We Survived Abuse

The term Dhimmi refers to a non-Muslim non-pagan that is living in a Muslim state. Generally the term applies to Christians and Jews. Dhimmis are allowed, more or less, to practice their religions. They are subject to particular taxes that Muslims do not have to pay.

Muslims say that Dhimma means, “protected.” Where has that term applied here in the West? Mafias collect protection money from businesses and individuals. In other words, the dhimma tax is protection money. Since the Muslim controlling government must know what religion each of its taxpayers has in order to demand the proper amounts, it knows who and where all of the non-Muslims are and so can have better control over its non-Muslim population. Protection and control are then synonymous. Dhimmitude is the overtaxed, inferior and vulnerable condition of the non-Muslim in a Muslim country.

Many European countries are already pre-dispositioned for the Muslim concept of dhimma. For instance, upon entering Germany or Italy to become a resident, the individual’s religion or denomination must be stated so that the church tax can be sent to the appropriate organization. Some officially leave their churches to avoid the church tax, but still attend their church of choice and contribute in the offering plate. I will leave the judgment up to the reader whether that constitutes denying Christ.

Back in the United States… under Obama’s Health-Care Reform those that refuse to hold government health insurance would be taxed.

Rumor has it that a clause would be included that certain religious and ethnic groups would be exempt from having to take government health insurance without penalty if they have “conscientious objections” to insurance. Although some small Christian groups fall under that category, such as the Amish, most Christians would still have to pay the penalty if they do not want government insurance. Muslims would be included in the exemption because of their religious objection to insurance since it is seen as “haraam” (also haram) which is anything prohibited by Islam.

Devout Muslims really do have qualms about having insurance.

Try Islam QA

One more thing that I am certain of from reading the Koran. I would have to go and find the reference to it again (like finding a needle in a haystack). I saw a reference saying that Muslims do not need to tell the truth to non-Muslims,and that they shouldn’t. They still have not sinned if they lie to, trick, and cheat non-Muslims according to the Koran. That gives some food for thought, hmmm?

Are we headed for dhimmitude in the United States? Has someone been lying to us?

This is the fun question that was asked of me at a humanities final. What interests me about it within the context of this website is: Does the abuser/controller know who he/she is? From here on I will use “he” to indicate the abuser/controller because, unfortunately, most abusers are male.

We are not blank slates when we are born. We are all subject to the encoding in our genes which will influence our health and even mental health. We are born with personalities - sanguine, choleric, melancholic, phlegmatic and everything in between. We are influenced by our history and our ancestors, by what happened to them and their decisions. We are even influenced by what languages we speak; each language puts a different emphasis on emotions and gender. Words and ideas not present in a language restrict conversation and thought concerning missing topics. The family that we are born into strongly influences our development and outlook on life. We are surrounded by all of these influences that can be seen as resources or hindrances. They serve as the basis or platform from which we launch our lives.

I personally believe in predestination, that God controls the factors that influence our lives and he predetermines our temperaments. Yet he holds us responsible for our actions. That is where our responsibility starts. What do we make of all of this history, this content of life that surrounds us? What do we do with what God has given us and with what life throws at us?

We are the ones who decide which values we incorporate into ourselves from those that have been offered to us by our respective families, religions and cultures. We interact daily with family, friends, coworkers, and strangers. Who we are influences the way that we act when we are with others and in turn how we influence them. We are both passive and active in our relationships with others.

Know Thyself - Gnothi Sauton

The original Greek of that phrase was written in stone at the foot of the temple of Apollo at Delphi. He was believed to be the god of Truth, Light, Music and Medicine. Later in Latin it was expressed, “Nosce te ipsum.” It was no mistake that the phrase was associated with Truth. Someone that knows herself must be absolutely honest with herself and able to look inside herself, willing to deal with what she finds there.

The controller/abuser is not able to be honest with himself. He/she has a fundamental problem - a problem at his foundation, at his core - with self esteem. Furthermore, he is unwilling to look inside himself because otherwise he might be forced to take action against what he finds there. Denial of abuse or control is a trademark of the abuser/controller. He will insist that he is not at fault for any angry outbreaks or violence and will blame all of his problems on his victims or circumstances. “If you hadn’t said that… If you wouldn’t… You made me do it…” Not being able to respect himself he cannot respect others, he can only fear them if anything. Love cannot be mutual with an abuser, he tends to confuse “love” with “need.” He may say, “I love you,” but it really means, “I need you.. I need to keep you around to abuse you since it makes me feel better.”

Some domestic abusers are able to act so well in public that no one outside the home would know what kind of person they really are. As long as they have their victim or victims to tread on in private they are capable of keeping up appearances in public. When the victims leave, however, such abusers have no one to vent their emotions on in private. Their selfishness and anger may become apparent to those around them.

The mistake that many victims make is thinking that they can change their abusers for the better. Since the abuser is unable to look into himself honestly there will be no permanent change. The only changes an abuser is able to make to himself are superficial. He may be less violent or less condescending for a while but will soon go back to the control and abuse because there is no other way for him to feel good about himself unless it is by dragging others down to his level.

