Re: Nada's enduring insistence on delusion

[Guest guest]

Yes,certainly enough serious clinical research hasn't been done into the

extremely damaging nature of the ways BPDs perceive and relate to their own

children.The behaviors are much much more intense in this,the most intimate of

all relationships.It is not the same as their " pervasive " dysfunction with the

rest of the world,it's much more focused.And a child is chattel to this

disorder.

>

> Oh yes, I totally buy what you're getting at RE your mother's relationship

with her own mother, and how your mother then wanted to turn you into her

mother. My nada too believed that her own mother neglected her and preferred

her older sister, even though my grandmother never evidenced any behaviors of

that kind to my knowledge. My perception was that my granny treated all of us

alike, and she loved all of us.

>

> I've noticed too that at least for a while and to one degree or another, some

new mothers are " smitten " with their baby. They literally fall in love with

their little one, and I think that must be what's supposed to happen, because

the people I've noticed doing this are mentally healthy themselves, and are

raising mentally healthy kids.

>

> Its got to be a balancing act, though, seems to me. A healthy middle ground

must be reached at some point because remaining in that " smitten " state

indefinitely could lead to overindulging and spoiling the child, and we know

firsthand what the other extreme is: rejecting the child altogether ( " its not my

baby " , or " the baby hates me " ) which leads to neglect and abuse and/or the weird

tact of turning the infant into one's own parent.

>

> To me, the underlying dysfunction is that the personality-disordered mother is

incapable of relating to her child as simply another separate and unique human

being. The baby of the bpd mother is, instead:

>

> a changeling

> (not her own child, a horrible mistake, not perfect, etc.)

>

> a tiny reflection of her own self

> (the child will not be allowed any individuality, because he or she is a mere

appendage of nada that has no will or mind of its own)

>

> a reincarnation of someone she hates

> (who deserves to be punished forever)

>

> a reincarnation of someone she loves

> (who deserves to be treated like a king or queen)

>

> an object put here for her use

> (a pet, a slave, a disposable wipe,

> a potential source of income/ fame/attention/status, or

> her own parent: someone trained to care for her like a parent, etc.)

>

> One reason why we are struggling so with having had or still having a mother

(or father) with bpd is that often its just one individual child that is

targeted for mistreatment, or one set of people. I don't think the psychiatric

definitions of mental illness even describes that dynamic under " personality

disorder " . Instead, the definition of pd is that the behaviors are " pervasive " ,

meaning, all the time, and to many people. (Right?)

>

> I'm leaning more and more toward the theory that the Cluster B disorders are

really just varying degrees of severity and frequency of psychopathy. That's

the only thing that seems to explain, to me anyway, this ability of our nadas to

seem normal to other people but they just do these horrible things to us, in

private.

>

> -Annie

[Guest guest]

This is where I wonder if borderlines can take on some psychosis. I wonder if

they truly believe the child is trying to torment them or if this is just

another excuse they have to treat their child like sh**.

Sometimes I think my mother reveled in just being mean. As in, she took her

frustrations and hate of her own self out on me. Because she couldn't stand

herselef and no one else could stand her, she used me as her verbal punching

bag.

[Guest guest]

Oh - she tried to drown you. Good God.

Annie, I love your analysis. You should publish it. I was the first one and

the last one both.

>

>

>

> This is where I wonder if borderlines can take on some psychosis. I wonder

> if they truly believe the child is trying to torment them or if this is just

> another excuse they have to treat their child like sh**.

>

> Sometimes I think my mother reveled in just being mean. As in, she took her

> frustrations and hate of her own self out on me. Because she couldn't stand

> herselef and no one else could stand her, she used me as her verbal punching

> bag.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Yep, I'm willing to bet there is more than one reason why a

personality-disordered parent would mistreat his or her kids, or target one

child for abuse. There does seem to be a sense of entitlement involved.

Philosophically speaking, how can individual " A " hope to comprehend individual

" B " 's true, underlying motivations, when individual " B " may not even be

consciously aware of his or her real motivations, herself? That's where a

psychiatrist's skill and training comes in, helping " B " to explore her

subconscious and perhaps ferret out clues and threads of possibilities, sort of

like a detective solving a mystery.

But getting back to your original point, I do think that while bpd diagnostic

trait #9: " Transient, stress-related paranoid ideation (thoughts), delusions or

severe dissociative symptoms " isn't *precisely* the same thing as a psychotic

break (its pretty damned close though; true psychosis involves hallucinations,

if I understand correctly), still, it OUGHT to preclude someone with that

symptom from raising children, wouldn't you think?

In fact, if you read through all nine of the diagnostic traits for bpd, how

could anyone in their right mind think that its OK to leave a child with

somebody who has those symptoms?

