-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In article 
michaelamackenzie05072001{at}yahoo.com wrote:
> Bernd Jendrissek wrote:
>> Why do we so seldom hear talkshow hosts tell women in abusive
>> relationships that THEY are responsible for their situation, that
>> THEY should get out of it instead of "whining"?  I guess it's not
>> politically correct...
>
>Wouldn't get a good (size) audience mebbe?

That's quite possible too - I guess I'm being too paranoid again,
inferring the existence of conspiracies where a simple market-forces
explanation will do.  Occam's Razor.

>I must have been very naive the first time I heard that interview, cos
>nowadays I do believe that Di was to blame for her situation.

She may have been to blame for *her* situation, but not for *the*
situation.

And BTW there you go again, being a CUAO - assigning responsibility to
the woman for staying!  OTOH can people really bear responsibility if
they are mentally unsound?  Her eating disorders seem to suggest that
all was not well.

>Sure, Charles wasn't innocent, but how do we know that she wasn't aware
>of Camilla's role In Charles's life before they got married, but she
>just shut her "eyes"? It seems to me that people do that when they are
>"in love".

Is being "in love" truly a mental illness?  Will it be in the DSM V?
Maybe as "Psychosexual Overattachment Disorder"?  (As a joke I'd like to
invite the resident shrinkoids to write up the diagnostic criteria as
they might appear in the DSM.)

I can't imagine that she "chose" to "shut her eyes". 
Her mind would
have deluded itself to downplay the significance of the red flags, until
she could rationalize it all away as "okay".

>Also, if she'd fulfilled her husband's needs perhaps he wouldn't have
>felt it necessary to keep going back to Camilla?

You're trying to be CUAO again by turning around the "if he had
fulfilled her needs she wouldn't have cheated" misdirection?

IMO *he* gets the *moral* blame for cheating, not she.  The appropriate
way to have one's needs fulfilled is to dissolve the current
relationship *first*, and only *then* get your rocks (or oysters) off
elsewhere.  Granted, she contested the divorce (IIRC???) so she made
that route hard.

>> Although I must say, that thinking of women as
"children" helps me to
>> protect myself against their overemoting irrational tirades.  I kinda
>> treat it like a little kid throwing a tantrum because it forgot its
>> toys on the train.
>
>You mean like your response in that other thread?

Okay okay, I *try* to brush it off.  (Which thread BTW?)

[snip, indicating agreement]

>> Still, something gets "lost" when you're constantly
maintaining just
>> enough detachment to protect yourself from outbursts of destructive
>> emotions.
>
>When my inner peace is dependent on the approval or "love" of another,
>I've already lost something much bigger, imo.

Hmm... this deserves a thread of its own.  "Dependence" versus sympathy.
You need to Open Yourself (capitalized instead of quoted just to annoy
B{at}b{at}) a bit to enable yourself to relate intimately, so your emotions
can change in sympathy to the other person's, but you need to remain "in
control" enough to be able to have emotional freedom at any point - you
need to be able to *choose* your state.

>Men use manipulation plenty, thank you very much! Have you tried
>looking at being manipulated as an opportunity for growth for next time
>you're faced with the same situation?

That's likely a very productive frame - it allows you to choose to
*de-escalate* conflicts (without forcing you to - sometimes escalating
is more useful).  That's the "Green Hat" view (or maybe red, or white, I
can't remember).

The "Yellow Hat" view, though, is that the manipulator
"should" maybe
respect your personal integrity a little more.  Maybe not as directly
personally useful a view, but a socially useful one too IMO.

>O no. Not another link.

Douglas Green!

>> The best way to deal with an abusive man
>
>Label queen.

Do you deny that some people seem to abuse more than others, or that
some seem to cherish more than others?

You're probably manipulating me again into confirming that yes, labels
are part of the problem that keeps the such labelled people in their
boxes, and that we help everyone by lifting those boxes?

>> is to walk away from him.
>
>I beg to differ. Well, at least sometimes I do. You can make him see
>that he can't get away with that kind of behaviour. He may well be
>grateful for the opportunity to become a Better Man.

Help him grow, at your expense and at the expense of the loneliness of a
good, decent virtuous man like DF?

- --
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQFCUmET/FmLrNfLpjMRAsZ3AJ40Tglj77UI0mFdj1TgdkOvkPfljwCdFHvE
T1W8y4H2zqRviHhLwD6FDPs=
=3dcN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 4/5/05 1:01:42 PM ---