Why have I stated this in such absolute terms? I was acquainted with a woman with 30 years of experience in counseling victims of domestic violence. She informed me that in all of those years she had not heard of one abuser that had really changed. Some had stopped beating their victims but still practiced some form of abuse on them such as verbal or emotional abuse. I would not rule out the occasional exception that is few and far between, but in her experience there were no exceptions. I would not want to give anyone the false hope that the abuser they live with might change since the chance of that is very low. Abusers have a strong tendency to get worse over time. Living in an emotionally abusive situation can lead to depression and suicide for the victim. Living in a physically abusive situation also causes mental anguish and can lead to illness, disability and death - the murder of the victim by the abuser. Even if children in such a situation are not being directly threatened they are witnesses of the abuse and WILL suffer mental damage because of what they witness. Exposure to abuse may predispose them to become abusers or victims themselves. I would not recommend that anyone stay in an abusive household in the hope that the abuse will stop. The longer anyone is exposed to such manipulation the more likely they are to weaken and give up their personal freedom. Walking away from the relationship may be a difficult decision if much time and effort have been invested in it. Looking at it another way, most people would not think twice about walking away from a stranger that would try to bother them.

Once an abuser has been exposed he may try to appear to make up for his bad behavior by promising to change. He may say that he needs the vicinity of the victim to help him change. The truth of the matter is that the presence of the victim has only given him an outlet for his anger and self-disappointment. The availability of the victim is what actually prevents the abuser from recovery no matter how much he may say that he loves her or needs her. The abuser will not make any real effort to change if he still has contact with the victim. As long as he has her he is prevented from looking into the abyss that is himself.

Know Thyself - is so scary to some abusers that they cannot remain alone with no one to rule. They immediately begin searching for the next victim. The abuser/controller does not know who he is. He is too afraid to face the ugly reality within himself. He is detached, out of touch with himself. From a Christian perspective, upon hearing the Gospel, would he be able to respond to it as Peter’s listeners did at Pentecost? They were, “cut to the heart” and asked “Brothers, what shall we do?” (Acts 2:36,37) That is the question that controllers/abusers cannot ask or answer.

Who are you?

This text discusses the themes of isolation and control in two poems written by Adrienne Rich. I had no choice but to choose between the poems that were discussed in class and was not able to select material for a paper from even the other poems offered by the textbook. Other than Adrienne Rich the instructor had us focus on Shakespeare, Edgar Allan Poe, Emily Dickinson and Langston Hughes.

I can identify with some of the themes that Rich puts forth in her poems and appreciate her honesty with herself when exploring women’s issues and politics. She does not embrace movements or political ideals but instead sifts them thoroughly taking what she feels is right and leaving the rest. She hates hypocrisy as I do. She is discerning, which I what I encourage here on this website. Despite this approval of her way of thought I do not approve of her lesbian lifestyle. She did spend considerable time with feminists, which groups, it seems to me, some use as recruiting areas to convert straight women to lesbianism. I can understand her reasoning in this life choice somewhat, based on what I know of her background, but disagree with it nevertheless.

discernomatic
Enc 1102
October 27, 2009

Adrienne Rich’s “Aunt Jennifer’s Tigers,” “Women,” and Isolation

“Aunt Jennifer’s Tigers” reveals an isolated, elderly woman concealing her fear while enduring an oppressive marriage, whereas “Women” explores three separate women that deal with emotional pain in individual ways. The two poems also reveal that society is prone to ignore people’s personal problems. Rich is more particularly concerned with how women hide or reveal their emotions when confronted by life’s difficulties. The various ways will be explored in which all of the female characters concerned deal with their individual circumstances. Adrienne Rich’s poems, “Aunt Jennifer’s Tigers” and “Women,” both expose a tendency for people, particularly women, to isolate themselves when in a crisis.

During Rich’s youth she was heavily influenced by her father who, although he coached her and helped initiate her literary career, was manifestly dominant over Adrienne Rich, her sister and her mother. “Aunt Jennifer’s Tigers” was written the year that Rich won the Yale Younger Poets prize for her first book, A Change of World, two years before she married Alfred Conrad (Pope). Witnessing conflicts between her own parents may have been part of a specific impetus for her to write “Aunt Jennifer’s Tigers.” Typical of the time period of the late 1920s, Rich’s mother, “a gifted pianist and composer,” (Pope) sacrificed her budding musical career to raise a family, since it was not generally believed at the time that a woman could simultaneously embrace family and career. Concerning wives in general, a detailed analysis of “Aunt Jennifer’s Tigers” shows that the poem is a vignette of a wife oppressed by her domineering husband, forced to put her vital brilliance and ingenuity into a tapestry rather than investing it in her own life.

Some could argue that marriage itself is the factor that causes Aunt’s wedding band to be a burden since, “The massive weight of Uncle’s wedding band sits heavily upon Aunt Jennifer’s hand.” (Rich, “Aunt Jennifer’s Tigers,” 636) Using and example from Adrienne Rich’s own life as the poem was written, marriage itself does not seem to be Aunt’s problem since Rich married in 1953, two years after writing the poem. To be weighed down is a synonym for oppression. Uncle’s domination of Aunt is symbolized by the heavy ring that Aunt can hardly lift but Aunt’s inability to break her isolation and truly overcome or remove that weight is the real crux of the matter. Rich does not issue criticism of either of her characters in the poem, neither Uncle for being a tyrant nor Aunt for not liberating herself, but simply pulls the curtain aside to let the reader observe the skewed relationship. Rich uses the contrast of the élan of Aunt Jennifer’s tigers to show how Aunt could have prospered had she been able to master the situation.

