An interesting weekend had led me to once again dust off the blog and say a few choice words that I can't say elsewhere without censure or censorship (or maybe just a verbal/written arse kicking).
As those who know me know, I try, in my own quiet way, to advocate for those who are or have been in circumstances similar to mine. While they may not be ready to use their voices I can use mine and hopefully be heard, while ensuring those I advocate for know that they aren't alone in their battles. I don't pretend to be representative of all women who have experienced intimate partner sexual violence, rape and sexual assault, and/or domestic violence, but I hope that by sharing my story I can make a small difference. In my naivety I hoped that all advocates worked in much the same way. Indeed, those I admire most do. But alas it isn't true for all victim/survivor advocates.
Victimisation as Privilege
Lately I have come across a small but very outspoken number of advocates who seem to wear their victimisation as a badge of privilege. I am not suggesting that their trauma isn't real, or that it is less important than mine, but I am objecting to the fact that they use their victimisation as a weapon against others, and as a justification for denigrating other people and services.
On a website which I frequent (which shall remain nameless to protect the innocent, or at least me from getting into trouble and not being welcome there anymore) a frequent contributor has taken to screaming "What about me? at regular intervals. Rather than acknowledge what is being posted as a reality for at least the original contributor they use it as an opportunity to explain why exactly they are so down trodden, marginalised and silenced. Now yes, their circumstances are some that do tend to be minimalised by a large section of society. But screaming "What about me?" every time something doesn't fit their circumstances does nothing more than shut down discussion and make other users feel as if their problems simply aren't problematic enough, thus continuing their silencing. The best example is the constant cry of "What about MEN (as it always seems to need capitalisation)?" in discussions about everything from cancer and rape to domestic violence and divorce. Small hint; talking about one person or group's experience does not take away from another person or group. If anything it opens up wider communication for everyone.
Take rape, for example: The second-wave feminists made huge strides in having it seen as a social issue. They fought for and developed support services, legislative change and definitional change. Yes, they did this primarily for women. However, by starting the conversation they have made it possible to acknowledge the rape of men and boys. Stating the gendered nature of intimate partner violence, rape and sexual assault is not a slap in the face to the males of the species. Nor is it blaming all men for the actions of perpetrators. And most of all it is not labelling different experiences as non-existent, not important or less damaging. It is simply putting forward a theoretical standpoint that happens to have a lot of research to support it, and reflects the lived experiences of many.
Unfortunately there seems to be a small pool of advocates who aren't willing to accept that. Instead they want to make it all about them. They look at the research and services and demand equal or better, that addresses their own specific circumstances, and they want it now, preferably with as much fanfare and kow-towing as possible to their greatness and position of privilege. What they aren't prepared to do is work for what they want. "Breast cancer gets umpteen million dollars in funding and support - right, give us the same for prostate cancer." And when it isn't forthcoming then they complain that it is because their chosen cause isn't "sexy" enough (I would love to know where all these people who think that any sort of cancer is sexy are. I've certainly never met any of them.) They discount the work put in by people that have been effected by the cause personally, and they most certainly won't get off their privileged arses and work for the cause they believe in. Nope, instead it's all "political" or a conspiracy against them personally.
Victimisation as a Right to be a Perpetrator
Recently I came across a Facebook group called Sex Assault is No Joke, a front for the advocacy group Rape Is No Joke (RINJ). I thought their aims were wonderful; to rid Facebook of groups that are supportive of using rape as a basis for humour. I decided to "like" them and kept a periodic eye on their activities. That is until Saturday when I came across a post I disagreed with. I commented on the post, politely and respectfully. I did not swear, nor did I denigrate others. I just pointed out what I believed to be errors. I would send you a link to the post and my comments but I have been blocked and my comments removed. Yep, RINJ seems to think that they way to deal with differing opinions to to remove them and prevent people from commenting. I complained about this elsewhere, but truly wasn't too worried. It was obvious that this was a group I wanted nothing to do with. A friend was not impressed, both with RINJ's treatment of me, and of a victim blaming post that was obviously considered appropriate by those in charge. She made her feelings known and a shit-storm ensued, during which it came out that many others have become disillusioned with RINJ. One person commenting is one of the organisers of RINJ. She accused me of making a racist slur (something that still both upsets and pisses me off) and managed to tell an amazing group of women, many of whom are survivors or rape, sexual assault, and/or domestic violence, that we knew nothing. This person used her victimisation as a reason to be a bully and exhibit attitudes commonly seen in many perpetrators. (I must say how proud I am of the other women caught in this shit-storm as none of them felt the need to stoop to this person's level, although flinging hurtful, denigrating comments would have been easy. Yet compassion for what this person had been through was what shone through.)
