Category: Uncategorized

The narrative has overwritten reality, and people who pledge allegiance to that narrative believe that this toxic loyalty is proof itself of love.

One thing that I’ve identified as a constant in abuse (abuse: misuse of power, often over another person) is an entitlement-orientation.

As I have been analyzing my relationship with my child’s father, I see how behavioral red flags were the foundation for later abusive behavior, however, I did not consider the problematic behavior abusive in and of itself.

Behind the proto-abusive behavior, however, was an entitlement mentality: he wanted what he wanted, and felt entitled to obtain it however possible, without regard for me or our relationship, our son, or our family.

There is a word for this

…one we’ve gotten away from culturally because it had been mis-used against people who are trying to practice self-care, and the word is “selfish”. But the thing is that an ‘entitlement-orientation’, even though inherently “me”-focused, is not inherently selfish.

What determines whether an entitlement belief is reasonable is the culture and society in which that belief exists.

It is reasonable for a child to feel entitled to their parents’ love, care, and attention. It is reasonable for that child to feel non-positively (angry or heartbroken or depressed) when their expectation is not met. It is not selfish to need or want a parent’s love, care, and attention.

These emotions are experienced at the disconnect between expectation and reality, where the expectation is not met, or subverted. Positive emotions are experienced where expectation and reality connect, where the expectation is met; or at the disconnect between expectation and reality, where the expectation is exceeded.

The ‘reasonability’ of these beliefs is what determines whether the entitlement is valid or selfish.

However, our culture does not have a uniform and rational approach to determining ‘reasonable entitlement’. Expectations and definitions around this are also changing, and are the focus of many social justice movements.

Which is why analyzing power dynamics is so important.

Power in and of itself is not abusive; power is a tool. Entitlement in and of itself is not abusive; entitlement is the belief in what you deserve. Power-over another is not abusive in and of itself; the role of parenting, and having power-over a child is not inherently abusive.

But

When what you believe you deserve is at the expense of another
When that other person is someone you are responsible for or have a duty to
When you take what you believe you deserve because you want it
When you can take it because you have power-over another

THAT is abusive: a mis-use of power

This is core of selfishness: at the expense of another (because what you want doesn’t really matter if it only affects you) and socially unreasonable.

Relationships can be a maze

…because social constructs and beliefs regarding what are reasonable expectations are overlapping between past, patriarchal expectations and present, more equality-oriented expectations.

An even when we know that an expectation is unreasonable, we may still believe it by virtue of having lived in our society, by virtue of having archaic notions of partner-responsibility modeled for us.

(Hetero-normative) expectations like:

• A man provides for his family.
• The provider is head of the household, and makes decisions for that household.
• A woman cares for the family.
• A woman is obligated to be submissive to her husband because he provides for the family and she does not.
• The woman is responsible for all childcare and housework.

…among others.

When a selfish, entitlement mentality exists in a power structure in which the selfish person has power-over another, and mis-uses that power to obtain their wants at the expense of the other, you have an abuse dynamic.

In my case, my husband’s pre-existing, red flag behavior didn’t become active abuse (I don’t think; I could be wrong here, though) until he had power-over me as a result of being the sole financial provider for our family. His proto-abusive behavior was unfair, but he did not have power-over me in the same way, and I had the ability, though not the foresight, to walk away.

Buying a home together, having a child with him, and being the non-working partner were all steps that impeded my ability to walk away from him.

And even though I financially ‘contributed’ to the family – my not-working allowed him to dismiss $50,000 worth of personal debt in bankruptcy – he was operating under the belief that ‘being the provider’ meant that what he makes is his money, he gets to decide what he wants to do with ‘his’ money, and he can do whatever he wants at my and our child’s expense.

My financial contributions don’t matter, my role in the “family” literally has no worth…even though our joint tax return is larger because I am not working and we have a dependent child; he considers that ‘his’ money, and my contribution invisible.

Are his expectations reasonable?

Some people believe they are because they subscribe to an iteration of “might makes right”. We have a cultural trigger regarding being taken advantage of.

The fear is not, however, being taken advantage of when you have power-under…because you can’t be taken advantage of without advantage to take. This fear is the fear of someone with power, someone who has resources, someone who has something to lose or have taken away.

We don’t worry about parents taking advantage of their children, the government taking advantage of the poor/minorities/citizens, the police taking advantage…because when someone who has power-over ‘takes advantage’, they are taking advantaging of their power-over others, and mis-using that power, e.g. abuse.

And our culture worries about being taken advantage of because our society identifies with the powerful, not the power-less.

From another article I wrote:

The underlying belief is that might makes right.

When the power-paradigm is skewed unalterably and beneficially to those in power, the actions of those in power are interpreted fundamentally differently than the actions of the powerless. We might intellectually understand that those in power garner benefits they have not earned and are not entitled to, but we act upon the belief that they are entitled to and have earned them.

It might better be described as “might makes entitled”. And when ‘might makes entitled’ intersects with a fundamentally unequal power-dynamic and our fears of being taken advantage of and our contempt for ‘social thieves’, we end up viciously invalidating victims of abuse who step forward.

Or end up abusing (mis-using) our power over others.

What is abuse?

• holding unreasonable, entitlement-beliefs;
• acting selfishly on those beliefs at the expense of another;
• and where you have power-over another in that they cannot effectively set boundaries/leave/reject or rebuke your actions;
• the other person has no choice but to swallow unfairness
• because they effectively have no agency

It is important to remember that power shows up in different ways. Power-over another is not limited to money or other financial resources. Power-over can be sexual, physical, emotional.

Abusers often target a lower status person because they can’t defend themselves (or they might target a higher status person to bring them down below them in a hierarchy).

Or they may have been in a ‘one-down’ position in the relationship, but things have changed, and they want to feel like the one ‘in power’ now that they have the opportunity. This person isn’t relationship-oriented, partnership oriented, they are status- and power- oriented. They hated being (in their mind) one-down in the relationship hierarchy, and want to empower themselves by putting the other person in the one-down position.

It’s why you see this kind of person treat someone who’s kind to them with no respect, but then turn around to treat other people who ‘need’ them with kindness.

It isn’t about appreciating what someone does for them, it’s about them feeling significant and powerful.

When they’re finally ‘above’ you, this person wants to enjoy it.

It’s one reason why abusers can escalate during major life events such as after a victim loses a job or has children, or experiences an injury: they finally are in a position of power in the relationship dynamic, and use it at the victim’s expense. So an abuser may engage in a kind of psychological warfare for you to give up your power/status in the relationship, or they may take the opportunity to power over you when you lose power due to life circumstances.

This is why it is often not a good idea to ‘give someone a chance’ or ‘do someone a favor’ when it comes to dating or friendship or even a sibling relationship.

Someone who thinks like this will not appreciate you, they will resent you, regardless of whether you are relationship-oriented. As soon as they perceive themselves to have higher value than you, they often become perfectly happy to power over you because that is what they mis-perceived you were doing, and mis-believe that they had to ‘swallow the unfairness’ of having lower status. They want to avenge their ego and call it justice, or justified.

I think this is why many people struggle with unintentional victim-blaming, because they think abuse is about just standing up for yourself when in reality it is often a status or power conflict in disguise.

…and I think this is why many victims struggle with understanding what is happening to them, because they think they’re in a relationship where both parties are true partners who want the best for each other, and don’t recognize the abuser is hierarchical, and status- and power-oriented.

…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)