> -Annie

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Wow,Annie,what a tremendously thought provoking article! Thank you so much for

sharing this!

I totally agree with the article's premise that more subtle forms of child

abuse are very common--I think it's very widespread and has a deleterious domino

effect on the whole of society.I think that millions and millions of people live

in denial of their childhood pain and under the cloud of a toxic self blame that

is promulgated by a society that spares/absolves the parent except in the most

egregious cases of " overt abuse " that come to the attention of the

authorities.But only when abuse is acknowledged (and punished) as such by an

authority is it considered bona fide abuse--I appreciate that this author has

focused more in this article on the more common patterns of parental

deficiencies/dysfunctions that don't appear to be as immediately dramatic as

beating a two year old into a coma but have a terribly corrosive effect over

time on a child's healthy development--and that eventually amount to a slowly

induced psychic coma.

He points out that exaggerations of abuse on the part of the child are

unlikely and that what actually happens is that children tend to repress and

deny the full extent of their parents' abusive behavior.That makes much more

psychological sense than the popular mythology of children as malingering

fantasists because that very repression and denial serves a survival

function--as we have said many times on this board,it is a biological imperative

for children to bond with their caretakers even when they are nothing of the

sort.This article brought home to me the fact that when these repressing/denying

children grow up to be adults who are still repressing/denying their own

awareness of mistreatment by their parents,they will continue in myriad ways to

perpetuate the cycle.Because in order to break the cycle they would need to

confront their own woundedness,to understand it so that it is not inflicted onto

others.

So when people who are doing healing work or are in therapy are

accused by the repressers/deniers of being self absorbed or self indulgent etc.

etc...or of holding a grudge against their parents or *choosing* to be miserable

or being pathetic whiners or whatever,the opposite is actually the case: people

who have the courage to face their own woundedness and to unrepress it and stop

denying it are in fact doing their own part for the betterment of society.They

are unblocking their awareness and freeing it up to let empathy in,an empathy

which they can then share with others including their own children.They are in

fact *expanding* their cognitive faculties.

" Getting over it " and " keeping a stiff upper lip " is the opposite of

promoting an empathy that comprehends not just one's own suffering but the

suffering of others.

That isn't actually being realistic or facing reality at all--what

that is,is only hiding from your own pain in the guise of sparing your parent

and in fact *choosing* to dwell in unreality.An unreality that many people

abusively pass on to their children.I liked the author's suggestion that it is

more productive to enlighten such parents with an attitude of respect and

compassion in order to empower them to make clearer decisions rather than

criticize and shame them for their " mistakes " and thus reinforce the vicious

cycle of blame.

Alice has written at length on many of the themes touched on in

this article,including how society itself spares the parent at the expense of

the child.As has Lloyd deMause whose psychohistorical work on childhood through

the centuries is both fascinating and quite disturbing,as are the conclusions he

draws as to why people wage war.But neither of them has specifically addressed

the subject of personality disorder in their work--and neither has this author

in this article.He's writing about parents who could be counseled away from

their dysfunction because their main problem is ignorance--they are not without

a basic underlying good will for their children and simply require instruction

on how to focus more on their childrens' feelings than on their behavior.I'm not

dissing him or his article: he is clearly a thoughtful,intelligent and

compassionate clinician.I wish there were more like him! I also think that his

suggestions are cause for optimism;I think they would work for the kinds of

parents who could benefit from them.If the parents who really could be helped

were actually helped,what a huge society wide difference that would make.

Personality disordered parents,however...either lack that basic good

will for their children or are so pathologically self absorbed that any good

will becomes a moot point.I've mentioned before a termination of parental rights

case I read from Oregon--the BPD mother in that case initially had her daughter

removed from her " care " because she was abusing Oxycontin and subjecting her

daughter to domestic violence in the home of the BPD mother's sister.This case

was interesting because the BPD mother did attend rehab in order to regain

custody of her daughter as well as attend court mandated counselling.She had to

have it carefully explained to her that she had parentified her six year old

daughter until she understood--or said she did--why this was wrong.In the

meantime her daughter was thriving in foster care and had caught up on the

developmental delays she had had when first placed into care.It was clear that

the environment was what had caused this child's problems since once she was in

a supportive,healthy environment she no longer had them.

The BPD mother,under the aegis of the social workers and psychologist

assigned to the case,did apologize to her daughter for the stress she had put

her through and told her that none of it was her fault and that she loved her

and didn't blame her or hold her responsible for what were,in fact,the mother's

issues.The people who were evaluating the mother took note of this but also took

note of the ways that the mother continued to disregard her daughter's wishes

and feelings in other small but significant ways.Their reasoning was that

educating the BPD mother in proper parenting would have to be an ongoing,never

ending process because the mother was profoundly pathologically self absorbed

and since the daughter was thriving and flourishing in the home of the foster

parents who wanted to adopt her that it was in the child's best interests to

terminate the BPD's parental rights to her even though she had kicked her

Oxycontin habit and allow her to be adopted by the foster parents who were

immediately able to provide her with a healthy home and a bright future.

The judge who over ruled the termination order on appeal cited the

fact that the BPD mother had apologized and reassured the daughter that none of

the abuse and neglect had been her fault,as if that alone would rectify any

other ongoing deficits in her parenting.In my opinion,he made a subjectively

based ruling whereas the judge who had agreed to the termination had taken all

the facts on board including the mother's BPD.