That's the part I just don't understand, truly. (I'm in a permanent state of

WTF!? shock over this, frankly.) If bpd is the " severe mental illness " that the

National Institute of Mental Health says it is, how then is it that infants are

routinely just left in the care of a severely mentally ill person, at all?

It. Doesn't. Make. Sense!!!

-Annie

>

>

> This is where I wonder if borderlines can take on some psychosis. I wonder if

they truly believe the child is trying to torment them or if this is just

another excuse they have to treat their child like sh**.

>

> Sometimes I think my mother reveled in just being mean. As in, she took her

frustrations and hate of her own self out on me. Because she couldn't stand

herselef and no one else could stand her, she used me as her verbal punching

bag.

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Well,,a child abuse lobby with TEETH would naturally have to be well

funded,otherwise it would never work.And procuring such funds would have to

entail convincing individual sponsors and entities that it would be in their

best interests to do so.NOT by appealing to their charitable impulses but by

engineering adverse economic or political consequences that would effect them or

their business or reputation/seat in Congress the Senate if they were perceived

by the public as hostile to protecting American children from abuse,once said

public had been won over to the view that the future prosperity of the nation is

at stake if something isn't done.I'm envisaging a scenario where politicians and

business leaders wouldn't dare thumb their noses at such a child abuse lobby

because to do so would cost them both votes and business.Where publically

supporting the agenda of such a child abuse lobby would increase *their*

political/economic capital.Where Joe and Jane Public have been carefully taught

to identify their own personal interests with keeping children protected and

safeguarding their futures and will take that perception right with them to the

ballot box when they vote for their leaders and carry it with them in their

pocketbooks and wallets when they choose where to shop.

As it stands right now,you are right: children are mere pawns and

paupers.Protecting children from abuse *can* be transformed into a moral,and yes

money making,imperative.

It hasn't been done yet but many successful campaigns started out from

nothing and with considerable public prejudice weighing against them--the Civil

Rights movement and the ACT UP/AIDS movement come especially to mind.It wouldn't

happen over night but I can see how a many pronged propaganda campaign could be

launched from the initial basis of a non profit--it would need to be very

vocal,organized and ambitious though.

An " Angels in America " or " Raisin In The Sun " or " Diary of Anne "

child abuse equivalent public attention grabber on Broadway would certainly go a

long ways towards attracting widespread public interest in the issue.The cause

needs to have a raison d'etre that seizes the public imagination and so far that

hasn't happened--I mean,can you think of a book or movie or play about child

abuse that has really made the public stand up and take notice/care/feel

involved/inspired to lend support...that has actually changed or affected

minds,as the above plays did? I agree that something like that is very much

needed,but even then,the success of those plays didn't occur in a vaccuum--some

groundwork had already been laid.

Philanthropists poney up funds when a cause gets itself in bright lights

on the marquee like on Broadway,that is true.

>

> " I believe personally that what is required here is a massive child

>

> abuse awareness propaganda campaign.Yes,I said propaganda.I'm fascinated with

>

> propaganda campaigns that failed--such as feminism--and why they failed...and

>

> with ones that worked,Israel being perceived as a sympathetic nation state

being

>

> the best example in my opinion.There is ALOT to learn from cases of both

success

>

> and failure.An isolated authority such as the APA making best practices

>

> recommendations isn't going to turn the tide,but hearts and minds can be won

and

>

> brought over with a carefully orchestrated campaign.Sorry to sound so cynical

>

> but simply appealing to reason with the public mind seems never to work.And

>

> changing minds is not something that can be done over night.

>

>

>

> We need a child abuse lobby in Washington that has TEETH. "

>

>

>

> Uh, no. We need a child abuse lobby in Washington that has MONEY.

>

> In this nation, nothing gets done unless it makes an unthinkably rich and

powerful person even more rich and even more powerful. Children, of course, are

poor and weak, and the people trying to help them aren't rich, either, so, no,

not a chance they'll ever be heard in Washington. Protecting kids from abuse

can't be transformed into a multi-billion dollar industry like, say, cigarettes,

fashion, or fast food. If it could, it makes my head swim to think how fast

things would change!!

>

> What's needed is a book and/or a hit movie.

>

> Well...it would help, at least...

>

> --LL.

>

[Guest guest]

My mother used to say that I was possessed, that I was evil, and so on. I used

to think " I wish I was. then I might have the power to teach you a lesson " . She

had a mole on one hand and said once that it was a sign from the devil that she

was supposed to rule the world.

Through my childhood mum would get involved with lots of religions. I think I

was baptised about 5 times, all in different religions. Lots of home bible study

with people to teach us kids not to be so " sinful and disobedient " . From

baptists, to JWs, to Catholic, Christian, wierd sects, etc. When I turned 13 I

had a huge fight with her, refusing to go to any churches anymore. I cant stand

religions now.