Aunt Jennifer’s gobelin tigers are lustrous, sovereign and courageous creatures in contrast to her own drab and fearful existence subjugated to Uncle’s domineering reign. Her “topaz” tigers “prance across a screen” boldly in “chivalric certainty,” whereas Rich writes that even in death, Aunt’s “terrified hands will lie still ringed with ordeals she was mastered by.” (Rich, “Aunt Jennifer’s Tigers, 636) In general society wedding bands are usually a metaphor for mutual love and fulfillment. Ironically, Aunt’s hands, the producers of a work of art that surely invigorates and liberates the imagination, will bear witness to her emotional imprisonment still wearing Uncle’s wedding band even in death. Guided by the author the reader may perceive Aunt’s wedding band on the hand of a clammy corpse, a chilling, metallic reminder of Aunt’s oppression by Uncle as well as other hardships in life that she was unable to overcome. Rich seems to indicate that if Aunt had been able to prevail against Uncle’s burdensome treatment, she may have used that experience to surmount other difficulties of life that were plaguing her.

From my own perspective and discussions with other battered women, there is an undeniable and overwhelming tendency for women to reach for new careers and self-fulfillment after leaving controlling and violent husbands. It is as if the isolation and domination pattern within a controlling relationship not only limits the scope of the individual power of the female victim within the relationship; it also inhibits her in other areas of life. Alone, Aunt conceals her fears and gathers what seems to be the last vestige of creative vigor to embroider an image of the intrepidity, self-certainty, and personal power she did not possess. Notwithstanding, the masterpiece is only a crude substitution for the reality that could have been, perhaps had Aunt attempted to tell others about her predicament or had others noticed she was in need of assistance. Rich explores the theme of crisis in isolation again in a later poem, “Women,” written in 1968.

“Women” explores how three solitary women deal differently with various emotional injuries. Rich empathizes strongly with her fellow women, her “sisters,” that she places on “rocks of black obsidian.” (Rich, “Women,” 899) Obsidian seems to represent the trials of life. It is a volcanic glass that contains sharp edges as life contains sundry troubles. Each woman seems to be isolated and left to deal with her problems individually. This is a recurring theme in Rich’s works and life. In an article in The Nation in 1996 she wrote, “It has always been true that poetry can break isolation, show us to ourselves when we are outlawed or made invisible, remind us of beauty where no beauty seems possible, remind us of kinship where all is represented as separation” (Rich, Defy). Rich reveals the women to the reader as they are revealed to her in her literary exploration for meaning.

Again, two of the three characters in, “Women,” are sewing. Paradoxically one of them is sewing a costume to parade as the “Transparent Lady” (Rich, “Women,” 899). She chooses to hide her feelings by pretending that nothing has happened and will display a false mask to those around her. Rich’s choice of metaphors is a poetic representation of casual statements that many issue daily. One person greets, “How are you?” The standard reply is, “Fine.” Persons that are, “fine,” do not have any pressing emotional wounds or needs. Too often those that are hurting conceal their feelings under a polite, felicitous mask as the “Transparent Lady” does. Another character is darning the seam yet again from a perpetually broken heart, “which has never healed entirely.” (Rich, “Women,” 899) Once she veils it with clothing, no one will be the wiser.

The final character that the reader is introduced to is making no effort to conceal the damage that she has sustained; the reader is informed that her “stockings are torn.” She is, “gazing at a dark-red crust spreading westward far out on the sea,” which is her own blood (Rich, “Women,” 899). It is obvious that her wound is extensive, yet Rich does not have her react and designates her as “beautiful.” Her beauty emanates from the fact that she did not attempt to obscure the reality that she has sustained an injury. She is the only character in “Women” that is being honest with herself and others. Because of this a passerby will have the possibility to notice her wound or the blood that issues from it and may initiate measures to help her. Especially women often try to conceal physical imperfections by applying makeup and clothing. Rich is encouraging them to go against what they have been taught, to have the courage not to remain in isolation and conceal their pain and wounds any longer. Rich is also asking society to transcend social niceties and inquire of individuals, especially women, how they genuinely are.

Both poems, though from different time periods in Adrienne Rich’s life, reveal the coexisting problems of isolation and crisis and their repercussions on women and society as Rich saw them at those moments. “Aunt Jennifer’s Tigers” contains additional minutiae compared with “Women” and through the tapestry includes glimpses of Aunt’s bygone potential as a self-assured and independent woman. Concurrent with “Women,” the poem contains the message that the main character, Aunt, is isolated. The characters are not interacting with outsiders, not even other family members. Aunt does not seem to know how to extricate herself from the toxic relationship, nor does she reach out or receive assistance. Rich’s poem, “Women,” is a testimony to Rich’s increasing literary prowess with time. It is as if “Women” is a poem of a poem, svelte yet complete. Rich does not concern herself with how and why the women are injured but concentrates the beam directly on the truth of their injuries and emotional states. With these poems and others, Rich calls for women to refrain from isolating themselves and for society to allow them to express themselves openly. Rich counsels women and society to break the barriers of gender taboos and discrimination and to liberate themselves while reaching for their full potential.