I mean,people like the appeals judge can't be forcibly unbrainwashed

or forcibly disabused of their subjective notions of " mother love " overcoming

all dysfunction but Dr. Sorotzkin put forth a very useful standard for the

evaluation of parental functioning in this article,I think,that could also apply

to PD parents in court cases: Is there a meaningful apprehension of the need for

respect and acceptance of one's child's needs and preferances beyond blanket

declarations of " love " ? Because if the appeals judge had been mandated to base

his ruling according to that standard,the BPD mother in that case wouldn't have

passed muster and rightfully so and his own subjective views of a mother's

" love " wouldn't have clouded his judgment because there was documentation on the

record of the BPD mother's habitual disrespect of her daughter's wishes beyond

that one grand moment when she declared her " love " .

I like the radical potentionally paradigm shifting question inherent in

this article,regardless of whether or not it specifically adresses PDs because I

think it's a question that can be applied universally: How much does the parent

understand?

How much does the person in a position of authority who could help

(educator,clergy,counselor et.al.) understand?

How can any gap in their understanding be bridged in order to truly

heal the dysfunctions and/or protect a child from them?

Because it's depressing and defeating to think that so many of these

erstwhile " adults " are actually frightened children inside who would seek to

spare their parents/deny their awareness at any cost.It's depressing and

defeating to think that for any of these " adults " any parent can take the place

of the primal parent who must be spared--or indeed any authority figure who must

be right because if they are wrong that brings up too many unbearable and

unexamined issues.It's depressing and defeating to think that children would be

sacrificed to these unconscious dynamics.

For better or for worse,human beings need to have some standard to

adhere to.We are still fixated on behavior long past the point in economically

developed societies where this is necessary--back when daily survival was an

issue it made sense to focus on how each community member behaved in their

contributions to the survival of the clan but basic behavior is no longer

absolutely vital to sheer survival on a daily basis.In fact,our *comprehension*

of one another,in developed societies,is more necessary to our continuing

survival and prosperity at this point.

I think that this article proposes a new (and necessary) standard of

comprehension as a replacement for primitive primacy: Declarations of " love " are

very fraught with one's own needs and subjectivity--but how well can you

comprehend your " loved " one's need for respect in itself and acceptance in

itself? I don't mean BPDs though; this standard wouldn't really work for

them--they need " Radical Acceptance " which is something else entirely...

And if you can't comprehend basic respect,why? We tend too much to

fixate on " what " and not to ask " why " .If your child's behavior is a problem to

you,why is that? What is it that you are not able to accept here? Is it actually

your child or is it you? Reactive behavior doesn't occur in a vaccuum and I also

appreciated the author's exploration of how a denial of cumulative psychological

trauma is inimical to healing in the here and now.I got that alot in high

school: isn't living up to her potential; if you would only apply

yourself more,the world would be your oyster,you have so much potential,as if

nothing had gone before that; as if I had no past that would explain the

present...while I was dissociating and depressed,having given up on trying to be

perfect because I was hopeless...nobody ever asked me why...my headmaster in

eleventh grade decided that my spaciness was due to taking drugs and called me

in to his office to threaten me with expulsion if I was caught taking drugs...he

noticed the dissociation but didn't know what it was and assumed it was from a

drug habit.When I angrily defended myself and insisted that I wasn't taking

drugs (because I was not),he assumed my insulted anger was defensiveness and

repeated his threat to expell me.All that did was hurt and deflate me more.It

didn't help at all.Asking me what was going on with me instead of hammering me

with a false assumption would have been according me respect.He couldn't have

cared less about wondering what might have gone on in my life before that moment

in his office.Forget about acceptance.The standard he was operating from was:

teenagers take drugs/teenagers are a problem and they are liars/teenagers need

to be threatened and controlled.Of course my middle class parents couldn't be

the cause of my spaciness--the author of this article is so right when he says

that " good families " should be defined by their functional mental health not by

their public appearances.This is the same a-hole head master who left me to sit

in the outer office all day long when I had meningitis and my nada never came to

get me until well after the school had closed for the day.He just walked right

on by and went into his office after the secretary had told him I had a 108

degree fever and never even came out to check on me as the hours ticked by and

my " mother " never showed up to get me.He *left* for the day,too,and left me

there with the secretary to wait for my " mother " ,the respectable middle class

lady who surely must have had a good reason to leave her daughter languishing

with such a high fever for almost six hours.

His standard was " what " ,not " why " .If it had been " why " ,I might have

gotten some help for my actual problems.But asking " why " requires respecting the

validity of the other person's experience as well as wanting to hear the answer

and having the agency and the maturity to respond.I know in my bones that he

simply did not want to know.He did not want to know.

*All* of the educators in my own experience never wanted to ask why

and certainly never wanted to know,let alone hear,my answer.Not even to

" what " .That is why I said they need to be trained in recognizing the signs of

child abuse as a requirement for getting their degree or keeping their

jobs--they also need to be trained to adhere to this standard of respect and

acceptance instead of shaming and blaming right along with learning how to

cobble together a lesson plan--and administators like principals and head

masters should be required to take even more intensive courses.Because even if I

really had been taking drugs,that would have been a distress signal that in this

case would have been met with abandonment--being expelled from school.