I think it is interesting how someone mentioned that most mothers get very

attached to their babies and feel love for them - certainly doesnt seem to

happen with BP mothers. I dont think mum was ever attached to any of her

children. She has said mant times that she got pregnant the first time by

accident, the second she doesnt mention, and the third because her new husband

wanted kids. She never talks about pregnancy, birth, or being a mother of young

kids - that time of her life is never really mentioned. There are no photos of

any of us kids other than ones taken by others. She talks to friends a lot about

her life between husbands, and jobs she had etc, things she has done in her

life, but never about her kids when they were little. Ever.

Makes me wonder what the hell was going on...

>

> Hi ,

>

> One of the things nada told me that day was that when I was a baby I

could keep a completely straight,blank face like I was fine while causing my

crying to resound amplified at a very high volume in *her* head.

>

> That did it for me--I told her outright that this was impossible.She

insisted: No,no,you really did.That was the way you were.

>

> Then to " prove " her point she told me that until I was about six

months old she couldn't decide if I was in fact demonic or divine,so one day to

test this when I was about six months old she let go of me while she was giving

me a bath and let me slip beneath the water to see if I would " rise " .If I

rose,that would be evidence,according to her,that I was divinely blessed.If I

sank and stayed down,that would be evidence of " heavy demonic forces " .

>

> According to her,I rose: I got my nose and mouth up above the water

level and continued to breathe.She " knew " then that God had entrusted her with a

mission to raise me.And that,she said,was the " reason " why she was telling me

now,that day.Because often she had questioned this,questioned God,but now she

believed it for sure.

>

> At the time I was planning on applying for a Fullbright grant to do

a linguistics project in Papua New Guinea--I felt under pressure from some of my

professors to perform because my ideas for the project had been so well received

and I felt like I was expected to be like the next Margaret Mead,but was very

worried that my perceptions of their expectations were messed up and also very

worried that I was going to cave under the pressure.My friends at the time were

all gung ho about me possibly getting the Fullbright and sort of envious of the

attention I had gotten,so they weren't much help.I needed a parent to sit down

with me and help me to flesh out whether or not proceeding was really in my best

interests,or to just reassure me that even if I decided to take a break to clear

my head and gave up the Fullbright that they'd support me and love me anyway.

>

> Instead what I got was nada telling me that crazy shit.It totally added

to the pressure and to the feeling that I couldn't cope.The only good thing was

that when she told me that I realized that the weird lurking presence I felt was

always hanging over me wasn't coming from me: it was from my infancy,it was

*her*.It had always felt like there was some *thing* that was going to rear up

and get me--which felt really crazy and it tormented me because I knew it was

crazy--so when she told me that I understood where it had come from.She was that

thing!

>

> I didn't apply for the Fullbright.My professors were disappointed in

me: " I don't understand why you would pass up such an opportunity " ... " I'm very

sorry to hear you won't even apply,I think you would have got it but you don't

even want to try? " ... " You know,the world needs people like you,it's always a

shame when people like you refuse to believe in themselves because that does

amount to a shirking of their responsibilities " --that last one kept echoing in

my head for a long time like this searing condemnation of me,but...I think I

made the right decision for myself---because if going to Papua New Guinea was

all I had to worry about; if positioning myself as some rising star of academia

was all I had to worry about,ok maybe I would have been a slacker to not even

try.But I had so much more going on and wasn't getting any understanding from

*anybody*.Just all this pressure,as I perceived it,to perform.And a nada telling

me that she had nearly killed me to see if I was divinely blessed.

>

> Sorry to ramble on like that.But,yeah,the gist is that I did try to

call her on it and she upted the ante and successfully freaked me out.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi , OMG....your nada admitted to you that she essentially tried to

kill you as a baby. OMG. Did she understand that? that her little " witch

test " was essentially a passive attempted murder???? I don't know how you

managed to survive being raised by her but I hope you give yourself credit every

single day for your accomplishments big and little both. What she said about

holding you responsible for her auditory hallucinations make me wonder - was

there any chance she was schizophrenic? I don't know a lot about that disorder

but I think they are the ones who have trouble with their perception of reality

the most.

Also it's such a shame that she derailed your Fullbright application with her

crazy confessions. Looks like she timed sharing that doozy till when it could

do great damage in costing you opportunity. I had a few big opportunities as

well when I was still under my nada's roof and just the sheer influence and

strain of the relationship always added another obstacle. Sometimes an obstacle

so big that I didn't even try. I look back on many of the opportunities I

threw away or didn't even think to try for because I had *zero* sane guidance

and it is a source of grief given my life is derailed now. Your professors who

judged you not applying could not have conceived of what you were dealing with.

About that influence, that feeling of something, that lurking negativity,

waiting to sabotage your happiness I can relate. I think it is one of the most

painful revelations when it finally becomes clear where that feeling comes from.

May we give ourselves the compassion we deserved back then and fly free today.