Works Cited

Doty, Mark. “Adrienne Rich Recipient of the 2006 Medal for Distinguished Contribution to American
Letters.” National Book Foundation. 2007. National Book Foundation, Web. 26 Oct
2009. .

Pope, Deborah. “Rich’s Life and Career.” Modern American Poetry. 1995. Oxford University
Press, Web. 18 Oct 2009. .

Rich, Adrienne. “Aunt Jennifer’s Tigers.” Literature: An Introduction to Fiction, Poetry, drama, and
Writing. Ed. X. J. Kennedy and Dana Gioia. 11th ed. New York: Longman, 2010. 636. Print.

Rich, Adrienne. “Defy the Space That Separates.” The Nation 07 Oct. 1996. Web. 26 Oct
2009. .

Rich, Adrienne. “Women.” Literature: An Introduction to Fiction, Poetry, drama, and Writing.
Ed. X. J. Kennedy and Dana Gioia. 11th ed. New York: Longman, 2010. 899. Print.

Reports say that Mark Obama Ndesandjo’s new novel is based on his experiences of childhood abuse by his biological father, who also happens to be Barack Obama’s biological father. Admittedly, he may also be cashing in on the celebrity of his brother, but that doesn’t mean that his story is not sincere. I am more than mildly interested in buying his new book, “Nairobi to Shenzhen.”

This information constitutes one more piece in the puzzle concerning Barack Obama’s controlling ways. Even a small child can be influenced badly if exposed to domestic violence in the home. It is true that not all children exposed to such abuse become abusive or even simply controlling, but it is one more factor in their lives that can potentially mold them into a controlling person. Even someone as small as Obama was when his parents separated, two years of age, can have lasting repercussions from the violence they were exposed to.

Aggressive and controlling behavior is not only learned, it can be genetically predisposed. Does that mean that a biological child of an abuser need become an abuser? No. It only means that if the aggressive behavior of the parent is partially due to genetics, that the child has a greater potential to be aggressive as well, especially if the child emulates the abusive behavior he/she sees in the home. This isn’t nature vs. nurture, it is a combination of nature and nurture. Other traits can be passed on in this way, alcoholism, insecurity, even low self-esteem, which is a major cause of aggressive behavior in controllers.

Is controlling aggressivity always expressed as physical abuse? Certainly not. Much of it may be expressed as verbal abuse or a narcissistic need for attention from others and control over others. Such persons may not be the drunken madman that some imagine. They may be successful in society with magnetic personalities.

Read about Mark Obama Ndesandjo’s new publication.

Barack Obama’s half-brother writes book ‘inspired by father’s abuse’

See an interview in which Ndesandjo speaks about his father’s abuse.

Mark Ndesandjo, Obama’s Half Brother, Recalls Their Abusive Father (VIDEO)

I’ll write a review as soon as I have read the book.

discernomatic
Enc 1102
October 1, 2009

Tennessee Williams’ play, The Glass Menagerie, is not simply a window into a small family trying to make ends meet during the depression. I believe that Tennessee Williams intended, among other things, to shed light on the dynamics and some possible consequences of controlling relationships. An analysis of the dialogue of the character Amanda in the play will show that her character is controlling. Various discourses between Amanda and her grown children, Tom and Laura, reveal Amanda’s domineering behavior and in addition identify it as the root of their strife.

The play opens with Amanda holding sway over what should be an enjoyable meal for a family at the dinner table. Here is one example of how she confines her children’s lives by controlling even trivial aspects of their behavior. Amanda orders her son, “Honey, don’t push with your fingers…And chew—chew!” A short lecture on animal mastication versus human eating behavior follows Amanda’s admonitions. According to Tom’s own admission he finds that his mother’s behavior ruins the meal. “I haven’t enjoyed one bite of this dinner because of your constant directions on how to eat it. It’s you that makes me rush through meals with your hawk-like attention to every bite I take.” Part of the controlling nature is a lack of respect for others. A parent that lectures and harps on such insignificant details of the daily life of a child would not be respecting the individuality of that person.

To discredit, demean and make light of Tom’s disgruntlement Amanda counters, “(lightly): Temperament like a metropolitan star!” It is common for controlling persons to minimize the expressed feelings of others and to disguise the intended hurtful effect that their words have on others. As a mother, Amanda hides behind an outward intent of wanting the best for her children to mask her inward need for control over them. Amanda does not want to take credit for causing Tom’s legitimate aggravation so she tries to put the blame on Tom indicating that his ego is the root of the problem. Controllers purposefully and categorically refuse to take responsibility for their own hurtful actions and lack of character and incriminate others for any social disruptions they themselves have caused. Tennessee Williams stresses that Amanda speaks lightly, as if she were joking. Some controllers use the strategy of disguising quips as jokes. But they are still intentionally aiming verbal darts at the hearts of their victims whether their statements are masked as jokes or are hurled openly. Amanda is not joking and fully intends to hurt her own son.