For most of us,our interactions with school staff are the only

opportunity we have for a responsible adult to notice our abuse and to assist

us.That's why I harp on the importance of better training (and serious

punishment for non compliance) for school staff.I was let down and dismissed

again and again and again by these clowns.And additionally traumatized.

To me,this is the crux of the issue of never being heard by the

" world " as I knew it,cited in the article:

The establishment of the actual historicity of trauma is particularly necessary

with child abuse. Child abuse is a trauma uniquely characterized by the

falsification of reality; it has invariably occurred secretly, in family systems

that deny its very existence. Survivors of other forms of malignant trauma, such

as war or violent crime, all received the profound support of consensual

validation from survivor cohorts and the larger culture. The child abuse

survivor. . . has been robbed of reality and of history; cure requires its

restoration

The crucial difference in the outcome of severe child abuse depends on the

presence of someone in the child's life who witnesses, and thus gives the child

the opportunity and ability to experience, the child's pain. Without such a

witness. . . the child cannot experience the abuse as abuse. Instead it is

torture that must be endured. The child often feels she or he deserves treatment

that an observer would see as cruel and outrageous. In the presence of some,

even minimally, validating witness, the child can experience the abuse as

mistreatment and, thereby, find ways to express it. . .

Thanks again for sharing this,Annie

--

>

> I think this is a good read:

>

> " Dr. Sorotzkin, a clinical psychologist, makes a powerful case study for both

the prevalence of and the denial of child abuse by parents. While overt abuse is

almost always universally condemned, the author believes that more subtle forms

of child abuse are very common and may have the same unfortunate effects as

grosser forms of mistreatment. "

>

> Here's an excerpt:

>

> " RANGE OF PARENTING DEFICIENCIES

>

> It needs to be emphasized that when we speak of deficiencies in parenting

practices, we are referring to a wide range of phenomena. At one end of the

spectrum, are the overtly abusive parents, either physically or emotionally.

This includes parents who believe that their children's purpose in life is to

fulfill their own, often immature, emotional needs. They do not hesitate to

manipulate their children's emotions to this end. Even this type of overt abuse

is not always obvious to others, since these same parents are often very

pleasant to other people as they have a strong need to gain the approval of

others.

>

> In the mid-range of the spectrum are parents who are not initially

abusive. However, they are rigid and inflexible, and so tend to over-react to

their children's difficulties resulting from learning problems, lack of

motivation, or even normal childhood misbehavior. They tend to see these problem

behaviors in a very negative light, and even more significantly, they often

attribute malicious intent to the child (Dopke & Milner, 2000; Strassberg,

1997). These parents can often be identified by the negative and disparaging

manner in which they refer to their children: " He's a self-indulgent truant " ;

" She's a free loader " ; " He's using his learning disability as a convenient

excuse for his laziness " , etc. (This issue is discussed in more detail in the

" Parental Attitudes " section.)

>

> At the other, more positive end of the spectrum are parents who are very

caring and giving to their children and rarely have negative interactions with

them. However, they are mostly focused on their children's behavior and

cognitive development, with little attention paid to their emotional life.

Research has shown that a dismissive attitude on the part of parents to their

children's emotional life has far-reaching negative implications for their later

adjustment (Gottman, Katz, & Hooven, 1996).

>

> Children whose feelings are neglected or negated respond by neglecting

their own emotional needs, and focus instead on being well-behaved (,

1996). Many become perfectionistic, striving to please their parents at all

costs (Sorotzkin, 1985, 1998). Eventually, and inevitably, it becomes clear to

them that they cannot be perfect, and so they give up their quest and become

depressed and/or act out their resentment and frustration. It is easy to see

that when a rebellious child comes from such a family, it would be difficult to

perceive the connection to his or her family life, since these families are

indeed high-functioning " good families. "

>

> Here's the link to the entire article for those interested in reading more:

> http://primal-page.com/sorotzki.htm

>

> -Annie

>

[Guest guest]

Great Article Annie. This paragraph in particular hit home with me.

" At one point, the patient's mother came for a consultation (with the patient's

consent) regarding another sibling. In our conversation, she related that my

patient wasn't as bright as his brilliant father or his other siblings and, as a

result, he didn't perform in school as well as his father expected him to. His

father would become so angry that he would get into physical confrontations with

his son. As the mother described these fights I became overwhelmed with a

discomforting feeling. The image of a man revered by the community (including

myself) for his piousness and gentleness being involved in an altercation with

his son just because he wasn't making his father proud was almost too painful to

tolerate. "

patinage

[Guest guest]

, awesome post - I haven't read the article yet but feel like I did.

Thank in advance Annie for posting it. Your story about the case with the girl

in Oregon was heartbreaking. She almost had freedom and then a judge who buys

into the mommy myth accepted her superficial apologies. Anyone who really

knows a personality disordered person knows that they can under pressure say the

right words that they've come to understand they must say for their own benefit.

But do they understand the meaning and the reasons, do they take real

responsibility, hell no.

