Blog

…and that this (what victims learned to survive in a hostile social structure in which they have low status) is what indicates to other abusers that this person is ‘safe’ to abuse.

This Instagram post on why kids choose friends who mistreat them comes from a perspective of kids who are afraid of rejection. Which. I’m not saying that’s wrong, per se.

I just think we’re talking about the idea of hierarchy and status without realizing it, and ‘building self-esteem’ essentially builds someone’s position within the hierarchy.

What developing someone’s self-esteem does is give themself permission to exist, to feel entitled to take up space, to assert themselves on their own behalf.

For children, the person who helps them ‘build their self-esteem’ is likely the person who will be their advocate.

That child knows they have back-up when dealing with an unfair teacher or classroom bullying.

It isn’t just that they now ‘have self-esteem’, it’s that they have social protection.

Victims of abuse, especially if that abuse began with a parent, learn to submit to survive. To essentially erase themselves. Those submission behaviors keep you alive in the shorter-term, but it’s hard to turn them off when you go outside or go to school. So a child victim of abuse goes into school accidentally and unintentionally signalling they will tolerate mistreatment, because that is what they have learned to do to survive.

But isn’t that what makes a maladaptive coping mechanism?

What helps you survive in the abuse or dysfunctional dynamic is a liability outside of it.

I think it’s pretty clear that people give themselves permission to mistreat others based on their personal value system.

That mistreatment signals to that person that they are ‘low status’ within the ‘pack’.

This may be why the classic old-school advice to give children was to punch a bully in the face, and to not ‘take it’ lying down.

The violence or threat thereof is a status conflict in disguise.

Those who don’t experience the consequences of their actions have the most status.

I was in a conversation with someone who has just left an abuse dynamic, and I couldn’t help but think about how brave they were being, because they left before they even really understood abuse yet. They’re learning now, putting the pieces together now, and yet they had enough faith to take that step of leaving before they even believed or really knew for sure that they were being abused.

And it made me think of how hard that really is, and I think it’s important to acknowledge that.

Often abusers pick people who are vulnerable, or simply those they have access to.

But often abusers seem to go out of their way to pick good people to abuse.

And it’s baffling. Like, why? Why do this? Why not find someone similar, who has similar values and ideas? Why not pick someone who would choose this, why steal someone else’s ability to choose for themselves?

It’s because they’re using you – a good person – to launder their badness.

You make them more credible.
You make them seem safe.
You give them your ‘covering’ of goodness.

Other people may not have given this person the benefit of the doubt, but for you.

Good people often struggle to protect themselves because of their internal definition and orientation of what it means to be good. That’s why Issendai says we are often trapped by our virtues, not our vices.

What does it mean to be ‘good’?

Does it mean to give someone another chance?
Does it mean to ‘see the best in others’ no matter what?
Does it mean to try and try again in the name of love?

…even when you don’t actually know what love is?

The combination of a good heart and a trusting mind lets abusers have access to people and places they wouldn’t otherwise have access to.

And that’s the ability of an abuser, really.

The con the victim into thinking they’re a good person, then use the victim’s goodness (and conviction that the abuser is a good person) to mis-present themselves as ‘good’.

When we stay with people we love, who are unsafe, we are unintentionally ‘credentialing’ them for others.

It doesn’t mean we can’t be good, but it does mean that people shouldn’t have our trust by default. And we don’t even want them to ‘earn’ that trust, we want to watch them and see what they do…without giving them access to ourselves, our domains, and the people under our care or influence.

In a rush to give someone the benefit of the doubt, we aren’t giving ourselves time to see who they are

…and they are then able to use the trust WE have built with others, hijack it, and then use it for their own benefit, often at our expense.

Goodness – our beingness, our reputation, our works in the community – is a resource.

And one we should protect for the wellbeing of ourselves and those we love.

We are the stewards of our own character.

u/Just-Library4280 reminded me that abusers can specifically go after someone who is flawed or who has made bad choices. Not only can they use that as a method of control (through shaming and emotional abuse) but they can use that person’s ‘badness’ as cover for abusing them.

For example, if a victim was an addict, and harmed others while they were actively addicted, their family and social circle may be less likely to believe them if they try to tell others about the abuse. (Or they may even see it as a kind of karma.)

A victim’s goodness can launder the abuser’s reputation, and a victim’s ‘badness’ can ‘justify’ the abuse or hide it, or be used as leverage against the victim. (The irony of course being that a bad bad person isn’t usually vulnerable to that kind of manipulation because they don’t care.) An abuser can even use a victim’s flaws or ‘badness’ to prove what a good person they are.

@darthlaurel, adapted from YouTube comment

@alexandra.lou.lou, from comment to Instagram

There’s a concept in psychology called ego-syntonic vs. ego-dystonic. It refers to whether a person’s dysfunctional traits are in harmony with their self-identity (ego-syntonic) or in conflict with it (ego-dystonic).

When dysfunction is ego-syntonic, it can be more damaging to others than to the person themselves because they don’t see anything wrong with their behavior and feel no need to change.

.

–@jmfs3497, from a comment to the Midwest Magic Cleaning video on the people they won’t help (content note: discussion of mental illness and boundary setting; not for people struggling with mental illness)

It is incredibly disorienting and terrifying to be awoken that way…so you learn to sleep ‘light’, but you’re not getting restorative sleep either. Which makes decision-making so much harder with respect to yourself, your life, the abuser. There’s a reason that’s a form of torture/breaking down the ego or psyche.

Intentional v. unintentional abuse is, at least by proxy, a diagnostic tool of an abuser’s level of self-awareness

And like self-awareness, I think it is fair to conceptualize it as a spectrum versus a binary on/off.

I’m old enough to remember the idea of “abuse” coming into our cultural consciousness, and it was only accepted as valid in extreme circumstances (such as a parent only being considered abusive and abuser if they almost killed their child or physically injured them to the point of disability).

‘Abusers’ were conceptualized using the ‘psychopath’/’sociopath’ paradigm

…with the idea that they are intending to harm you, work to calculating ends to do so, and derive intrinsic pleasure and satisfaction from doing so. This cultural idea of the abuser was accurate for a subset of abusers but not all abusers.

As our definition of abuse was expanded, so too does our definition of what constitutes an “abuser”.

A primary definition of abuse is generally along the lines of “treat a person or an animal with cruelty or violence, especially regularly or repeatedly”, and my personal definition (not surprisingly) is broader:

to unreasonably power-over another person at their expense and for your own benefit.

It shifts the definition from the effect of abuse (physical or emotional damage) or nature of the abuse (cruel or violent) to the action/method of abuse (mis-application of power at someone’s expense).

A lot of victims of abuse are higher in agreeability, are co-dependent, or have a submissive personality – and generally will go along with a lot of things. However, they will have at least one area that they will not submit on. (For me, for example, it was regarding my child.)

That area tends to be the ‘one thing’ that an abuser will become obsessed with.

‘The one thing’ operates under the ‘power’ definition of abuse instead of the ‘impact’ definition of abuse. The small ‘something else’ is representative of their efforts to power-over you, or make you submit, in an area.

It is the only area the victim pushes back on emphatically, or the one thing they won’t submit over.

So from the victim’s perspective it is an anomaly instead of part of a pattern because the victim doesn’t realize that the fact they accommodate the other person so much means they don’t see that pattern of controlling tendencies.

Either way, the abuser doesn’t see their significant other as a fully autonomous human being who has autonomy over themselves and gets to decide for themselves how they live their life.

They don’t respect their power over themselves.