Disgusted, Tom leaves the table. Amanda informs her adult son, again as if he were a small child, that he is not excused. He informs her that he is, “getting a cigarette.” She retorts that, “You smoke too much.” It could be argued that this statement could come from a parent that wants only the best of health for a child. That may be true in many cases. Because of Amanda’s frequent controlling statements in the play, I strongly suspect that Amanda’s true intent here is once again to purposely interfere with her son’s personal preferences at the expense of his comfort and self-esteem to the benefit of her own. The “you” statement Amanda employed to respond to her son’s wish to smoke is simply another way to put the blame for an action or situation onto another person. Controllers often find fault with others to withdraw attention from their own faults which they are unable and unwilling to face.

The conversation turns to the subject of gentleman callers, a reflection of Amanda’s obsession to espouse her shy, handicapped daughter Laura with a man that will support her and, eventually, Amanda. The corresponding lecture takes on the form of an event from Amanda’s own youth that will ensure that the spotlight remains on her.

One Sunday afternoon in Blue Mountain – your mother received – seventeen! – gentlemen callers!…I understood the art of conversation…. It wasn’t enough for a girl to be possessed of a pretty face and a graceful figure – although I wasn’t slighted in either respect. She also needed to have a nimble wit and a tongue to meet all occasions.

Despite her seeming naïveté to the anguish she causes her children, Amanda is fully aware of her daughter’s physical and social handicaps. Her wish here is to insult Laura for not living up to her mother’s specifications of what an entertaining debutante should be. The nature of the whole conversation at dinner seems to represent similar conversations they have had before. Controllers relish the sound of their own voices and some love to deliver self-glorifying lectures. By extolling her own past popularity and savvy as a belle, Amanda simultaneously insults her daughter’s shyness and physical handicap while satisfying her own selfish need for attention and control.

Later a quarrel between Amanda and Tom ensues because Amanda has confiscated some of his allegedly “filthy” library books, renowned literature by D.H. Lawrence, and returned them to the library. Tom is justifiably angry at the intrusion of his privacy and reacts by raising his voice and swearing. Amanda, disturbed by this fly in her perfectly painted illusion of life, resorts to name calling. “What is the matter with you, you – big – big – IDIOT!” Name calling is one of the controller’s more primitive tactics when aiming words at potential victims. As with other controllers, Amanda behaves as if she is always right and her way is the only way. She expects others to conform because from her point of view it would be the reasonable thing to do. Such a controller is used to thinking that she is the most knowledgeable person and that everyone else is an idiot. Even though it may seem as though she has only momentarily lost her composure and uttered something she may not mean, a mistake we all make from time to time, Amanda, a woman who has intentionally and repeatedly manipulated and verbally abused her children for years, is simply finally voicing her true opinion of her son.

These are only a few of the myriad examples that Tennessee Williams wove into The Glass Menagerie that show the complexity and tragedy of controlling relationships. As is so often observed in reality, the controlling situation takes place within a family unit. Statistically, males comprise the majority of abusive controllers in family situations. The fact that a woman, Amanda, is the abuser serves to further emphasize the abomination of her behavior compared to that of the paragon of the compassionate, loving mother. One lesson that the author may wish to convey would be not to let oneself become like Amanda. Another possible message would be to alert potential victims that they are being controlled and abused. Tennessee Williams, though exposing and condemning Amanda’s controlling behavior, is not necessarily offering a solution to the problem of control but is simply pointing to the problem itself by using Amanda as his archetype for the classic controller. He leaves it up to the reader or viewer of The Glass Menagerie to make his or her own judgments.

After having reviewed the book, Domestic Violence: What Every Pastor Needs to Know, on a previous blog entry, I would like to add my own account of how pastors dealt with me when I tried to get help as a victim of domestic violence.

At the time I was going to two churches. I attended the local Catholic church with my then husband and also sometimes attended a non-denominational church farther away. When I went to a young local priest for help, I’ll call him Don Paolo, he did listen to me. He was very sympathetic, but he did not know about the dynamics of a domestically abusive relationship.

He suggested I write a non-threatening letter to my husband telling him of my dissatisfaction with his behavior. Ultimately the letter only had the effect of warning my then husband that he should be more cautious and more controlling.

Don Paolo suggested I pay a visit to an older priest that had recently retired and was still living nearby. I’ll call him Don Martino. I think that Don Paolo was hoping that the Don Martino would have more experience to better deal with the problem. Unfortunately, the older priest also had no knowledge of the nature of abusers or the dynamics of abusive relationships. At the beginning he counseled me alone. When my then husband found out that I had been to the priest he wanted to go to the priest. Eventually I saw that he did not want to go there for real counsel, but to clear his name from any truths that I had told anyone about the situation. He is often worried about appearances.

Don Martino thought that the situation was something that could be resolved by mutual cooperation and understanding. He did not know that abusers have many narcissistic tendencies and that they usually only feign cooperation. Some controllers have learned to use the “let’s be reasonable” tactic to convince counselors that they are benign. In reality the victim is the one that always has to compromise, further entrenching herself in the control of the abuser. What is more, this often happens under the watchful and approving eyes of clergy and marriage counselors. They often give the abuser the benefit of the doubt, especially if the abuser seems cultured, cultivated and has not shown signs of abusive behavior outside the home.