>

> Hi ,

>

> One of the things nada told me that day was that when I was a baby I

could keep a completely straight,blank face like I was fine while causing my

crying to resound amplified at a very high volume in *her* head.

>

> That did it for me--I told her outright that this was impossible.She

insisted: No,no,you really did.That was the way you were.

>

> Then to " prove " her point she told me that until I was about six

months old she couldn't decide if I was in fact demonic or divine,so one day to

test this when I was about six months old she let go of me while she was giving

me a bath and let me slip beneath the water to see if I would " rise " .If I

rose,that would be evidence,according to her,that I was divinely blessed.If I

sank and stayed down,that would be evidence of " heavy demonic forces " .

>

> According to her,I rose: I got my nose and mouth up above the water

level and continued to breathe.She " knew " then that God had entrusted her with a

mission to raise me.And that,she said,was the " reason " why she was telling me

now,that day.Because often she had questioned this,questioned God,but now she

believed it for sure.

>

> At the time I was planning on applying for a Fullbright grant to do

a linguistics project in Papua New Guinea--I felt under pressure from some of my

professors to perform because my ideas for the project had been so well received

and I felt like I was expected to be like the next Margaret Mead,but was very

worried that my perceptions of their expectations were messed up and also very

worried that I was going to cave under the pressure.My friends at the time were

all gung ho about me possibly getting the Fullbright and sort of envious of the

attention I had gotten,so they weren't much help.I needed a parent to sit down

with me and help me to flesh out whether or not proceeding was really in my best

interests,or to just reassure me that even if I decided to take a break to clear

my head and gave up the Fullbright that they'd support me and love me anyway.

>

> Instead what I got was nada telling me that crazy shit.It totally added

to the pressure and to the feeling that I couldn't cope.The only good thing was

that when she told me that I realized that the weird lurking presence I felt was

always hanging over me wasn't coming from me: it was from my infancy,it was

*her*.It had always felt like there was some *thing* that was going to rear up

and get me--which felt really crazy and it tormented me because I knew it was

crazy--so when she told me that I understood where it had come from.She was that

thing!

>

> I didn't apply for the Fullbright.My professors were disappointed in

me: " I don't understand why you would pass up such an opportunity " ... " I'm very

sorry to hear you won't even apply,I think you would have got it but you don't

even want to try? " ... " You know,the world needs people like you,it's always a

shame when people like you refuse to believe in themselves because that does

amount to a shirking of their responsibilities " --that last one kept echoing in

my head for a long time like this searing condemnation of me,but...I think I

made the right decision for myself---because if going to Papua New Guinea was

all I had to worry about; if positioning myself as some rising star of academia

was all I had to worry about,ok maybe I would have been a slacker to not even

try.But I had so much more going on and wasn't getting any understanding from

*anybody*.Just all this pressure,as I perceived it,to perform.And a nada telling

me that she had nearly killed me to see if I was divinely blessed.

>

> Sorry to ramble on like that.But,yeah,the gist is that I did try to

call her on it and she upted the ante and successfully freaked me out.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

,

OMG, I can't believe what I am reading. This woman was truly insane.

You are a real walking miracle. I think you are a very special person to have

ended up the mature, reflective person of integrity that you are, despite having

grown up like this.

Your very life is a triumph.

--.

*this post has been trimmed*

[Guest guest]

Where Joe and Jane Public have been carefully taught to identify their own

personal interests with keeping children protected and safeguarding their

futures and will take that perception right with them to the ballot box when

they vote for their leaders and carry it with them in their pocketbooks and

wallets when they choose where to shop.

>

> As it stands right now,you are right: children are mere pawns and

paupers.Protecting children from abuse *can* be transformed into a moral,and yes

money making,imperative.

Hmmm. Theoretically, you are right.

However, the level of education of the general public about what mental illness

is, what people who have it look like and act like, and the effect it has on

children would have to go way, way up. And that's not going to be at *all*

easy.

It's very easy and simple to flash, say, a half-naked young female body in front

of people and in ten seconds promote ideas that are bad for society and bad for

people, but look at the posts that abound here from people who can't get it

across, one-on-one, with the flying monkeys? And we're talking people who are

dealing, carefully and one on one, with other significant people in their lives;

people who are highly motivated to get across what it is they are going through

and what really happened in their FOO's.

Mental illness has a million zillion tiny subtleties, twists, turns; it doesn't

look at all on the inside the way it usually looks to others on the outside.

And, as with the example of cheap, sleazy advertising and music videos, people

believe the surfaces their own eyes see, and then it's impossible to interest or

teach them because they already think they know it all. So it's a wonderful

goal to have, but realistically...tough, tough, tough, tough.

>

> It hasn't been done yet but many successful campaigns started out from

nothing and with considerable public prejudice weighing against them--the Civil

Rights movement and the ACT UP/AIDS movement come especially to mind.It wouldn't

happen over night but I can see how a many pronged propaganda campaign could be

launched from the initial basis of a non profit--it would need to be very

vocal,organized and ambitious though.

