Tough love (was: Welcome to deb c/reply)

[Guest guest]

Deb wrote, " First, they want you to totally turn your back on your loved

ones with problems. And let the law have their way...<snip>...But the bottom

line was to

dish out cruelty to them. I cannot disown my child. But that is rule #1. "

I remember hearing about Tough Love. It seemed to me that Tough Love was an

excuse for

vindictiveness and abuse.

In my case it is a partner rather than a child that I am dealing with, and at

this point

it is not drugs or alcohol that is the problem behavior. I am grappling with

drawing the

line. At what point do I say, " No more. " ? And to what extent do I let the

person suffer?

On the one hand I am appalled at " the law " and the stupidity of " the law " .

OTOH, I am

sick and tired of being taken advantage of, over and over again, because I am

willing to

spare this person suffering.

I am looking for a middle ground between the cruelty of " Tough Love " ; and being

a sucker

who allows herself to be used repeatedly. I've been absorbing abuse I don't

deserve

because I don't want to come on with " Tough Love " and become an abuser myself.

This is

not right. I'm not doing anybody any good by allowing myself to be used in this

way. My

partner may have to suffer. That does not make me happy. But I cannot go on

indefinitely

being the sponge that quietly soaks up all the pain and misery in order to keep

everyone

else comfortable.

Deb, can you say more?

Regards,

nz

[Guest guest]

> I remember hearing about Tough Love. It seemed to me that Tough Love was

an excuse for

> vindictiveness and abuse.

>

> Deb, can you say more?

>

> Regards,

>

> nz

>

*****Hi, sure. This is based on personal experience and not meant to offend

anyone. First, I'm sorry for the hardship you are facing. As I said

earlier, the 12-steps in it's pure form is beautiful. And so is tough-love,

in it's pure form. The meeting I attended distorted it all with the human

element. I think the key to tough love is " to thy own self be true " . We

cannot allow those with problems to make us their door matts. Whether it be

someone with a drug problem, or a personality flaw, such as selfishness,

etc. Many are adept at emotional blackmail. " I love you if " . True love is

unconditional. No " if " . It takes much practice to become adept at seeing

through emotional blackmail. You have to make decisions slowly. Husband says

" If you love me, you'll allow this abuse " . Well, you know that isn't right.

It offends your integrity and self love. So you say " I love you but will not

allow this abuse. " And then stick to it. Hubby gets mad. Let him. In time

he'll see the light. It's painful to watch him fill with anger perhaps. But

" to thy own self be true. " n. Do not be a martyr. You cannot save him

from his issues. He has to do that himself. We girls are born care-takers.

Society demands it. But you have to draw a line. Things are easily

distorted.

I witnessed how the steppers used the meeting as a sort of approval to dish

out anger and hate, rather than learn that you can indeed love the person

with problems, unconditionally. It isn't easy. . But anger and hate are

deadly weapons and no one wins. No one " gets better " . It only feeds the

fire.

An example would be: (my daughter)

Mom, if you love me, you would pay my car payment.

My reply : I love you. But I will not.

Easy? No way. 12-step brainwashing? No. Just common sense. My " group's "

advice was to throw her out in the street, change the locks and pray she bot

toms out and goes to prison. What kind of plan is that? And what kind of

people think prison is the answer? Other than our Drug Czar! It is not up to

the government to " fix " my personal affairs and I am offended deeply by the

laws and the steppers.

well, I hope I'm not coming across to harsh.

repectfully,deb

[Guest guest]

At 08:16 AM 7/19/01 -0500, you wrote:

>An example would be: (my daughter)

>Mom, if you love me, you would pay my car payment.

>My reply : I love you. But I will not.

>

>Easy? No way. 12-step brainwashing? No. Just common sense. My " group's "

>advice was to throw her out in the street, change the locks and pray she bot

>toms out and goes to prison. What kind of plan is that? And what kind of

>people think prison is the answer? Other than our Drug Czar! It is not up to

>the government to " fix " my personal affairs and I am offended deeply by the

>laws and the steppers.

>

>well, I hope I'm not coming across to harsh.

You're coming across as sane, IMO. It's absurd to throw someone

out of the house for missing a car payment or two.

As you mentioned, a lot of " tough love " advice is actually just plain

mean. A good deal of it is even unethical by my lights.

I was once stuck in some group or other and heard a woman talking

about what she had done to her father. He had called her while

drunk, asking for a ride home from the bar. She agreed to pick him

up -- but after hanging up, she instead called the police and had him

arrested for public intoxication as he stood there waiting for the

ride his daughter had promised him.

The group applauded her refusal to " enable " him. Nobody seemed

to notice the fact that she had lied to him and then betrayed him.

