![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
A reply to this post about the importance of paths to redemption.
I agree with this but think there’s a few important things it misses that don’t go without saying. Specifically: no matter how much someone atones, the people they hurt have a right to want to avoid them anyway, and people in general are individually within their rights to still not like or trust someone post atonement.
I mean afaict people who’ve actually atoned generally accept this and are fine respecting those boundaries as long as they’re not so restrictive that it makes their life impossible eg they can’t find anyone willing to hire them. (And I don’t consider blanket mistrust of, say, anyone who’s been to prison to be reasonable or socially responsible)
So what causes problems is abusers who have learned the language of atonement but just use it as a weapon to silence anyone who criticises them or wants to avoid them. See: Hugo Schwyzer. These people are generally sneaky enough to avoid prison or any real negative consequences for their actions, but there’s no sure fire way to recognise them.
That doesn’t mean we don’t value redemption: if nothing else, abusers are great at taking advantage of this too, spinning one bad thing their critics did once into a excuse to dismiss them. It just means we can’t value redemption above all else.
This isn’t really a criticism of the original post, which was written as part of a broader argument. Afaict the OP and I agree very strongly on the basic principle that you can’t ever ignore all the real people involved in a situation in favour of simplistic political dogma. I’m just engaging with the post as a reblog shorn of that context, because tumblr. Also given the subject of the post, I do think it’s important not to use “abuser” as a synonym for “being of pure irredeemable evil”. I am using it to mean “someone who is currently abusing people”.
I agree with this but think there’s a few important things it misses that don’t go without saying. Specifically: no matter how much someone atones, the people they hurt have a right to want to avoid them anyway, and people in general are individually within their rights to still not like or trust someone post atonement.
I mean afaict people who’ve actually atoned generally accept this and are fine respecting those boundaries as long as they’re not so restrictive that it makes their life impossible eg they can’t find anyone willing to hire them. (And I don’t consider blanket mistrust of, say, anyone who’s been to prison to be reasonable or socially responsible)
So what causes problems is abusers who have learned the language of atonement but just use it as a weapon to silence anyone who criticises them or wants to avoid them. See: Hugo Schwyzer. These people are generally sneaky enough to avoid prison or any real negative consequences for their actions, but there’s no sure fire way to recognise them.
That doesn’t mean we don’t value redemption: if nothing else, abusers are great at taking advantage of this too, spinning one bad thing their critics did once into a excuse to dismiss them. It just means we can’t value redemption above all else.
This isn’t really a criticism of the original post, which was written as part of a broader argument. Afaict the OP and I agree very strongly on the basic principle that you can’t ever ignore all the real people involved in a situation in favour of simplistic political dogma. I’m just engaging with the post as a reblog shorn of that context, because tumblr. Also given the subject of the post, I do think it’s important not to use “abuser” as a synonym for “being of pure irredeemable evil”. I am using it to mean “someone who is currently abusing people”.
Tags:
no subject
First: that is a hugely important point, thank you. Second: you sent me onto a train of thought about family dynamics that made me rethink the effect my mum's awful older brother has had on her. I'm not sure if he's abusive per se, but he's certainly a horrible, draining person, and she's only now in her 50s really letting herself distance herself from him (they're also first generation immigrants, which doesn't help). I might look into abusive sibling dynamic stuff and pass anything I find onto her, she's on a journey of self discovery and diagnosis right now and that might help her figure out her brain some more.
So, double thank you :)
no subject
(note: the rest got really long and I apologise)
On that point, in case it helps: it can be difficult to recognise abuse from a sibling when it isn't physical, because it's a long pattern that gets dismissed as "sibling rivalry" and "kids being kids" and things like that and "teasing". In my case, apparently my sister is protective of me and terribly concerned about me so long as I'm not actually present, which is one of the things that builds the expectation for others that no, she loves me really.
(I've heard that from my parents *and* her friends.)