One of my posts that disappeared fits a bit on this thread. It was about how do

we screen parents before they have kids. I think how people treat their pets

is incredibly telling as to how they would treat their children. I notice

incredible parallels with those in my FOO - they personalize the actions of the

animal, they attribute human thoughts and motivations, and even get into ego

battles with it! I hate to think of companion animals used this way as

screeners, but if potential parents had to have a cat or a dog for a year, and

be carefully evaluated for how they cared for the animal, how it reacted to

them, and how they *thought* about it a number of people would be ruled unfit to

raise children.

> >

> > I think this is a good read:

> >

> > " Dr. Sorotzkin, a clinical psychologist, makes a powerful case study for

both the prevalence of and the denial of child abuse by parents. While overt

abuse is almost always universally condemned, the author believes that more

subtle forms of child abuse are very common and may have the same unfortunate

effects as grosser forms of mistreatment. "

> >

> > Here's an excerpt:

> >

> > " RANGE OF PARENTING DEFICIENCIES

> >

> > It needs to be emphasized that when we speak of deficiencies in

parenting practices, we are referring to a wide range of phenomena. At one end

of the spectrum, are the overtly abusive parents, either physically or

emotionally. This includes parents who believe that their children's purpose in

life is to fulfill their own, often immature, emotional needs. They do not

hesitate to manipulate their children's emotions to this end. Even this type of

overt abuse is not always obvious to others, since these same parents are often

very pleasant to other people as they have a strong need to gain the approval of

others.

> >

> > In the mid-range of the spectrum are parents who are not initially

abusive. However, they are rigid and inflexible, and so tend to over-react to

their children's difficulties resulting from learning problems, lack of

motivation, or even normal childhood misbehavior. They tend to see these problem

behaviors in a very negative light, and even more significantly, they often

attribute malicious intent to the child (Dopke & Milner, 2000; Strassberg,

1997). These parents can often be identified by the negative and disparaging

manner in which they refer to their children: " He's a self-indulgent truant " ;

" She's a free loader " ; " He's using his learning disability as a convenient

excuse for his laziness " , etc. (This issue is discussed in more detail in the

" Parental Attitudes " section.)

> >

> > At the other, more positive end of the spectrum are parents who are very

caring and giving to their children and rarely have negative interactions with

them. However, they are mostly focused on their children's behavior and

cognitive development, with little attention paid to their emotional life.

Research has shown that a dismissive attitude on the part of parents to their

children's emotional life has far-reaching negative implications for their later

adjustment (Gottman, Katz, & Hooven, 1996).

> >

> > Children whose feelings are neglected or negated respond by neglecting

their own emotional needs, and focus instead on being well-behaved (,

1996). Many become perfectionistic, striving to please their parents at all

costs (Sorotzkin, 1985, 1998). Eventually, and inevitably, it becomes clear to

them that they cannot be perfect, and so they give up their quest and become

depressed and/or act out their resentment and frustration. It is easy to see

that when a rebellious child comes from such a family, it would be difficult to

perceive the connection to his or her family life, since these families are

indeed high-functioning " good families. "

> >

> > Here's the link to the entire article for those interested in reading more:

> > http://primal-page.com/sorotzki.htm

> >

> > -Annie

> >

>

[Guest guest]

*rubs eyes*

*blinks*

*stands up and applauds *

, that post is almost an article in itself. It just makes the issue so

clear.

You should think about working on this a bit and submitting it to a magazine,

like the Sun, for example, or putting it up online.

So very, very many people need to know this.

--.

[Guest guest]

(big virtual high five) )))))(((((

Your analysis of the article was so enlightening, like a laser-pointer

highlighting the most salient ideas! Plus you added to the points with

additional references and articles. That is awesome, I'm going to save your

response for future reference and study. Thank you for sharing it with us!

What caught my eye in the article was the author's reference to parents who

frequently or constantly " see malicious intent in their child's behaviors. "

Me personally, I would have put that in the " extreme abuse " category because

that seems like paranoia, or possibly projection on the part of the parent,

particularly when the child is an infant or toddler. It could also be " black

and white " thinking: the child is all good or all bad.

Statements like " my baby hates me " or " my toddler is trying to push my buttons "

ought to *alarm* the spouse, neighbor, etc. of a mother making such a statement.

Time and effort need to be spend finding out if the mother actually believes

that her infant or toddler is capable of adult-level malicious thinking, and if

the mother feels justified in punishing the infant or toddler because of it.

(The mother could just be saying that to be flippant and get a laugh.)

I also agreed with the author that loving *behaviors* on the part of the parent

are more meaningful than *statements* of love, because some of the most horrific

abuse of children is done in the name of " love. " My nada thought it was OK to

scream at me, terrify me, hit me, call me horrible names, and strip away my

feelings of self-worth.. because it was done out of " love " .

On another note: to the member who posted about the idea of pets as an indicator

of how a person will treat their child, I think that is a great idea! A good

pet-mom or pet-dad would be much more likely to be a good parent, I would think.

That would be an even better indicator and learning experience than the classes

I've heard of where the young person is given a sack of flour or something

fragile to care for as though its a living infant, to see how they do with

parenting tasks. I saw a science fiction show once, where a prospective couple

is given a baby-sized robot to care for, programmed to display infant behaviors,

in order to assess their parenting qualifications. They failed miserably (the

wife got angry at the " baby " when it wouldn't stop crying, the husband forgot

the " baby " and left it somewhere) and they tried to have the robot " fixed " to

erase what they'd done to it. How creepy is that? I'm guessing the author of

that script had personality-disordered parents.