If it had happened before, then I could understand saying " Sorry Dad,

I won't pick you up for the umpteenth time. You're on your own. " But

what she did was to deliberately deceive him in order to try to make

his life as rotten as possible. That is no kind of love, tough or

otherwise. It's a deceitful sneak attack, and it's unethical.

Someone or other once said that one of the benefits of being a

" counsellor " in a program like 12-stepping or " tough love " is that

you get the pleasure of hurting people and still have the

righteous feeling of " doing right. " You can be incredibly nasty to

people and still claim, straight-faced, that you are helping them.

It's thus a very attractive career path for people with a sadistic

streak.

Refusing to be used is one thing. Deliberately trying to make someone

else's life suck is something else again.

[Guest guest]

This was described as "helping her find her bottom." No one present objected. I thought it was disgusting.

<jaw dropped> Is there no end to the inhuman bullshit the recovery movement/War on Drugs will induce in people?

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

I have no kids, I can't imagine what that would be like to discover.

However, I am assured, through my own experience, that being with

people who are in similar situations helps.

Alanon is a safety-tried method, my second sponsor went to Alanon when

her daughter was impregnated at an early age. They offered support.

Sometimes it helps to be with people. Thus saying so, AA is an opportunity

to be with people. As is Alanon. If you or I disagree with their philosophy,

then we will find other methods to cope with our problems.

Usually it always means turning to another person.

[Guest guest]

Every two years we lawyers (in this state, and probably in others)

have to go to a seminar in ethics, professionalism and substance

abuse. Few of these are imaginative, or offer anything new except an

update on the case law. However, about a week ago I attended mine,

and the substance abuse speaker was a woman lawyer who turned her

15-year-old step-daughter in on felony drug charges after searching

her room and finding LSD, having been told that the girl was an

addict.

This was described as " helping her find her bottom. " No one

present objected. I thought it was disgusting.

> >An example would be: (my daughter)

> >Mom, if you love me, you would pay my car payment.

> >My reply : I love you. But I will not.

> >

> >Easy? No way. 12-step brainwashing? No. Just common sense. My

" group's "

> >advice was to throw her out in the street, change the locks and

pray she bot

> >toms out and goes to prison. What kind of plan is that? And what

kind of

> >people think prison is the answer? Other than our Drug Czar! It is

not up to

> >the government to " fix " my personal affairs and I am offended

deeply by the

> >laws and the steppers.

> >

> >well, I hope I'm not coming across to harsh.

>

> You're coming across as sane, IMO. It's absurd to throw someone

> out of the house for missing a car payment or two.

>

> As you mentioned, a lot of " tough love " advice is actually just

plain

> mean. A good deal of it is even unethical by my lights.

>

> I was once stuck in some group or other and heard a woman talking

> about what she had done to her father. He had called her while

> drunk, asking for a ride home from the bar. She agreed to pick him

> up -- but after hanging up, she instead called the police and had

him

> arrested for public intoxication as he stood there waiting for the

> ride his daughter had promised him.

>

> The group applauded her refusal to " enable " him. Nobody seemed

> to notice the fact that she had lied to him and then betrayed him.

> If it had happened before, then I could understand saying " Sorry

Dad,

> I won't pick you up for the umpteenth time. You're on your own. "

But

> what she did was to deliberately deceive him in order to try to make

> his life as rotten as possible. That is no kind of love, tough or

> otherwise. It's a deceitful sneak attack, and it's unethical.

>

> Someone or other once said that one of the benefits of being a

> " counsellor " in a program like 12-stepping or " tough love " is that

> you get the pleasure of hurting people and still have the

> righteous feeling of " doing right. " You can be incredibly nasty to

> people and still claim, straight-faced, that you are helping them.

> It's thus a very attractive career path for people with a sadistic

> streak.

>

> Refusing to be used is one thing. Deliberately trying to make

someone

> else's life suck is something else again.

>

>

[Guest guest]

At 08:42 PM 7/19/01 -0000, kayleighs@... wrote:

>Every two years we lawyers (in this state, and probably in others)

>have to go to a seminar in ethics, professionalism and substance

>abuse. Few of these are imaginative, or offer anything new except an

>update on the case law. However, about a week ago I attended mine,

>and the substance abuse speaker was a woman lawyer who turned her

>15-year-old step-daughter in on felony drug charges after searching

>her room and finding LSD, having been told that the girl was an

>addict.

>

>This was described as " helping her find her bottom. " No one

>present objected. I thought it was disgusting.

What kept you from speaking up? I can imagine why you didn't but

I'd like to hear it from you.

----------

http://listen.to/benbradley

[Guest guest]

What kept me from speaking up:

1. It was almost time to leave, and this state is draconian about

times, breaks, etc. for credits.