Victimisation is never a reason to become a bully or to act in the same manner as a perpetrators. While these is some evidence to show that the victimised sometimes come to be the victimiser there are a heck of a lot of people out there who don't feel the need to do so. Instead they understand the damage that has been done to them and will do anything and everything they can to stop it happening to anyone else. This person though, was like a husband who, while being emotionally and sexually violent, can honestly stand among his mates and declare that he has never hit a woman, and come out smelling like roses, and leaving his victim wondering what the hell is wrong with them.
So let us be clear: Being a victim does not make you someone special. It does not give you privileges over others. It does not give you the right to be a bully. It does however make you a person who needs support and help. Ask me for that and I will be beside you all the way. Trying to make yourself into the biggest, most misunderstood, most marginalised and minimised person in existence however will see me walk away from you and your cause. I do not need it and I don't need you. And I will do my damnedest to make sure others know who and what you're really about.
Monday, February 6, 2012
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Victim - Time to Reclaim the Word
I am so sick of the fact that the word victim has such negative connotations when it comes to people who have been raped or sexually abused, or lived with child abuse or domestic violence. My dictionary defines victim as "a sufferer from any destructive, injurious, or adverse action or agency." It doesn't say "....any destructive, injurious, or adverse action except for rape, sexual assault, child abuse or domestic violence." So why do we have such a hard time accepting that those of us who have experienced such things are NOT weak if we refer to ourselves as victims instead of survivors?
I believe it is because to be a victim is to essentially be a passive participant in these crimes, and that is seen as unacceptable. The verb of victim is victimise, and that is something that is done to us. The verb of survivor is survive, something that is seen as being an action we do ourselves. Passive participants in rape, sexual assault, child abuse and domestic violence are seen as weak, unable or unwilling to protect themselves, and therefore seen as bearing some level of responsiblity for what happened to them. Why else would the commonly heard questions about these crimes be directed at the victim's actions or inactions rather than the perpetrators?
Yet the same standards aren't applied to victims of other crimes. It is perfectly acceptable to be a victim of a hit-and-run, or of a bag snatch, or even of a mugging or random assault. Their passivity isn't disparaged. Their actions or inaction isn't studied under a microscope to ensure that they are worthy of our sympathy. We don't demand of them a certain level of sobriety, a particular mode of dress, an instant telling of what has occurred to someone, within minutes of it occurring. We don't expect them to define themselves as survivors just so as they can be seen as almost normal people recovering from something horrible.
So, I am reclaiming the word victim, in its truest sense. I have been a victim of rape and sexual assault, more than once. It does not mean that I am weak. It does not mean that I am fishing for sympathy. It does not mean that I am looking for special treatment. It does not mean that I am not a capable, intelligent, mostly happy human being with dreams, ideals, likes and dislikes. It simply means that I have been victimised by another person or people, in a situation in which I had no control. Yes, I survived and therefore can also be called a survivor. But it does not take away the fact that I have been a victim, and that it wasn't my fault.
I believe it is because to be a victim is to essentially be a passive participant in these crimes, and that is seen as unacceptable. The verb of victim is victimise, and that is something that is done to us. The verb of survivor is survive, something that is seen as being an action we do ourselves. Passive participants in rape, sexual assault, child abuse and domestic violence are seen as weak, unable or unwilling to protect themselves, and therefore seen as bearing some level of responsiblity for what happened to them. Why else would the commonly heard questions about these crimes be directed at the victim's actions or inactions rather than the perpetrators?
Yet the same standards aren't applied to victims of other crimes. It is perfectly acceptable to be a victim of a hit-and-run, or of a bag snatch, or even of a mugging or random assault. Their passivity isn't disparaged. Their actions or inaction isn't studied under a microscope to ensure that they are worthy of our sympathy. We don't demand of them a certain level of sobriety, a particular mode of dress, an instant telling of what has occurred to someone, within minutes of it occurring. We don't expect them to define themselves as survivors just so as they can be seen as almost normal people recovering from something horrible.
So, I am reclaiming the word victim, in its truest sense. I have been a victim of rape and sexual assault, more than once. It does not mean that I am weak. It does not mean that I am fishing for sympathy. It does not mean that I am looking for special treatment. It does not mean that I am not a capable, intelligent, mostly happy human being with dreams, ideals, likes and dislikes. It simply means that I have been victimised by another person or people, in a situation in which I had no control. Yes, I survived and therefore can also be called a survivor. But it does not take away the fact that I have been a victim, and that it wasn't my fault.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
I know what I know but what if it's wrong?
I am feeling exceptionally frustrated with uni at the moment. My field placement is happening but I am still unsure how I am feeling about it. And as for my Issues of Protection unit....argh!