Compared to the Civil Rights movement, we'd have it many times tougher. All the

Civil Rights movement had to do was to get a certain number of whites to imagine

how they'd feel subjected to obvious subjugation and often physical abuse by

complete strangers in public, on a systematic basis. In the case of child abuse

by mentally ill nadas...well, everybody in here knows what we're up against. I

mean, we've already had " Mommie Dearest, " and look how people treated

Crawford.

>

> An " Angels in America " or " Raisin In The Sun " or " Diary of Anne "

child abuse equivalent public attention grabber on Broadway would certainly go a

long ways towards attracting widespread public interest in the issue.The cause

needs to have a raison d'etre that seizes the public imagination and so far that

hasn't happened--I mean,can you think of a book or movie or play about child

abuse that has really made the public stand up and take notice/care/feel

involved/inspired to lend support...that has actually changed or affected

minds,as the above plays did? I agree that something like that is very much

needed,but even then,the success of those plays didn't occur in a vaccuum--some

groundwork had already been laid.

>

> Philanthropists poney up funds when a cause gets itself in bright lights

on the marquee like on Broadway,that is true.

Well...I'm trying to write one, but having seen how the book publishing business

works up close and personal for ten years now, I have very little hope, indeed.

*shrugs*

We just have to do the work anyway.

--LL.

*this post has been trimmed*

[Guest guest]

You should write it.

It would be an excellent book.

--LL.

*this post has been trimmed*

[Guest guest]

Thank you,,that is very kind of you

--

>

> ,

>

> OMG, I can't believe what I am reading. This woman was truly insane.

>

> You are a real walking miracle. I think you are a very special person to have

ended up the mature, reflective person of integrity that you are, despite having

grown up like this.

>

> Your very life is a triumph.

>

> --.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> *this post has been trimmed*

>

[Guest guest]

,I don't disagree with anything you have said here--for sure,it's a tough

challenge.

I'm so grateful to Crawford for giving us such a detailed

characterization of a Queen BPD.I've heard that she suffered a sort of stroke

after the publication of " Mommie Dearest " because she wasn't expecting the

opprobrium she received from both her mother's supporters and some elements of

the public; she thought that telling her story would be enough to have it be

heard but that wasn't what happened.

And the " no wire hangers! " scene has sort of entered the popular lexicon as

humorous horror schtick with near to zero appreciation of it as *child abuse*.

Dickens wrote many novels that were intended as social

commentary/criticism of the abuses of n Industrial society--yet his most

popular enduring work is " A Christmas Carol " ,a story that caters to the public's

vanity with its theme of " divine " intervention leading to justice for the

downtrodden and the mending of the ways of the selfish/exploitative.

There are lessons to be gleaned from how the public appropriates such

books to service their own egos--or maligns or merely amuses itself like what

happened to Crawford.Asking people to assume the responsibility of

*witness* for its own sake never seems to work.They have to feel that they have

a personal stake in overcoming the injustice.

>

> Where Joe and Jane Public have been carefully taught to identify their own

personal interests with keeping children protected and safeguarding their

futures and will take that perception right with them to the ballot box when

they vote for their leaders and carry it with them in their pocketbooks and

wallets when they choose where to shop.

> >

> > As it stands right now,you are right: children are mere pawns and

paupers.Protecting children from abuse *can* be transformed into a moral,and yes

money making,imperative.

>

>

> Hmmm. Theoretically, you are right.

>

> However, the level of education of the general public about what mental

illness is, what people who have it look like and act like, and the effect it

has on children would have to go way, way up. And that's not going to be at

*all* easy.

>

> It's very easy and simple to flash, say, a half-naked young female body in

front of people and in ten seconds promote ideas that are bad for society and

bad for people, but look at the posts that abound here from people who can't get

it across, one-on-one, with the flying monkeys? And we're talking people who

are dealing, carefully and one on one, with other significant people in their

lives; people who are highly motivated to get across what it is they are going

through and what really happened in their FOO's.

>

> Mental illness has a million zillion tiny subtleties, twists, turns; it

doesn't look at all on the inside the way it usually looks to others on the

outside. And, as with the example of cheap, sleazy advertising and music

videos, people believe the surfaces their own eyes see, and then it's impossible

to interest or teach them because they already think they know it all. So it's

a wonderful goal to have, but realistically...tough, tough, tough, tough.

>

>

>

> >

> > It hasn't been done yet but many successful campaigns started out

from nothing and with considerable public prejudice weighing against them--the

Civil Rights movement and the ACT UP/AIDS movement come especially to mind.It

wouldn't happen over night but I can see how a many pronged propaganda campaign

could be launched from the initial basis of a non profit--it would need to be

very vocal,organized and ambitious though.