I also received counseling from another source, a biblical counselor and protestant pastor. He was the one that sympathized with me and through specific questions guided me to the truth about the danger I and the children were in as well as the necessity to take action. He did give me some actions to try to see if the marriage was salvageable, at least that was the impression I had at the time. Using hindsight I can see that he knew my then husband would not respond well to attempted counseling. He had seen that kind of abuser/controller before and knew the futility of taking action. But he knew that I needed to see for myself that nothing could be done that would change the essential bad character of my then husband, especially since he could not see any need for a real change to himself. The counselor knew that with the guidance that he had given me so far that I would see the truth that the only thing to do was flee.

In the end I had to ignore the false advice of the priest to basically forgive and forget and take major action to get myself and the children to safety.

Once in safety, I talked to another pastor of a Reformed Baptist church. I had found out that to legally claim custody of the children I needed to first file for a civil divorce in a court of law. The pastor and a deacon tried to dissuade me from this, saying that the bible only allowed divorce in the case of sexual unfaithfulness of a partner. They would allow me to join their church and would even support me and the children as a church as long as I would not go through the divorce. I said that I would then have to hide from the law if I would not legally attempt to get legal custody of the children. They insisted that they would hide us from the law! I was and still am planning to work in health care and need a clean record to do so. I need to be able to support myself and the children. This particular church group does not believe that women should work and that women and children in our situation should be supported by the church if their ex-husbands will not support them. But I think that they widely missed the mark. I do not share their views of the biblicalness of their claims. I believe that abuse in a marriage constitutes a breach of contract just as unfaithfulness does. The abuser did not honor the marriage contract to love his wife as Christ loved the church and as such he has been unfaithful to her. A civil divorce on the part of the victim is only a finalization on paper of what has already happened in the heart of the abuser. Since Jesus Christ was more interested in the true intentions of believers (not simply their actions) I believe that a Christian victim would be justified in requesting a divorce from an abuser/controller. A legal relationship continues to bind a controller to a victim, still giving him an avenue to oppress and mistreat the victim. Even after such a relationship is legally dissolved there are unfortunately still legal ties, problems with ownership of property, child custody, visitation and sometimes stalking that can drag on for years after the victim no longer lives with the abuser. Competent counseling is necessary for victims so that they can start and stay on the road to recovery of their self-esteem and themselves.

I find it sad that many clergy and counselors are ill-equipped to handle domestically violent situations. Often they do not recognize them for what they are and even if they do they often put victims and children in danger by insisting that couples be counseled together. Such counseling places the victim under surveillance of the abuser and the unsuspecting counselor that may unwittingly support the control. I have heard of biblical counselors that told wives to forgive and forget and instructed them to obey their husbands regardless. They did not hold husbands accountable for hurtful and violent behavior. Such blind counselors tend to ask the victim to compromise yet again when that is all that she has been doing during the entire relationship with the abuser. Some women never reach a counselor that can give them sound advice and stay in relationships that devastate their minds and spirits further. Some even are murdered in such relationships along with their children despite the fact that the family had been to counseling and others outside of the marriage knew about the violence.

To sum it up, what do many counselors and clergy not know? That abusers/controllers are not normal psychologically, but markedly abnormal, dysfunctional and dangerous. One woman that counseled many victims over 30 years at Haven, a local shelter for battered women, told me that she had never seen an abuser turn around 180 degrees to become a loving spouse and a functional (vs. dysfunctional) person in the relationship with the victim. She did notice that a few such abusers stopped physically abusing their spouses. But never did she observe that they stopped mentally, verbally and emotionally abusing their partners. The abusers’ chronic low self-esteem drove them to mistreat their partners, dragging the victims down to their level as long as they were with them.

Set boundaries in your life to avoid being bullied or taken advantage of by others.

A boundary is a line or limit that establishes or marks your personal territory - yourself.

This territory includes your body, mind, spirit, emotions, opinions, possessions and rights. In order to defend yourself you decide who enters that territory or any aspect of it and who cannot.

Often, setting boundaries is determined by how you feel about yourself. If you have low self esteem your boundaries will be weak and ineffective or may not even be existent.

You may need to clearly tell other people where your boundaries are. YOU make the decision on how far others can go with you. Don’t let them make decisions about what you need, like, wear or are. Sometimes this may seem insensitive or impolite. Especially controllers/abusers like to take offense at someone setting boundaries to keep them out. They may get angry, cry, yell, call you selfish (does that usually get you to submit to them?). Well, let them take offense. Do not justify, rationalize or apologize for needing to protect yourself and your own interests.

What are some examples of defining statements?

- If you keep using four-letter words in my house you will have to leave.
- ….bothers me. Please don’t do it.
- Don’t call me bad names!
- I’d appreciate it if you would call before 9 O’clock because I go to bed at 9:30.
- If you live here you have to share the workload.
- Don’t hug me. I don’t think it is appropriate for a boss to hug his employee.
- I know you want me to have the fish, but I prefer chicken tonight.
- I know the red dress is your favorite, but I feel like wearing the blue one tonight.
- If you…..then I will……….