I guess the biggest issue at the moment really is the Protection unit stuff. Last week's topic was Family Violence (the name the uni chooses to use for domestic violence or intimate partner violence). Now this isn't something I know nothing about. Learning more about DV has been a natural extension of my quest to find more about IPSV. So I went into the topic feeling pretty confident about my level of knowledge. Yet by today I am questioning all of that knowledge.
Part of the problem is the text book. The section on family violence shows a clear bias towards the "women are as violent as men" school of thought. This doesn't sit well with me as it goes against the majority of academic research about DV. I have also read more than one article about why the studies that lead to that conclusion need to be taken with a humongous grain of salt (many use the Conflict Tactics Scale which makes no differentiation between severity of violence or attack and defence). Yet this is in the text book we are using and we have not been given anything to balance it out. Nor is there any mention about the fact that this point of view does not reflect the majority of academic research on DV.
So that was the first thing that really got my back up. Then there was the reading on substance abuse and family violence. Whoever wrote that presented a very weak argument for his point of view (being that family violence and substance abuse are linked). He quoted general statistics (26% of children from an alcoholic home are victims of sexual violence) but made no effort to explain the findings he used. For example, if this information came from a study about children who have come to the attention of protection authorities then we would expect that the number of children abused would be higher than general population prevalence studies. We are also not given a figure of how many families or abused children were included in the study. If it was only 100 then a 3-4% difference between that figures and the standard ones used about sexual abuse (1 in 3 girls, 1 in 10 boys = approx 21.5%) isn't that big. (Of course both statistics are horrifying).
So that article didn't do much to endear me either. So far less than impressed with the reading material for the unit.
Then comes the discussion forum. Each week we do one of these. Well if the readings horrified me then this outright shocked me. We were given a case study to respond to. The case was a married woman with two kids ringing a crisis line to find out if what is happening in her marriage is normal (deja vu much. I remember wondering the same thing). She says that she doesn't get black eyes but is pushed and shoved by her partner, verbally abused and threatened. She also says that she and the children make an effort "not to upset daddy." The woman has raised her concerns with both her husbands shrink and a minister and both time basically been told she is misreading things and needs to take the good with the bad. So anyway, we had to name the types of abuse she is suffering (physical, verbal, emotional/psychological), comment on the appropriateness of the responses she had received (completely inappropriate) and then spell out what we would say to her (name abuse, ask about immediate safety, offer info on support services). I was pretty happy with my responses and thought that I had done well with them. Indeed I haven't received any dissenting opinions on my comments. But the responses of some of the other students really shocks me. Basically saying that there isn't enough info to define they types of abuse, that what she says should be taken with a grain of salt, that the emphasis should be on assisting the family to stay together.
Now, I don't think I proposed immediate separation and divorce proceedings in what I said. My point was to give the woman the knowledge to name what is happening to her and some resources to help her cope and decide what to do. At all times I emphasised her safety. One of the other respondents made the point that the male brain chemistry is different to the female brain and it is normal for a man to be upset with his wife and kids at times. He said outright that any woman who disagreed with him believed that all men are evil. Another person tried to write everything off as a possible clash of cultural ideals, although we were given no information about the cultural background of the woman. I am shocked at this type of attitude and am honestly scared for the future clients of the people who responded in this way.
The whole lot of this stuff combined really has me questioning my knowledge. Not my knowledge about what happened to me. That I know I am secure about. But my academic knowledge. Have I not been reading widely enough? Am I being brainwashed by the feminist side of he argument? I am reasonably sure in answering both of those questions as no. But that leads me to wonder about the quality of the education I am getting when the readings suck so badly and the other students can be so damn ignorant of the dynamics of DV and the accepted safe way of doing things (one person suggested one on one counselling for the woman but to bring the rest of the family into it over time. Couples counselling in cases where there is DV is a big no-no if the violence is still occurring).
Basically I am left with a really bad taste in my mouth about the whole thing and am seriously wondering if I have misplaced my passion. I wish there was somebody I could really sit down and discuss this with but I wouldn't know how to bring it up. It seems kind of a petty thing to have me so riles and fucking confused.
I guess the biggest issue at the moment really is the Protection unit stuff. Last week's topic was Family Violence (the name the uni chooses to use for domestic violence or intimate partner violence). Now this isn't something I know nothing about. Learning more about DV has been a natural extension of my quest to find more about IPSV. So I went into the topic feeling pretty confident about my level of knowledge. Yet by today I am questioning all of that knowledge.
Part of the problem is the text book. The section on family violence shows a clear bias towards the "women are as violent as men" school of thought. This doesn't sit well with me as it goes against the majority of academic research about DV. I have also read more than one article about why the studies that lead to that conclusion need to be taken with a humongous grain of salt (many use the Conflict Tactics Scale which makes no differentiation between severity of violence or attack and defence). Yet this is in the text book we are using and we have not been given anything to balance it out. Nor is there any mention about the fact that this point of view does not reflect the majority of academic research on DV.