>

>

> Compared to the Civil Rights movement, we'd have it many times tougher. All

the Civil Rights movement had to do was to get a certain number of whites to

imagine how they'd feel subjected to obvious subjugation and often physical

abuse by complete strangers in public, on a systematic basis. In the case of

child abuse by mentally ill nadas...well, everybody in here knows what we're up

against. I mean, we've already had " Mommie Dearest, " and look how people

treated Crawford.

>

>

> >

> > An " Angels in America " or " Raisin In The Sun " or " Diary of Anne "

child abuse equivalent public attention grabber on Broadway would certainly go a

long ways towards attracting widespread public interest in the issue.The cause

needs to have a raison d'etre that seizes the public imagination and so far that

hasn't happened--I mean,can you think of a book or movie or play about child

abuse that has really made the public stand up and take notice/care/feel

involved/inspired to lend support...that has actually changed or affected

minds,as the above plays did? I agree that something like that is very much

needed,but even then,the success of those plays didn't occur in a vaccuum--some

groundwork had already been laid.

> >

> > Philanthropists poney up funds when a cause gets itself in bright

lights on the marquee like on Broadway,that is true.

>

>

> Well...I'm trying to write one, but having seen how the book publishing

business works up close and personal for ten years now, I have very little hope,

indeed.

>

> *shrugs*

>

> We just have to do the work anyway.

>

> --LL.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> *this post has been trimmed*

>

[Guest guest]

I think that an effort to make the public aware of how mentally ill parents

negatively impact their children (and society) which seems to me to be the same

thing as gaining civil rights/equal rights for children (such as the right to

petition for a " divorce " from abusive, mentally ill parents) would be about the

same degree of difficulty that it was to gain women's and black people's equal

rights/civil rights: there was no incentive for the existing power structure to

agree to grant those rights and they fought it; the eventual victory took

decades and generations to accomplish.

If I remember my history correctly (somebody correct me if I'm wrong, here,

please) I think that the child labor laws got passed not because it was the

right thing to do, but because the big labor unions got behind it. They didn't

want cheap child labor as competition. But even so, the right thing got done

anyway and child labor laws were passed preventing children from working in

hideous, dangerous mines and factories for 10 hours a day for practically

nothing, and instead, children were required to be sent to school. (Talk about

parents exploiting their children: sending their little 7 or 8 year olds and up

to work in a mine or in a factory for 10 hours a day. Amazing.)

I'm not sure but to this day I do not think that child labor laws apply to

farm/agricultural work. I'd have to do some research, but I think farmers were

exempt because farm work was considered to be " healthy " and the kids could go to

school in the fall/winter. I think that's why the new school year begins in the

fall, after harvest, when the kids are no longer needed as farm hands.)

Anyway, a cohesive, relentless, organized movement involving decades and

generations of work by dedicated members is what it takes to create change in

our culture and society, and to create changes that involve human rights. And

it takes money.

-Annie

>

> Where Joe and Jane Public have been carefully taught to identify their own

personal interests with keeping children protected and safeguarding their

futures and will take that perception right with them to the ballot box when

they vote for their leaders and carry it with them in their pocketbooks and

wallets when they choose where to shop.

> >

> > As it stands right now,you are right: children are mere pawns and

paupers.Protecting children from abuse *can* be transformed into a moral,and yes

money making,imperative.

>

>

> Hmmm. Theoretically, you are right.

>

> However, the level of education of the general public about what mental

illness is, what people who have it look like and act like, and the effect it

has on children would have to go way, way up. And that's not going to be at

*all* easy.

>

> It's very easy and simple to flash, say, a half-naked young female body in

front of people and in ten seconds promote ideas that are bad for society and

bad for people, but look at the posts that abound here from people who can't get

it across, one-on-one, with the flying monkeys? And we're talking people who

are dealing, carefully and one on one, with other significant people in their

lives; people who are highly motivated to get across what it is they are going

through and what really happened in their FOO's.

>

> Mental illness has a million zillion tiny subtleties, twists, turns; it

doesn't look at all on the inside the way it usually looks to others on the

outside. And, as with the example of cheap, sleazy advertising and music

videos, people believe the surfaces their own eyes see, and then it's impossible

to interest or teach them because they already think they know it all. So it's

a wonderful goal to have, but realistically...tough, tough, tough, tough.

>

>

>

> >

> > It hasn't been done yet but many successful campaigns started out

from nothing and with considerable public prejudice weighing against them--the

Civil Rights movement and the ACT UP/AIDS movement come especially to mind.It

wouldn't happen over night but I can see how a many pronged propaganda campaign

could be launched from the initial basis of a non profit--it would need to be

very vocal,organized and ambitious though.