2. It wouldn't have helped. Most people there didn't know what she

was talking about (confirmed by whispers in the audience).

3. I didn't want to start an argument that I would be bound to lose.

4. It would have been off-topic in a seminar about recognizing and

treating substance abuse in lawyers.

5. She was extremely knowledgeable about a number of things regarding

drugs and adolescents that I have since confirmed. Why would anyone

believe she was wrong about the " bottom " ?

6. She makes more money than I do, hence is more likely to be right --

no?

7. She is a recognized lecturer and specialist (WHY?) on this subject

all over the state.

You can criticize each and every one of these criteria, but those are

the reasons.

> >Every two years we lawyers (in this state, and probably in others)

> >have to go to a seminar in ethics, professionalism and substance

> >abuse. Few of these are imaginative, or offer anything new except

an

> >update on the case law. However, about a week ago I attended mine,

> >and the substance abuse speaker was a woman lawyer who turned her

> >15-year-old step-daughter in on felony drug charges after searching

> >her room and finding LSD, having been told that the girl was an

> >addict.

> >

> >This was described as " helping her find her bottom. " No one

> >present objected. I thought it was disgusting.

>

> What kept you from speaking up? I can imagine why you didn't but

> I'd like to hear it from you.

>

> ----------

> http://listen.to/benbradley

[Guest guest]

My former sponsor testified against his own son for burgling the

family home. The odd thing about this is that at another time he

parodied judges silly enough to sentence addicts who had a disease.

Of course, what he wanted was 12-step coercion. He acknowledged that

that would haul in " some " non-addicts but so what.

P.

> Every two years we lawyers (in this state, and probably in others)

> have to go to a seminar in ethics, professionalism and substance

> abuse. Few of these are imaginative, or offer anything new except

an

> update on the case law. However, about a week ago I attended mine,

> and the substance abuse speaker was a woman lawyer who turned her

> 15-year-old step-daughter in on felony drug charges after searching

> her room and finding LSD, having been told that the girl was an

> addict.

>

> This was described as " helping her find her bottom. " No one

> present objected. I thought it was disgusting.

[Guest guest]

Unlike most people, I love lawyers. I think lawyers are terrific

people... I guess that is just another thing that separates me from

the normal ilk. But I must say that lady was one fucked up person

(or more technically - brainwashed cult member), lawyer or not.

> In a message dated 7/19/01 1:54:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

> kayleighs@m... writes:

>

>

> > This was described as " helping her find her bottom. " No one

> > present objected. I thought it was disgusting.

> >

>

> <jaw dropped> Is there no end to the inhuman bullshit the recovery

> movement/War on Drugs will induce in people?

>

> --Mona--

[Guest guest]

But as Ken said, these people that needy people turn to are actually

wolves in sheeps clothing.

> I have no kids, I can't imagine what that would be like to discover.

>

> However, I am assured, through my own experience, that being with

> people who are in similar situations helps.

>

> Alanon is a safety-tried method, my second sponsor went to Alanon

when

> her daughter was impregnated at an early age. They offered

support.

>

> Sometimes it helps to be with people. Thus saying so, AA is an

opportunity

> to be with people. As is Alanon. If you or I disagree with their

philosophy,

> then we will find other methods to cope with our problems.

>

> Usually it always means turning to another person.

[Guest guest]

The hitch here is that the lady lawyer (LL) was told about her

daughter's addiction by a former supreme court justice (SJ) when they

were having lunch together once. Now the SJ is a partner in a fairly

prestigious law firm, and one fails to listen to him at one's peril.

The LL knew nothing whatsoever about drugs or addiction before this

revelation, and certainly had no reason to question what she heard or

how he advised her. Especially after what she found in her daughter's

bedroom. The SJ has been a publicly open member of AA for years, has

received many public honors for his work against addiction. He's a

terribly nice guy, will go out of his way for anyone he knows who's in

the program or trying to stop drinking. Moreover, he believes what he

says from his scalp down to his toenails. Someone who believes what

they urge are usually better at advocacy than are those who don't. So

I think we can assume that what he said to her was very persuasive.

The LL admits, however, that at first the 8th step pissed her off a

lot ( " I'm not the addict! " ) but that she's managed to keep that under

control in recent years.

> > In a message dated 7/19/01 1:54:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

> > kayleighs@m... writes:

> >

> >

> > > This was described as " helping her find her bottom. " No one

> > > present objected. I thought it was disgusting.

> > >

> >

> > <jaw dropped> Is there no end to the inhuman bullshit the

recovery

> > movement/War on Drugs will induce in people?

> >

> > --Mona--