So that was the first thing that really got my back up. Then there was the reading on substance abuse and family violence. Whoever wrote that presented a very weak argument for his point of view (being that family violence and substance abuse are linked). He quoted general statistics (26% of children from an alcoholic home are victims of sexual violence) but made no effort to explain the findings he used. For example, if this information came from a study about children who have come to the attention of protection authorities then we would expect that the number of children abused would be higher than general population prevalence studies. We are also not given a figure of how many families or abused children were included in the study. If it was only 100 then a 3-4% difference between that figures and the standard ones used about sexual abuse (1 in 3 girls, 1 in 10 boys = approx 21.5%) isn't that big. (Of course both statistics are horrifying).
So that article didn't do much to endear me either. So far less than impressed with the reading material for the unit.
Then comes the discussion forum. Each week we do one of these. Well if the readings horrified me then this outright shocked me. We were given a case study to respond to. The case was a married woman with two kids ringing a crisis line to find out if what is happening in her marriage is normal (deja vu much. I remember wondering the same thing). She says that she doesn't get black eyes but is pushed and shoved by her partner, verbally abused and threatened. She also says that she and the children make an effort "not to upset daddy." The woman has raised her concerns with both her husbands shrink and a minister and both time basically been told she is misreading things and needs to take the good with the bad. So anyway, we had to name the types of abuse she is suffering (physical, verbal, emotional/psychological), comment on the appropriateness of the responses she had received (completely inappropriate) and then spell out what we would say to her (name abuse, ask about immediate safety, offer info on support services). I was pretty happy with my responses and thought that I had done well with them. Indeed I haven't received any dissenting opinions on my comments. But the responses of some of the other students really shocks me. Basically saying that there isn't enough info to define they types of abuse, that what she says should be taken with a grain of salt, that the emphasis should be on assisting the family to stay together.
Now, I don't think I proposed immediate separation and divorce proceedings in what I said. My point was to give the woman the knowledge to name what is happening to her and some resources to help her cope and decide what to do. At all times I emphasised her safety. One of the other respondents made the point that the male brain chemistry is different to the female brain and it is normal for a man to be upset with his wife and kids at times. He said outright that any woman who disagreed with him believed that all men are evil. Another person tried to write everything off as a possible clash of cultural ideals, although we were given no information about the cultural background of the woman. I am shocked at this type of attitude and am honestly scared for the future clients of the people who responded in this way.
The whole lot of this stuff combined really has me questioning my knowledge. Not my knowledge about what happened to me. That I know I am secure about. But my academic knowledge. Have I not been reading widely enough? Am I being brainwashed by the feminist side of he argument? I am reasonably sure in answering both of those questions as no. But that leads me to wonder about the quality of the education I am getting when the readings suck so badly and the other students can be so damn ignorant of the dynamics of DV and the accepted safe way of doing things (one person suggested one on one counselling for the woman but to bring the rest of the family into it over time. Couples counselling in cases where there is DV is a big no-no if the violence is still occurring).
Basically I am left with a really bad taste in my mouth about the whole thing and am seriously wondering if I have misplaced my passion. I wish there was somebody I could really sit down and discuss this with but I wouldn't know how to bring it up. It seems kind of a petty thing to have me so riles and fucking confused.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Rights and Responsibilities
When I was in high school it was made very clear to us, as students, that we had certain rights. It was also made clear that alongside those rights we had certain responsibilites. From what I have seen of my children's school it is much the same there. What is sad is that it doesn't seem to translate to humanity in general.
We hear much about rights. Human rights, men's rights, prisoner's rights, women's rights. But maybe it's about time that the responsibilities that go with those rights are clearly articulated. For example:
Right: To live free of violence
Responsibility: Not to be violent to others
Right: To be treated humanely.
Responsibility: To treat all others humanely.
Rights are all well and good but unless they are tied to responsibilities then they are next to meaningless. One example I have seen recently is a commentator on an Opinion e-newspaper. He rabbits on about the evil of feminism and how it's destroying the world and how men's rights groups are the only ones to have it right. But never does he mention the responsibilities that men have. It is like a little kid who wants everything and won't shre. One of his favourite hobby-horses is the evils of the Family Law Act, in regards to fathers (leading many other commentators to speculate that he has been done over by that system). He talks about the rights of fathers to know their children, to have equal access and time with their children. Nowhere does he mention the children's rights to live free of fear and intimidation, to have a stable and happy life. Nor does he mention the responsibilities men have regarding their children. That responsibility does not start and end with paying child support, as so many think it does (Not all. There are many men who fight not just their rights but their responsibilities). There is a responsibility to treat your children as people in their own right, not as extensions of themselves. There is a responsibility to provide for your children, beyond what is required in child support. That means a safe environment to go to when with their fathers, proper meals and other requirements when they are with their father (clothes, shoes, entertainment). There is a responsibility to ensure your children's safety. This can range from ensuring they have proper safety equipment for activities they my do with the father, such as bike riding, to ensuring that they get sufficient sleep, are not around illegal drug use and are not taken to places where their physical and emotional safety may be put at risk. It should go without saying that these responsibilities belong to BOTH parents, however it often doesn't seem to be the case.