-Annie

> >

> > I think this is a good read:

> >

> > " Dr. Sorotzkin, a clinical psychologist, makes a powerful case study for

both the prevalence of and the denial of child abuse by parents. While overt

abuse is almost always universally condemned, the author believes that more

subtle forms of child abuse are very common and may have the same unfortunate

effects as grosser forms of mistreatment. "

> >

> > Here's an excerpt:

> >

> > " RANGE OF PARENTING DEFICIENCIES

> >

> > It needs to be emphasized that when we speak of deficiencies in

parenting practices, we are referring to a wide range of phenomena. At one end

of the spectrum, are the overtly abusive parents, either physically or

emotionally. This includes parents who believe that their children's purpose in

life is to fulfill their own, often immature, emotional needs. They do not

hesitate to manipulate their children's emotions to this end. Even this type of

overt abuse is not always obvious to others, since these same parents are often

very pleasant to other people as they have a strong need to gain the approval of

others.

> >

> > In the mid-range of the spectrum are parents who are not initially

abusive. However, they are rigid and inflexible, and so tend to over-react to

their children's difficulties resulting from learning problems, lack of

motivation, or even normal childhood misbehavior. They tend to see these problem

behaviors in a very negative light, and even more significantly, they often

attribute malicious intent to the child (Dopke & Milner, 2000; Strassberg,

1997). These parents can often be identified by the negative and disparaging

manner in which they refer to their children: " He's a self-indulgent truant " ;

" She's a free loader " ; " He's using his learning disability as a convenient

excuse for his laziness " , etc. (This issue is discussed in more detail in the

" Parental Attitudes " section.)

> >

> > At the other, more positive end of the spectrum are parents who are very

caring and giving to their children and rarely have negative interactions with

them. However, they are mostly focused on their children's behavior and

cognitive development, with little attention paid to their emotional life.

Research has shown that a dismissive attitude on the part of parents to their

children's emotional life has far-reaching negative implications for their later

adjustment (Gottman, Katz, & Hooven, 1996).

> >

> > Children whose feelings are neglected or negated respond by neglecting

their own emotional needs, and focus instead on being well-behaved (,

1996). Many become perfectionistic, striving to please their parents at all

costs (Sorotzkin, 1985, 1998). Eventually, and inevitably, it becomes clear to

them that they cannot be perfect, and so they give up their quest and become

depressed and/or act out their resentment and frustration. It is easy to see

that when a rebellious child comes from such a family, it would be difficult to

perceive the connection to his or her family life, since these families are

indeed high-functioning " good families. "

> >

> > Here's the link to the entire article for those interested in reading more:

> > http://primal-page.com/sorotzki.htm

> >

> > -Annie

> >

>

[Guest guest]

That paragraph highlights that its possible (if not common) for parents to

relate to their own child or children very, very differently from the way they

relate to other adults, or those outside the family. With

personality-disordered parents, that can reach extreme levels. My nada has

always been very normal-seeming and charming and appealing in public, and she'd

only unleash her rage and frustration and venom where it was safe for her to do

so: against her own children and her own husband in the privacy of our home.

Against those who were too little and helpless or too codependent to stand up to

her.

-Annie

>

> Great Article Annie. This paragraph in particular hit home with me.

>

> " At one point, the patient's mother came for a consultation (with the

patient's consent) regarding another sibling. In our conversation, she related

that my patient wasn't as bright as his brilliant father or his other siblings

and, as a result, he didn't perform in school as well as his father expected him

to. His father would become so angry that he would get into physical

confrontations with his son. As the mother described these fights I became

overwhelmed with a discomforting feeling. The image of a man revered by the

community (including myself) for his piousness and gentleness being involved in

an altercation with his son just because he wasn't making his father proud was

almost too painful to tolerate. "

>

> patinage

>

[Guest guest]

Yahoo ate my reply to you, ! I am so frustrated! It was long!

Basically I was saying I love your analysis of the article and the additional

material you found was very enlightening. I am always very impressed by your

insights on these issues; you could be a very effective lecturer on the study

and prevention of child abuse, and your audience should be the American

Psychiatric Association, in my opinion. You're that good!

I think I'm going to start writing my replies in " textedit " on my computer from

now on so I'll have a copy of them in case Yahoo Groups keeps flushing random

posts into the ether.

This may be happening because Yahoo is preparing to switch us to the new

" improved " format they're trying out. They tried it at another Group I belong

to and it was awful. We complained about the missing posts and the lack of

numbering on the posts and all the other things they left out, and the

redundantly redundant formatting, which was very redundant. (Home page AND

Information page AND Message page AND announcements page: all displayed the

messages) So they switched that Group back to the original format, which is this

one we're using now.

Argh. Oh, the kicker was when I changed my preferences to receive posts by

e-mail instead of reading them at the new " improved " Group site, none of my

posts appeared at all!

So, maybe they've fixed all the bugs and this Group will be the next guinea pig.

Who can tell?