>

>

> Compared to the Civil Rights movement, we'd have it many times tougher. All

the Civil Rights movement had to do was to get a certain number of whites to

imagine how they'd feel subjected to obvious subjugation and often physical

abuse by complete strangers in public, on a systematic basis. In the case of

child abuse by mentally ill nadas...well, everybody in here knows what we're up

against. I mean, we've already had " Mommie Dearest, " and look how people

treated Crawford.

>

>

> >

> > An " Angels in America " or " Raisin In The Sun " or " Diary of Anne "

child abuse equivalent public attention grabber on Broadway would certainly go a

long ways towards attracting widespread public interest in the issue.The cause

needs to have a raison d'etre that seizes the public imagination and so far that

hasn't happened--I mean,can you think of a book or movie or play about child

abuse that has really made the public stand up and take notice/care/feel

involved/inspired to lend support...that has actually changed or affected

minds,as the above plays did? I agree that something like that is very much

needed,but even then,the success of those plays didn't occur in a vaccuum--some

groundwork had already been laid.

> >

> > Philanthropists poney up funds when a cause gets itself in bright

lights on the marquee like on Broadway,that is true.

>

>

> Well...I'm trying to write one, but having seen how the book publishing

business works up close and personal for ten years now, I have very little hope,

indeed.

>

> *shrugs*

>

> We just have to do the work anyway.

>

> --LL.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> *this post has been trimmed*

>

[Guest guest]

Yeah...good points.

The problem is, how do you make it *profitable* to spare children and give them

a happy, wholesome childhood? Because it's unhappy people who spend the most

money in society.

Who overeats the most? Chronically unhappy, lonely people. People with tough

childhoods, who became compulsive eaters (*raises hand and waves it around.)

Fast food places and diet and exercise companies are making money off these

people.

Who overspends on consumer goods? Who makes unwise decisions about credit? Who

buys more than they can afford? People who weren't taught better; people who

are chronically unhappy, and usually that springs right from good ol' childhood.

Credit card companies, clothing manufacturers, pretty much anybody who sells

" stuff " benefits from the need to look perfect on the outside and distract

themselves from internal pain that comes from child abuse.

In doing something like this, you have to get society to forego quick profit in

the now in favor of overall benefit to society in a generation or two.

Not something we as a people are very good at.

I'm not saying it can't or shouldn't be done, it's just...have you looked at

music videos lately, advertising, magazines, and TV? Nobody out there in

corporate America really has our best interest at heart.

Ugh. We're up against a lot.

--.

*this post has been trimmed*

[Guest guest]

Kinda,I wish I had this all fleshed out and plotted on a course...but...We can

brainstorm for now,right?

What do unhappy people all have in common? A sense of powerlessness.I'd

envision a successful campaign that funds itself in part from public support as

making it easier for people not to feel so damned powerless--that their

contributions make a difference without demanding too much intellectual

investment.

More of a feel good campaign in terms of involvement from the general

public,kind of like what the Muscular Dystrophy Association does with their tv

marathons--donate ten dollars and feel as if you've done something good.

The problem with social revolutions is that they tend to require a

" demon " to agitate against--and in our case demonizing " mentally ill parents "

isn't very ethical.I wouldn't want the offspring of the mentally ill to become

yet another marketplace commodity,like with adoption agencies taking up the

slack that CPS can't manage if the public ever did indeed demand redress of the

problem of children being abandoned to the predations of being raised by PD

parents and demanded their removal from such homes.There would need to be a

system in place to thwart potentionally exploitative entities--as it stands

right now these entities do exist in the developing world where the adoption

industry is a money maker,particularly in Ethiopia and Samoa where the children

offered for adoption often aren't " orphans " at all but simply come from

disadvantaged families.It would be a nightmare if something like that happened

on a wide scale here.

I was thinking: Make it politically unprofitable for politicians who

refuse to vote for child advocacy matters by making it,over time with an

awareness campaign,easy for voters to reject such politicians because it gives

them a sense of power and a sense of rightness to do so.It wouldn't cost them

any money but it would make them feel better about themselves.

What angle to take with an awareness campaign would be the

question.That's where it can get pretty cynical.I think that a " War on child

abuse " campaign along the lines of the 1980's " War on drugs " campaign that was

really only intended to distract the public from the machinations of

" Reagonomics " would get media play at this point in time if it was seen as a

handy distraction from the mess the national economy is in at present.The other

challenge would be preventing such a campaign from becoming yet another business

venture as the " War on drugs " became with the explosion of the prison complex.