A mother also has many responsibilities. One of those, as put forward in the Family Law Act is to be a "friendly"parent. While friendly parent provisions apply to both parents, in cases where 50/50 shared care is not in place the onus is on the parent who has physical custody of the children for the greater proportion of time. This generally means the mother. Friendly Parent provisions require parents to facilitate and encourage the children's relationship with the other parent, regardless of any safety issues to themselves or the children. It is a part of the Act that is very open to mainpulation as it does not take much to paint one parent as being "unfriendly" to the other.
To get back on track.....
Maybe it is time we all stopped putting our rights to the front and centre and looked instead at our responsibilities. I believe that if we all met our responsibilities, as implied by our rights, then the world would be a safer, happier place.
We hear much about rights. Human rights, men's rights, prisoner's rights, women's rights. But maybe it's about time that the responsibilities that go with those rights are clearly articulated. For example:
Right: To live free of violence
Responsibility: Not to be violent to others
Right: To be treated humanely.
Responsibility: To treat all others humanely.
Rights are all well and good but unless they are tied to responsibilities then they are next to meaningless. One example I have seen recently is a commentator on an Opinion e-newspaper. He rabbits on about the evil of feminism and how it's destroying the world and how men's rights groups are the only ones to have it right. But never does he mention the responsibilities that men have. It is like a little kid who wants everything and won't shre. One of his favourite hobby-horses is the evils of the Family Law Act, in regards to fathers (leading many other commentators to speculate that he has been done over by that system). He talks about the rights of fathers to know their children, to have equal access and time with their children. Nowhere does he mention the children's rights to live free of fear and intimidation, to have a stable and happy life. Nor does he mention the responsibilities men have regarding their children. That responsibility does not start and end with paying child support, as so many think it does (Not all. There are many men who fight not just their rights but their responsibilities). There is a responsibility to treat your children as people in their own right, not as extensions of themselves. There is a responsibility to provide for your children, beyond what is required in child support. That means a safe environment to go to when with their fathers, proper meals and other requirements when they are with their father (clothes, shoes, entertainment). There is a responsibility to ensure your children's safety. This can range from ensuring they have proper safety equipment for activities they my do with the father, such as bike riding, to ensuring that they get sufficient sleep, are not around illegal drug use and are not taken to places where their physical and emotional safety may be put at risk. It should go without saying that these responsibilities belong to BOTH parents, however it often doesn't seem to be the case.
A mother also has many responsibilities. One of those, as put forward in the Family Law Act is to be a "friendly"parent. While friendly parent provisions apply to both parents, in cases where 50/50 shared care is not in place the onus is on the parent who has physical custody of the children for the greater proportion of time. This generally means the mother. Friendly Parent provisions require parents to facilitate and encourage the children's relationship with the other parent, regardless of any safety issues to themselves or the children. It is a part of the Act that is very open to mainpulation as it does not take much to paint one parent as being "unfriendly" to the other.
To get back on track.....
Maybe it is time we all stopped putting our rights to the front and centre and looked instead at our responsibilities. I believe that if we all met our responsibilities, as implied by our rights, then the world would be a safer, happier place.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Those special fears
Many survivors of trauma, all sorts of trauma, have special fears, or triggers. Sometimes, often they are related directly to the traumatic even. Other times it could be something on the periphery of the event, a smell, another event, a taste. Just.....something. These special fear, triggers, can cause a resurgence of PTSD (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder) and can bring about feelings of reliving the trauma. They are not always particularly logical, nor can the actual trigger always be worked out.
My trigger is bushfires. I know nobody likes bushfires, except maybe an arsonist. I know that they make a lot of peoples blood run cold. They do that to me but they also do so much more. They return me to the place of being a terrified child. Scared, confused, and feeling very alone. It took me a long time to work out this trigger. Before that being even 100kms of a bushfire would send me into near panic. My heart would race, I would plan packing the car and evacuating, I would have an overwhelming urge to run. I knew it wasn't terribly logical but it was always there. Always. During Summer I would would obsessively check the CFA or RFS websites (depending on what state I was living/visiting at the time). I had to know exactly what was happening. I have managed to curb those behaviours but the anxiety and tension that fill me at the very thought of bushfires is still very much alive.