-Annie

>

> Wow,Annie,what a tremendously thought provoking article! Thank you so much for

sharing this!

[Guest guest]

Oh no,Annie,how frustrating to write a long post only to have it disappear

completely! That's happened to me before on here but not recently.I know the

last thing you feel like doing when that happens is start all over again when

you have no way of predicting if the second post will even appear...I'm sorry

your reply got sucked into the ether,though--I always enjoy reading your

thoughts and am myself always very impressed by *your* insight

I hope Yahoo isn't going to come on here fixing something that ain't

broke...Why,why,why do they do that???!!!!

You know,I was struck by the confident way Dr Soroztkin responded to nay

sayers who hit him with stuff like: " If that parent was so cold and uncaring,how

come the other siblings are fine? " I would need to hone my debating skills

before I tried to take a child abuse message before the public--and get my

triggering under better control or learn to manage it better since I assume any

consciousness raising campaign would attract a fair share of hecklers and

detractors and I *still* tend to go blank at times in the face of nada like

behavior from others.It's better than it was but if ever I did put myself out

there with a message I'd need to be able to *stay* there,you know what I mean? I

hope that someday in the not too too distant future I will be ready to embark on

some form of awareness activism or writing when I am more prepared to engage in

it/with it and to fully stand behind it or in front of it as the case may be.I

still have much to learn.

Thank you so much for your vote of confidence at any rate--I truly

appreciate it!

> >

> > Wow,Annie,what a tremendously thought provoking article! Thank you so much

for sharing this!

>

[Guest guest]

,that's so very very kind of you And humbling too,coming from a serious

writer--thank you!

What is the Sun? The only Sun I know of is the British rag...I will

think about working on it--it certainly would need work.I'm not sure how I'd put

any " finished product " up online since I don't have the time or the mental

energy right now to maintain a blog.Sometimes I fantasize about sounding off

article wise on someplace like Counter Punch but I don't think I'm able yet to

write to that standard,just an " is what it is " while I continue to sort of

gather my (at the moment) depleted mental forces with a view towards getting

them into better shape eventually.

But thanks heaps for the applause

>

> *rubs eyes*

>

> *blinks*

>

> *stands up and applauds *

>

> , that post is almost an article in itself. It just makes the issue

so clear.

>

> You should think about working on this a bit and submitting it to a magazine,

like the Sun, for example, or putting it up online.

>

> So very, very many people need to know this.

>

> --.

>

[Guest guest]

,I'd also hate to think of companion animals used in that way but I agree

that observing how people treat and interact with their pets would yield

definite indicators of how they would treat and interact with their children.It

seems to me that the main indicator would be: How do they deal with problems

that arise?

Do they: Seek treatment for their pet until that option is exhausted or

at least try to remedy the problem or do they simply toss the pet aside or

abandon it at the *very first* sign of a problem?

Of course some of that could be learned behavior since a great many

otherwise not abusive to anyone else people are raised to consider pets to be

expendable,but I couldn't help but recall when you mentioned this that about a

year before I was born my parents had a pet rabbit they allowed to roam loose in

their apartment.The rabbit pooped wherever he wanted to,his favorite place being

in fada's shoes for some reason.So what did they do? They got rid of the

rabbit.They regretted having to do that,they said,because the rabbit also

cuddled in their laps and was affectionate and cute,but his pooping habits were

out of control.

That used to leave me scratching my head.If you have a rabbit,it's

going to have to poop *somewhere*.If you allow that rabbit to roam freely in

your apartment,it's going to do its business as it goes along.They couldn't

understand why the rabbit wouldn't " go " on the newspapers they put down next to

fada's shoes.Maybe because it was a *rabbit* not a dog? Why didn't they buy or

build a hutch to keep the rabbit in and only let it out to roam when they were

home to keep tabs on him? Wouldn't that have been preferable to having to give

the rabbit away? But they seemed much more focused on the poor rabbit's

affectionate cuddliness to *them* than on needing to accomodate him as a

*rabbit*--they thought,they said,that having a rabbit would be much easier than

having a dog which is what they really wanted but couldn't handle caring for in

an apartment.Yet they expected the rabbit to behave like a dog because he was a

sort of " replacement dog " .I mean,in true PD fashion,they expected the rabbit to

*be* doglike because that is what they really wanted,a dog.

It's weird to because at the time when they weren't providing this

rabbit with proper accomodation,they were themselves up in the air accomodation

wise.Nada had gone off birth control to become pregnant but they had made no

long term housing provisions and had to be bailed out by my paternal grandmother

just before I was born.

It's interesting because the question could have been asked: If you

can't even provide a proper dwelling place for your pet rabbit to prevent having

to give him away,what plans have you made for accomodating your baby? The answer

would have been: None.If you expect a rabbit to paper train itself like a

puppy,what do you expect from your baby? If you do nothing to ensure that your

pet rabbit can relieve itself somewhere that takes into account the fact of its

being a *rabbit* and instead blame the rabbit for pooping in your shoes,what

kind of attitude are you going to have towards your child?

If you wanted your rabbit to magically be like a dog,what in the world

are you magically expecting your baby to be?

Hhhhmmm....

>

> , awesome post - I haven't read the article yet but feel like I did.