I'm not talking about thoroughly educating the public as much as

stirring them up to identify with the injustice of child abuse and to believe

that by their own small actions they could rectify a wrong and not feel so

powerless in general--as in,give them something here to not feel powerless

about.The very fact that corporate America has *nobody's* best interests at

heart could be used as fodder--propaganda capital can easily be made of issues

of national pride.The media can be so easily played,it happens all the time for

lesser issues than ours.For example many Americans don't know that American

foster children available for adoption are being farmed out to people in the

Netherlands and Canada,a shameful practice (in the sense of this country not

taking care of its own) that puts this country on a par with places like China

(a country that has also given its children up to foreigners) but what is even

more shameful is that the people who qualify to adopt these American children

didn't meet the *Chinese* standards for adoption so they had to resort to

adopting from the United States as a *second choice*.Public attention/national

pride capital can be made in the media with stuff like that as a hook to get

people's attention,to draw them in emotionally--but like I said it would have to

be a many pronged concerted propaganda campaign that would make Joe and Jane

Public want to take back their national pride and it would have to be something

that would make it easy for them to exercise their pocketbook power,such as

organizing feel good boycotts of corporate entities that don't support the

national child advocacy campaign like the anti-apartheid movement did with Pepsi

when they refused to shut down production in South Africa.

I think that a movement for redress of child abuse would certainly

take decades to gather steam and would require a surface high road conservative

suit and tie facade like the Civil Rights movement was under the leadership of

Luther King,no wild eyed radicalism--but with examples of murdered/abused

American children shopped intentionally to the media under the umbrella of an

anti child abuse movement to substitute for images of protesters being

hosed.Tragically there are hundreds of these.Unfortunately some kind of AIDS

quilt-like public spectacle could also be arranged from the stories of children

who have died at the hands of...the mentally ill...And Joe and Jane Public have

the power to affect change by practically sitting on their asses after they have

been instructed by the media to care (As seen on tv!): just vote the bums

out,have a Coke instead of a Pepsi...And if it's cool to be on the cutting edge

of socially involved and there's a hit play,there *will* be funding.

I'd like to teach the world to sing/in perfect harmony...it's all

about making people feel good about *themselves* and pissing them off about

injustice just enough to make them feel pleasantly self righteous (and shaming

them a bit: This isn't what MY country is all about!); to convince them that

they have the power to affect change without placing too much of a demand of

accountability upon them but giving them free license to discharge that

accountability onto public figures who *can* enact the law of the land.Which is

where a child abuse lobby would come in.I think it could be done,it would take

time and effort,but it could be done.

>

> Yeah...good points.

>

> The problem is, how do you make it *profitable* to spare children and give

them a happy, wholesome childhood? Because it's unhappy people who spend the

most money in society.

>

> Who overeats the most? Chronically unhappy, lonely people. People with tough

childhoods, who became compulsive eaters (*raises hand and waves it around.)

Fast food places and diet and exercise companies are making money off these

people.

>

> Who overspends on consumer goods? Who makes unwise decisions about credit?

Who buys more than they can afford? People who weren't taught better; people

who are chronically unhappy, and usually that springs right from good ol'

childhood. Credit card companies, clothing manufacturers, pretty much anybody

who sells " stuff " benefits from the need to look perfect on the outside and

distract themselves from internal pain that comes from child abuse.

>

> In doing something like this, you have to get society to forego quick profit

in the now in favor of overall benefit to society in a generation or two.

>

> Not something we as a people are very good at.

>

> I'm not saying it can't or shouldn't be done, it's just...have you looked at

music videos lately, advertising, magazines, and TV? Nobody out there in

corporate America really has our best interest at heart.

>

> Ugh. We're up against a lot.

>

> --.

>

>

>

>

>

>

> *this post has been trimmed*

>

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

I wrote you a longish reply to your post here but it never showed up

on the board--and I just don't have the mental wherewithal right now to do it

again...but want to thank you so much for your thoughts and understanding.I can

relate to how living with a nada can create an impairment of opportunity for

their kid--it *is* actually an impairing environment/they are an impairing

influence.

Thanks again

>

> Hi , OMG....your nada admitted to you that she essentially tried to

kill you as a baby. OMG. Did she understand that? that her little " witch

test " was essentially a passive attempted murder???? I don't know how you

managed to survive being raised by her but I hope you give yourself credit every

single day for your accomplishments big and little both. What she said about

holding you responsible for her auditory hallucinations make me wonder - was

there any chance she was schizophrenic? I don't know a lot about that disorder

but I think they are the ones who have trouble with their perception of reality

the most.

>

> Also it's such a shame that she derailed your Fullbright application with her

crazy confessions. Looks like she timed sharing that doozy till when it could

do great damage in costing you opportunity. I had a few big opportunities as

well when I was still under my nada's roof and just the sheer influence and

strain of the relationship always added another obstacle. Sometimes an obstacle

so big that I didn't even try. I look back on many of the opportunities I

threw away or didn't even think to try for because I had *zero* sane guidance

and it is a source of grief given my life is derailed now. Your professors who

judged you not applying could not have conceived of what you were dealing with.

>

> About that influence, that feeling of something, that lurking negativity,

waiting to sabotage your happiness I can relate. I think it is one of the most

painful revelations when it finally becomes clear where that feeling comes from.

May we give ourselves the compassion we deserved back then and fly free today.

>

>