Looking back I can see those trigger responses occurring over many years. Ash Wednesday is a big one. I couldn't take any enjoyment out of the strange and rather beautiful sunrises or sunsets. I couldn't make myself stand outside at night and watch the far away glow of the fires. I was not quite 13 and absolutely terrified. I never told anypne about it, although I know some saw it in me. I didn't understand it myself at the time. All I knew was that bushfires equalled terror and danger to my personal safety. It has happened again and again over the years. The fear, consuming my every waking thought. The Alpine fires in 2003 was another bad one. The smoke was everywhere. I seemed to spend half my life monitoring St John Ambulance units as they made their way through our patch of radio communications area. And I had to face my ex going near the fires. Not close close, but close enough to scare the absolute shit out of. I lived in a state of terror for weeks.
Last year I figured out the source of this trigger. On a family holiday in the Summer of 1980/81 I was sexually assaulted by a distant relative. It wasn't a personally life threatening event and I really don't remember my emotional response to it, or indeed a lot of details about the event. In times gone past I considered it a bit of a non-event. It happened, it was wrong, I couldn't do anything to change it so why even think about it. I never connected it to a lot of things that happened in later life and I certainly never connected it to bushfires. Why would I? I mean, it isn't like it happened in the middle of a fire or anything. But the fire trigger is there. You see, during the same family holiday during which I was assaulted, but at a different location, there were bushfires nearby. And they terrified me. They weren't terribly close to where we were staying but they were close to some of my Mum's family. I was to spend a night there, playing with my younger second cousin. At some point I became hysterical about the fires, which still weren't terribly close and were certainly not a direct threat. I would say it was my first panic attack. I had to be taken back to where my family was camping, in the middle of the night. Other things happened during that holiday. One of Mum's cousins ahd all his camping gear stolen while he was out fighting the fires. My sister was staying with the relatives nearby and heard on the radio that the whole town where they lived had been wiped out in the fire (it hadn't but hey, it was still on the radio).
So that is my trigger, my special fear. Bushfires can make me have panic attacks. I no longer read about them or watch the news during bushfire season. Ignorance, in this case, truly is bliss. I am aware at some point I am going to have to deal with it. I need to take the sting, the power, away from it. I need to take it back for me and so I don't pass this horrible fear on to my children.
If you she someone having what you believe is a completely irrational, over-the-top response to something, don't automatically assume that they are a bit loopy or are just over reacting. It maybe they have crossed paths with one of their triggers and are back in the place of trauma. If you can sit with them, be there, listen if they want to talk and, most importantly, don't judge. One day it could be you.
My trigger is bushfires. I know nobody likes bushfires, except maybe an arsonist. I know that they make a lot of peoples blood run cold. They do that to me but they also do so much more. They return me to the place of being a terrified child. Scared, confused, and feeling very alone. It took me a long time to work out this trigger. Before that being even 100kms of a bushfire would send me into near panic. My heart would race, I would plan packing the car and evacuating, I would have an overwhelming urge to run. I knew it wasn't terribly logical but it was always there. Always. During Summer I would would obsessively check the CFA or RFS websites (depending on what state I was living/visiting at the time). I had to know exactly what was happening. I have managed to curb those behaviours but the anxiety and tension that fill me at the very thought of bushfires is still very much alive.
Looking back I can see those trigger responses occurring over many years. Ash Wednesday is a big one. I couldn't take any enjoyment out of the strange and rather beautiful sunrises or sunsets. I couldn't make myself stand outside at night and watch the far away glow of the fires. I was not quite 13 and absolutely terrified. I never told anypne about it, although I know some saw it in me. I didn't understand it myself at the time. All I knew was that bushfires equalled terror and danger to my personal safety. It has happened again and again over the years. The fear, consuming my every waking thought. The Alpine fires in 2003 was another bad one. The smoke was everywhere. I seemed to spend half my life monitoring St John Ambulance units as they made their way through our patch of radio communications area. And I had to face my ex going near the fires. Not close close, but close enough to scare the absolute shit out of. I lived in a state of terror for weeks.
Last year I figured out the source of this trigger. On a family holiday in the Summer of 1980/81 I was sexually assaulted by a distant relative. It wasn't a personally life threatening event and I really don't remember my emotional response to it, or indeed a lot of details about the event. In times gone past I considered it a bit of a non-event. It happened, it was wrong, I couldn't do anything to change it so why even think about it. I never connected it to a lot of things that happened in later life and I certainly never connected it to bushfires. Why would I? I mean, it isn't like it happened in the middle of a fire or anything. But the fire trigger is there. You see, during the same family holiday during which I was assaulted, but at a different location, there were bushfires nearby. And they terrified me. They weren't terribly close to where we were staying but they were close to some of my Mum's family. I was to spend a night there, playing with my younger second cousin. At some point I became hysterical about the fires, which still weren't terribly close and were certainly not a direct threat. I would say it was my first panic attack. I had to be taken back to where my family was camping, in the middle of the night. Other things happened during that holiday. One of Mum's cousins ahd all his camping gear stolen while he was out fighting the fires. My sister was staying with the relatives nearby and heard on the radio that the whole town where they lived had been wiped out in the fire (it hadn't but hey, it was still on the radio).