Thank in advance Annie for posting it. Your story about the case with the girl

in Oregon was heartbreaking. She almost had freedom and then a judge who buys

into the mommy myth accepted her superficial apologies. Anyone who really

knows a personality disordered person knows that they can under pressure say the

right words that they've come to understand they must say for their own benefit.

But do they understand the meaning and the reasons, do they take real

responsibility, hell no.

>

> One of my posts that disappeared fits a bit on this thread. It was about how

do we screen parents before they have kids. I think how people treat their

pets is incredibly telling as to how they would treat their children. I notice

incredible parallels with those in my FOO - they personalize the actions of the

animal, they attribute human thoughts and motivations, and even get into ego

battles with it! I hate to think of companion animals used this way as

screeners, but if potential parents had to have a cat or a dog for a year, and

be carefully evaluated for how they cared for the animal, how it reacted to

them, and how they *thought* about it a number of people would be ruled unfit to

raise children.

>

>

[Guest guest]

You guys rock! The work we do on this group is not easy, facing our demons

day after day. Proud of you guys. I think a lot about going back to school

in psychology or something to fight child abuse. I do a little bit with it

teaching parents not to shake their babies, but I'd really like to attack

this demon.

Hugs for all!

On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 1:42 PM, christine.depizan <

christine.depizan@...> wrote:

>

>

> ,that's so very very kind of you And humbling too,coming from a

> serious writer--thank you!

>

> What is the Sun? The only Sun I know of is the British rag...I will think

> about working on it--it certainly would need work.I'm not sure how I'd put

> any " finished product " up online since I don't have the time or the mental

> energy right now to maintain a blog.Sometimes I fantasize about sounding off

> article wise on someplace like Counter Punch but I don't think I'm able yet

> to write to that standard,just an " is what it is " while I continue to sort

> of gather my (at the moment) depleted mental forces with a view towards

> getting them into better shape eventually.

>

> But thanks heaps for the applause

>

>

>

>

>

> >

> > *rubs eyes*

> >

> > *blinks*

> >

> > *stands up and applauds *

> >

> > , that post is almost an article in itself. It just makes the

> issue so clear.

> >

> > You should think about working on this a bit and submitting it to a

> magazine, like the Sun, for example, or putting it up online.

> >

> > So very, very many people need to know this.

> >

> > --.

> >

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Without going back and referencing the article, I am guessing/hoping that the

author responded to that question with something like,

" Its not uncommon for a personality-disordered parent (and enabling, codependent

spouse) to choose one child or one set of children as the favorite.

This " golden " child is chosen to embody all the parent's most cherished good

traits in their own self, or perhaps the golden child represents someone the pd

parent worships and adores (their own long-dead parent, perhaps?) This

blatantly preferential treatment is considered " normal " in the dysfunctional

family, even though the discrepancies are obvious to the non-favored children

and even other witnesses (extended family, neighbors, friends.)

At the same time the pd parent will tend to relegate another of his or her

children to scapegoat status: this poor child is " all bad " or " all

black-painted " and is forced to embody the pd parent's unwanted, undesirable or

shameful traits. The scapegoated child is blamed for all the problems within the

dysfunctional family unit, and punished for it.

Still another child may become the " invisible " child; ignored, neglected, and

starved for attention of any kind from the pd parents, or any adult.

So each child of dysfunctional, personality-disordered parents is likely to have

in effect a different parenting experience, almost as though each child belongs

to a different set of parents. "

My little Sister and I might as well have had different fathers, because our

biodad treated us so differently. I was his favorite, and he mostly ignored and

even mistreated my little Sister, while nada switched back and forth between

making me her favorite and Sister her favorite. On average, I spent more time

being " golden " and Sister spent more time as the " scapegoat " , however.

-Annie

> You know,I was struck by the confident way Dr Soroztkin responded to

nay sayers who hit him with stuff like: " If that parent was so cold and

uncaring,how come the other siblings are fine? "

[Guest guest]

, ha one of my old posts appeared! That's a sad tale about that

rabbit just doing its rabbity business, but your parents just couldn't respond

rationally to it. I notice that with my nada a lot as well - the inability to

connect the right corrective action to a problem no matter what that problem is.

An amazing parallel too to them being unprepared for your birth. What really

struck me was that your parents sound so childlike. Yay, let's have a rabbit,

ooops it poops on the carpet, oh well not like we can do anything about that,

give it away! Yay, let's have a baby, oops we have no room for the baby and it

makes so many demands,....and you know the rest.

It's a miracle really that any of us are sane and alive at all!

> >

> > , awesome post - I haven't read the article yet but feel like I

did. Thank in advance Annie for posting it. Your story about the case with

the girl in Oregon was heartbreaking. She almost had freedom and then a judge

who buys into the mommy myth accepted her superficial apologies. Anyone who

really knows a personality disordered person knows that they can under pressure

say the right words that they've come to understand they must say for their own

benefit. But do they understand the meaning and the reasons, do they take real

responsibility, hell no.