The purpose of such boundaries is to define loving relationships, not destroy them. The boundaries themselves should not isolate us from others. Through boundaries we should gain security and a better sense of self to be able to get close to others without smothering them, trespassing over their boundaries, losing ourselves or having our boundaries invaded.

Keep the boundaries that you set with no exceptions. People don’t respect people that they can use. Others will test the boundaries that you set.

Ask yourself what hurts you, what is yours and what makes you feel uncomfortable. Defend yourself.

Have others that support you help you keep your boundaries and perhaps suggest where you need to set some boundaries. If you have trouble setting boundaries don’t set too many at once.

You will learn to appreciate others’ boundaries as you set your own.

Maybe you remember the story of a doctor at the south pole who treated her own cancer because she could not be transported to the proper facilities. Her name was Dr. Jerri Nielsen Fitzgerald.

She is an inspiration to all of us of the survival spirit that we need in any dire situation. Victims of violence, if unable to get away when they see the necessity, will do well to take inspiration from Fitzgerald’s drive for survival. I still recommend to get away from the abuse as soon as possible.

Fitzgerald remarked that it was not important when or how she would die, but whether she really lived. Living in an abusive relationship is not really living. Victims live for the abusers and lose themselves bit by bit while existing within the fictional universe that the abuser weaves around them. Even if a victim considers herself to be too old and dependent, it is still well worth leaving an abuser in order to gain personal freedom and truly live.

Remember that leaving an abuser can place the victim most at risk. Most of the women injured and killed by their male abusers were in the process of leaving them or had recently left the abusers. The threat of injury or death should not be enough to stop a victim from leaving. This simply means that she must use her intelligence to escape. Most victims underestimate themselves because of the constant mental assaults abusers purposefully aim at their self esteem. The abuser’s intent is to break the victim down emotionally and make her more susceptible to the moods and whims of the abuser.

Documents can be gathered beforehand and stored with a trusted friend.
Extra clothing and personal belongings such as heirlooms can be stored with a friend too. Children’s documents and medical records should be removed ahead of time, if possible.
Don’t forget to take pets or remove them to a safe location before fleeing. Abusers have been known to kill pets as a threat to victims. Leave no personal records that can be followed. Leave no address book with friends’ or relatives’ addresses because their help may be needed to hide. Leave no important personal information in the home computer or laptop. There are books about how to erase information permanently from a computer. Go to experts for any information you need, whether personally or through reading their books and articles. Seek legal advice if you can afford it, especially when children are involved. Be selective of which friends are told about the situation and only tell them as much as necessary for their help. One information leak to the abuser could cost you your life and the lives of your children in a domestic abuse situation. A talkative person should learn to choose her words carefully to avoid waking any suspicions. The abuser I was with loved to hear the sound of his own voice so that I only had to “agree” with him periodically and could avoid speaking myself lest I say something that would wake suspicions of my plan to leave.

I understand that most victims, once they realize the danger of the situation, may need to flee on the spot. I was forced to stay with the abuser for months until I could escape with the children and so had time to prepare.

Dr. Fitzgerald said that her bout with cancer gave her life color and texture. She lived in remission for about 5 years. Being a victim of abuse does not mean that we live defeated. On the contrary, we who have escaped are finally able to truly live our lives the way we choose to. Having been a victim of abuse I am now stronger and wiser for it. The past abuse is not an anchor to keep me from living, but an engine to drive me on to a better life.

I don’t consider the abuse I suffered to be a kind of cancer. Although it has become part of my experience it is not making me ill any longer. I will not sicken again from it. Support from friends and family as well as counseling and an education will ensure that the negative results of living with an abusive and controlling person will fade away forever. Learning about how to avoid controllers and learning about how I was susceptible to the controlling and abusive situation in the first place will prevent my entering such a relationship in the future. In this respect victims do not need to be repeated victims of abuse. We can learn to spot abusers from afar and avoid intimate relationships with them.

I was touched to read about Dr. Fitzgerald’s fighting spirit. I hope that her story continues to inspire many women and men alike to fight for life and truly live.

Doctor in gripping South Pole rescue dies
Trapped by weather, she treated her own breast cancer

I couldn’t miss getting into this hullaballoo concerning Letterman’s recent comments concerning Sarah Palin’s daughter Willow, who is the same age as my daughter, 14 years old.

Here is a little background at MSNBC. I recommend looking at their video of the interview with Sarah Palin where she does bring up some food for thought concerning the societal effects of comments like Letterman’s.

I do think that he owes an apology to young women across America and anywhere else within earshot of his comments. I agree with Sarah Palin that such comments from ignorant men (and sometimes ignorant women) whittle away at the self esteem of especially young women who are still impressionable about their role in society. Such attitudes have already contributed enough to the abuse of women everywhere.