So that is my trigger, my special fear. Bushfires can make me have panic attacks. I no longer read about them or watch the news during bushfire season. Ignorance, in this case, truly is bliss. I am aware at some point I am going to have to deal with it. I need to take the sting, the power, away from it. I need to take it back for me and so I don't pass this horrible fear on to my children.
If you she someone having what you believe is a completely irrational, over-the-top response to something, don't automatically assume that they are a bit loopy or are just over reacting. It maybe they have crossed paths with one of their triggers and are back in the place of trauma. If you can sit with them, be there, listen if they want to talk and, most importantly, don't judge. One day it could be you.
Friday, February 4, 2011
Perfection.....Pt 2
Okay, so I am starting to work on my perfectionism issues. I need to beat this beast back and take control of my life. But self-dobt is already starting to creep back in. I feel like I have picked the worst possible time to do this.
This year for uni I am doing my Field Education units. The last compulsory units I have for my degree. So I have to get out there and actually be around people. This is terrifying. For a start it means that my uni world will no longer revolve around my computer and a pile of books. I have to get out of my comfort zone and actually be around people. That is a really scary thought for me. i am used to all my uni stuff being nicely contained. Secondly, it is inevitable that I am going to not know what to do and to make mistakes. For me these things are.....terrifying. Uncertainty, being less than perfect, they make my skin crawl and I actually feel like I am going to throw up on the keyboard just thinking about them.
I guess in some ways it is a good thing that I am being forced out of my comfort zone. Knowing I am likely to feel lost and uncertain about things means I can prepare for them and start now at being kind to myself about it. Nobody at my host organisation is going to expect me to know everything. They are going to expect me to feel unsure and anxious. I just have to learn to sit with those feelings and not beat myself up for them. Maybe I need to create some strategies for dealing with it in myself. Hmmm...I will have to think about that one.
But in the meantime I am going to try and start by catching the negative self-talk that I seem to engage in so often. No more berrating myself when I make a mistake. I am not stupid or an idiot when I do, I have just made a mistake. Easy to say but I have a feeling it will be a lot harder to put into action.
This year for uni I am doing my Field Education units. The last compulsory units I have for my degree. So I have to get out there and actually be around people. This is terrifying. For a start it means that my uni world will no longer revolve around my computer and a pile of books. I have to get out of my comfort zone and actually be around people. That is a really scary thought for me. i am used to all my uni stuff being nicely contained. Secondly, it is inevitable that I am going to not know what to do and to make mistakes. For me these things are.....terrifying. Uncertainty, being less than perfect, they make my skin crawl and I actually feel like I am going to throw up on the keyboard just thinking about them.
I guess in some ways it is a good thing that I am being forced out of my comfort zone. Knowing I am likely to feel lost and uncertain about things means I can prepare for them and start now at being kind to myself about it. Nobody at my host organisation is going to expect me to know everything. They are going to expect me to feel unsure and anxious. I just have to learn to sit with those feelings and not beat myself up for them. Maybe I need to create some strategies for dealing with it in myself. Hmmm...I will have to think about that one.
But in the meantime I am going to try and start by catching the negative self-talk that I seem to engage in so often. No more berrating myself when I make a mistake. I am not stupid or an idiot when I do, I have just made a mistake. Easy to say but I have a feeling it will be a lot harder to put into action.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Letting go of perfectionism
I am a perfectionist. I always have been. I honestly believed it was hard wired into my brain, that that was how I had to be. It doesn't extend to all areas of my life (anyone who has seen my house can attest to that) but is a prominant part of my public life. I have to be seen as achieving the most, being if not the best then pretty damn close. But no more. I am not saying it is going to be easy. As I said, it has been a part of me for a very long time.
I believe my drive for public perfectionism stems from my childhood. I was told over and over that I wasn't as thin, as pretty, as flexible, as.......whatever, as my sister. The only thing I had on my side was that I was smart. Very smart. Gifted some said. Add to this I was held up to very high standards. If I got 19 out of 20 in a maths test the parental response wasn't "Well done." but rather "What happened to number 20?" So learned very early that anything less than 100% was not good enough, and I stored that in my head, made it a part of me.