Some of the things my relationship with my sister included:
- she'd tear me down any time I was feeling particularly good about myself
- anything I felt bad about she'd mock me for or belittle me for. (Example: I had to repeat year 12 of school twice in order to get into university. It turns out I had undiagnosed ADHD, as well as my mother being very very ill in those years. My housemates - and my housemate Chas's mother - think that this was an impressive feat of dedication and determination and will. My sister used it as an example of my weakness and inadequacy and it's taken me years not to be ashamed to tell people it happened.)
- She fostered narratives - from very early childhood - that I lacked talent at just about everything. Because I believed it, I didn't start proving her wrong until adulthood.
- She was very controlling. Rebellion was punished, physically (but never leaving a mark) or verbally.
- She'd tell a lot of "funny" stories that just happened to have the side-effect of public humiliation.
- As of the last time I spoke to my older sister, she has never complimented me for anything, told me I'm good at anything, ever been proud of me. She's told me she loves me twice in my life: once when she was very drunk at a party, and she wrote it in my 21st birthday card.
- One time I asked her if she cared about me, at all. She told me that she tries to, but I make it very difficult.
There's an important pattern evident in that part: all the problems in our relationship are my failures.
I just asked Jen and Chas about the important things in this:
Jen (voice dripping with furious anger): "She imbued you with a conviction that you are worthless."
Chas (who has four younger siblings and is a loving big brother): If a sibling never gives any kind of praise or affection, that's a huge red flag.
He reckons that's possibly the biggest one: siblings can be kind of horrible to each other (especially as children), but there should always be something that balances that out. Siblings should sometimes be loving and defend each other even if they don't get on.
He says relationships are toxic, even with siblings, if one party always tears the other down and never builds them up.
I think this point is strong. Like, I know Jen and her older sister Pam didn't get on at all for years, but I *also* know that even at the worst times in that period, they did things for each other that were, to me, mind-blowingly loving.
Chas has three brothers and a sister, and even though I don't even know his siblings that well for the most part, I've heard him casually and offhandedly say nicer things to them than my sister has to me in my entire life.
He says that relationships with siblings can be difficult, and interactions with your siblings can sometimes leave you drained, or angry, but they shouldn't ever leave you feeling miserable.
He's absolutely certain that an interaction with a sibling shouldn't leave you feeling bad about yourself.
A relationship can be toxic without being abusive, at which point it's still likely to be a good idea to step away if they're not prepared to change.
He came up with more ideas for the things that suggest a relationship is NOT abusive: if the other person will make sacrifices sometimes for your happiness, if they do things that show you that you matter, if they make you feel better about yourself more often than not.
I've been doing better lately, so we're likely to be inviting you for a visit if you'd like to come, and we can discuss it more, if you like.
I'd note that I also don't think my sister should be the sole metric for judging whether a sibling is abusive, since some of my stories about her genuinely shocked and horrified my excellent and extremely experienced former therapist.
There needs to be a word for the disbelief people express when they absolutely definitely do believe you but are struggling to reconcile the idea that someone could be that awful.
no subject
Thank you!
Yeah, I'm inclined to classify my uncle as awful and toxic but not abusive just because, like...he's rarely deliberately hurtful he just so incredibly self absorbed that he constantly hurts the people around him without noticing or caring. He lives in a fantasy where he's the most talented and wonderful person in the world who everyone just naturally loves and want to do nice things for, and anything that interferes with that fantasy (people, facts, past promises, etc) is shouted down or ignored. He compliments my mother all the time, but it's always like "You're a genius like me! Because you're my sister!" or "You're so generous, I love you, can I have $50". I get the feeling he might have been more unpleasantly competitive back when they were kids, though.
no subject
no subject
I'm glad that was helpful, because when I read it back it seems really inadequate. It's so hard to find ways to express how pervasively and intensely sibling stuff can be damaging. There's not one thing I said in all that that I haven't had people dismiss as not that big a deal.