I regularly educate my daughter and son about the dynamics of abuse, power and control issues. I think that all children and youth need this education early to help prevent their being victims of abuse and help prevent them from becoming abusers. Unfortunately I learned about these things fairly late, in the middle of an abusive relationship where I was a victim and my children were being victimized more and more as well. Children and youth need to be taught logic and rhetoric. They would benefit from learning about the tactics that manipulators and bullies are so fond of using so that they can spot them and deal with them effectively. I wish this sort of thing were taught in schools, but since it is not I have taken over that role to teach it to my children and to others.

David Letterman is most definitely going against my grain with discriminatory comments. I wonder if he enjoys bullying others over the television. If you ask me they should have taken him off the air years ago. His ratings are much lower than other talk shows of the same type. If he made such comments to get higher ratings then that sinks my opinion of him even lower.

It seems to me like Obama and his cohorts are using Diaprax (another word for Hegelian Dialectic) to change the inner machinery of America. If you remember from a previous blog, diaprax is a method of ideologically leading someone where you want them to go using small steps to convince them. If they would know where the path would be leading they would not accept the new ideas. But since they do not know they pick up the ideological bread crumbs bit by bit until they have accepted the new ideology in its entirety. Sotomayor’s nomination for Supreme Court Judge is just one more small step in the direction that a small but consistent group want to push America. Some call them communists, others socialists, yet others democrats.

I do see a pattern in recent history of small but effective pushes in that direction. The public is being primed for the change little by little. Since Obama’s election to the office of the President the media has been taking larger steps to convince the American people that such a change is reasonable and beneficial.

I lived in Europe for about 17 years, first in Germany then in Italy. Some European countries deal better with socialism than with others. In either case sales taxes are around 19%, and income tax can soar to above 50%. Working mothers are often at a strong disadvantage because their honest work puts the family into brutal tax brackets. But how do we know that we will end up with a European-style socialism (which I would much prefer to true communism if I am voted out of living the good American life)? Is that where that small but consistent group wants to lead us? What are their true motives? That is the crux of the problem, I think.

Germany’s democratic socialism seems to have a fairly good balance. Health care is available for all, though the quality of it is sinking. Over the years more and more doctors stopped having their own offices and had to group together to share a secretary and equipment. That was still doable. Appointments were still gotten fairly quickly and examinations did not take much time away from work (earning money to pay taxes). Germany has been debating to drop support of the majority of dental care altogether because it is so expensive. Only the wealthy will have more than rudimentary dental care through secondary private insurances. Unfortunately welfare in Germany has led to the same problems America is experiencing - third generation welfare recipients who have no incentive to get jobs. Germany is now realizing that it cannot afford to support such people.

Italy fared worse in my opinion, especially the mammoth health-care system there. A simple appointment to get a uterine ultrasound ordered by the doctor took two months to get. None of the doctors there have large equipment in their offices, the few machines available are all at the hospitals. Once I was at the appointment at least 20 other women were waiting that had the same appointment time - 10:00 AM. By 1:30 PM I was getting quite nervous since I had to pick the children up from school and would need to leave by 2:00 PM. They let me go ahead of some other women so I would get out on time. Whew! I wonder what the loss of work (and tax money) amounted to that day. Most women in northern Italy where I lived worked long days. They often relied on grandparents to pick up their children from school. Delivering my son’s urine sample took 2 (TWO) hours at the hospital. It was almost free. The waiting room was overfilled with a lot of people that could have been at work.

I got used to waiting in Italy and taking reading material with me everywhere I went. If Obama’s plan goes through I fear that America will become like Italy. Big government hires less workers to serve the people, not more. Hence the long waiting times. Those workers get paid less, not more. I worked in a realty office where nurses would come looking for an apartment because they were hired by the local hospital. Often they were looking to buy a one-room apartment to share with a roomate (Buying in that area was cheaper than renting). How cozy. I am working on my education to become a nurse here in the United States. I have two children to feed. By the time I finish my education I will also have to support my parents - 5 people on one income. How could I do that if I would earn as little as the nurses do in Italy? The nurses work for the government there and big government pays small.

See more material on diaprax. Learn to discern what some are trying to do to this nation. Where will it end? Everyone has a slant to what they say. Do you know what their slant really is? They may be leading you where you would otherwise never agree to go. They may be leading this country where voters would otherwise never go if they knew the final stage of the journey.

In the future 70% of GM worker salaries (and any future bailouts) will be paid by the government (the taxpayers). Remember, big government pays small. Contrary to being in the top echelon of a company, we the people will not get any juicy dividends from GM even if they would make a profit. More likely they will be a money pit (similar to the coal-mining industry in Germany). I am sure that most of us would not consciously buy a house that would be a money pit. But that is exactly what Obama’s government has now done. That is what the hegelian dialectic has already gotten us into. What next? How many fruitless enterprises will we bail out and support until this country is as poor as Argentina, Venezuela or Cuba? On Tuesday, June 2nd, Hugo Chavez joked to Fidel Castro that after Obama gets away with the government takeover of GM, that politically they will be farther to the right than Obama is. Chavez may only have been half joking and half serious.

America isn’t perfect but people here live and thrive much better than most and possibly all countries in the world. We stand to lose that if voters don’t wake up to the fact that they have been exposed to hegelian dialectic. Like a steer with a ring through its nose we are being led down to slaughter step-by-step without knowing. We still have time to refuse to go there.