> >

> > One of my posts that disappeared fits a bit on this thread. It was about

how do we screen parents before they have kids. I think how people treat their

pets is incredibly telling as to how they would treat their children. I notice

incredible parallels with those in my FOO - they personalize the actions of the

animal, they attribute human thoughts and motivations, and even get into ego

battles with it! I hate to think of companion animals used this way as

screeners, but if potential parents had to have a cat or a dog for a year, and

be carefully evaluated for how they cared for the animal, how it reacted to

them, and how they *thought* about it a number of people would be ruled unfit to

raise children.

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

And up from the ether comes another lost post...I wrote this a while back! Have

our posts been waiting in a queue or something?

-

> >

> > , awesome post - I haven't read the article yet but feel like I

did. Thank in advance Annie for posting it. Your story about the case with

the girl in Oregon was heartbreaking. She almost had freedom and then a judge

who buys into the mommy myth accepted her superficial apologies. Anyone who

really knows a personality disordered person knows that they can under pressure

say the right words that they've come to understand they must say for their own

benefit. But do they understand the meaning and the reasons, do they take real

responsibility, hell no.

> >

> > One of my posts that disappeared fits a bit on this thread. It was about

how do we screen parents before they have kids. I think how people treat their

pets is incredibly telling as to how they would treat their children. I notice

incredible parallels with those in my FOO - they personalize the actions of the

animal, they attribute human thoughts and motivations, and even get into ego

battles with it! I hate to think of companion animals used this way as

screeners, but if potential parents had to have a cat or a dog for a year, and

be carefully evaluated for how they cared for the animal, how it reacted to

them, and how they *thought* about it a number of people would be ruled unfit to

raise children.

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

,yes,the inability to connect the right corrective action to a problem no

matter what it is,that's something I notice with both of my parents and my

brother too actually.That would be a cognitive distortion,right? I wonder where

that would fall in the symptoms list? I also think that's another reason why

nada for example would refuse to respond to me AT ALL when I needed her to help

me with something I was in trouble with,like my pedo school teacher: she had

nothing to offer except " go to school " and " obey him because he's the

teacher " ,as if that could possibly correct the problem? It seems almost like an

adult/intellectual version of immature motor skills,like knowing what scissors

are for but not being able to use them/cut paper with them.

>

> , ha one of my old posts appeared! That's a sad tale about that

rabbit just doing its rabbity business, but your parents just couldn't respond

rationally to it. I notice that with my nada a lot as well - the inability to

connect the right corrective action to a problem no matter what that problem is.

An amazing parallel too to them being unprepared for your birth. What really

struck me was that your parents sound so childlike. Yay, let's have a rabbit,

ooops it poops on the carpet, oh well not like we can do anything about that,

give it away! Yay, let's have a baby, oops we have no room for the baby and it

makes so many demands,....and you know the rest.

>

> It's a miracle really that any of us are sane

[Guest guest]

- Next time I have to go deal with my Nada I'm going to poop in her

shoes and see if she'll put me up for adoption. Great tip!

> >

> > , awesome post - I haven't read the article yet but feel like I

did. Thank in advance Annie for posting it. Your story about the case with

the girl in Oregon was heartbreaking. She almost had freedom and then a judge

who buys into the mommy myth accepted her superficial apologies. Anyone who

really knows a personality disordered person knows that they can under pressure

say the right words that they've come to understand they must say for their own

benefit. But do they understand the meaning and the reasons, do they take real

responsibility, hell no.

> >

> > One of my posts that disappeared fits a bit on this thread. It was about

how do we screen parents before they have kids. I think how people treat their

pets is incredibly telling as to how they would treat their children. I notice

incredible parallels with those in my FOO - they personalize the actions of the

animal, they attribute human thoughts and motivations, and even get into ego

battles with it! I hate to think of companion animals used this way as

screeners, but if potential parents had to have a cat or a dog for a year, and

be carefully evaluated for how they cared for the animal, how it reacted to

them, and how they *thought* about it a number of people would be ruled unfit to

raise children.

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

, will you be posting pictures? LOL.

Oh that s funny!

Doug

>

> - Next time I have to go deal with my Nada I'm going to poop

in her shoes and see if she'll put me up for adoption. Great tip!

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

ROTFLMAO!

[Guest guest]

YEEEEHAW!!!! I'm in, you do one shoe, I'll do the other.

>

>

> ROTFLMAO!

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

LOL, Thanks for the chuckle

> > >

> > > , awesome post - I haven't read the article yet but feel like I

did. Thank in advance Annie for posting it. Your story about the case with

the girl in Oregon was heartbreaking. She almost had freedom and then a judge

who buys into the mommy myth accepted her superficial apologies. Anyone who

really knows a personality disordered person knows that they can under pressure

say the right words that they've come to understand they must say for their own

benefit. But do they understand the meaning and the reasons, do they take real

responsibility, hell no.

> > >

> > > One of my posts that disappeared fits a bit on this thread. It was about

how do we screen parents before they have kids. I think how people treat their

pets is incredibly telling as to how they would treat their children. I notice

incredible parallels with those in my FOO - they personalize the actions of the

animal, they attribute human thoughts and motivations, and even get into ego

battles with it! I hate to think of companion animals used this way as

screeners, but if potential parents had to have a cat or a dog for a year, and

be carefully evaluated for how they cared for the animal, how it reacted to

them, and how they *thought* about it a number of people would be ruled unfit to

raise children.

> > >

> > >

> >

>