This bent for perfection has been known to frustrate me more than a little, and others a heck of a lot more. It makes me driven and hard to be around. It makes me doubt myself and my knowledge. It makes me doubt my ability to succeed. I panic over uni assignments andconstantly have people telling me "You'll be right." They are right but it doesn't help at the time. When I hear that I feel that my fears aren't being heard, that I am not being heard. And I wonder how people will react if I fail, how disappointed in me they will be. I hang so much of my self-worth on my success that I wonder if failure will make people think less of me, hate me even. I know that isn't terribly logical but I can't help it. It drives me and those around me crazy.
Yesterday I came across the works of a woman by the name of Dr Brene Brown. She is an American shame researcher (sounds kind of wierd but hey). This is her WEBSITE. Well, talk about knocking all my assumptions on their collective arse, and me too. She talks about the need for vulnerability to enable connection, and how connection is vital in life. She talks about how shame holds us back in so many ways. And she talks about how perfectionism, not healthy striving, is a defence system, allowing us to present the picture to the world that we think others expect to see. I am in the process of getting her books because I think they will be very helpful for me.
So, perfectionism....hmmmm. I do use it as a defence, but it has beome a monster in it's own right, controlling me and my life. I can understand why it has such a strong hold on me. For so much of my life I haven't wanted people to see the real me out of fear that they simply won't like who I am. Not a great way to be at any age but I am 40 now. I have survived multiple traumas in my life, I am a good parent (most of the time) and I am living an independent life. It is time I started working on that demon on my back that drives me so damn hard that I truly feel my sanity slip at times. And if people don't like the real me....well, maybe that is their problem, not mine.
I don't expect this to be an easy fight. It is so simple to slip back into the habit of driving myself beyond the point of all reason because that is how I have done it for so long. I am hoping to get back in touch with my psychologist and see if this is something I can work on her with her. And I am going to try setting myself a few ground rules; like not checking obsessively for assignment results. Most of all I am hoping that I can lean on my friends a bit. When I start obsessing I hope they will slap me upside the head (figuratively) and remind me that I am a good person and even if I did fail an assignment it wouldn't be the end of the world. Who knows, I might even come out of this battle the victor.
I believe my drive for public perfectionism stems from my childhood. I was told over and over that I wasn't as thin, as pretty, as flexible, as.......whatever, as my sister. The only thing I had on my side was that I was smart. Very smart. Gifted some said. Add to this I was held up to very high standards. If I got 19 out of 20 in a maths test the parental response wasn't "Well done." but rather "What happened to number 20?" So learned very early that anything less than 100% was not good enough, and I stored that in my head, made it a part of me.
This bent for perfection has been known to frustrate me more than a little, and others a heck of a lot more. It makes me driven and hard to be around. It makes me doubt myself and my knowledge. It makes me doubt my ability to succeed. I panic over uni assignments andconstantly have people telling me "You'll be right." They are right but it doesn't help at the time. When I hear that I feel that my fears aren't being heard, that I am not being heard. And I wonder how people will react if I fail, how disappointed in me they will be. I hang so much of my self-worth on my success that I wonder if failure will make people think less of me, hate me even. I know that isn't terribly logical but I can't help it. It drives me and those around me crazy.
Yesterday I came across the works of a woman by the name of Dr Brene Brown. She is an American shame researcher (sounds kind of wierd but hey). This is her WEBSITE. Well, talk about knocking all my assumptions on their collective arse, and me too. She talks about the need for vulnerability to enable connection, and how connection is vital in life. She talks about how shame holds us back in so many ways. And she talks about how perfectionism, not healthy striving, is a defence system, allowing us to present the picture to the world that we think others expect to see. I am in the process of getting her books because I think they will be very helpful for me.
So, perfectionism....hmmmm. I do use it as a defence, but it has beome a monster in it's own right, controlling me and my life. I can understand why it has such a strong hold on me. For so much of my life I haven't wanted people to see the real me out of fear that they simply won't like who I am. Not a great way to be at any age but I am 40 now. I have survived multiple traumas in my life, I am a good parent (most of the time) and I am living an independent life. It is time I started working on that demon on my back that drives me so damn hard that I truly feel my sanity slip at times. And if people don't like the real me....well, maybe that is their problem, not mine.
I don't expect this to be an easy fight. It is so simple to slip back into the habit of driving myself beyond the point of all reason because that is how I have done it for so long. I am hoping to get back in touch with my psychologist and see if this is something I can work on her with her. And I am going to try setting myself a few ground rules; like not checking obsessively for assignment results. Most of all I am hoping that I can lean on my friends a bit. When I start obsessing I hope they will slap me upside the head (figuratively) and remind me that I am a good person and even if I did fail an assignment it wouldn't be the end of the world. Who knows, I might even come out of this battle the victor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)