Posted by trouble on February 18, 2002, at 10:51:22
In reply to Re: Verbal abuse » trouble, posted by Dinah on February 18, 2002, at 9:02:43
Thanks Dinah,
I can't automatically reject your response, given your consistent reasonableness. But man. I'll talk to my psychologist about these things too. Maybe I've yet to come to my senses after having read the site 3 hours ago, being mad that the ideas presented weren't, um, credited to feminist influence, just presented arbitrarily, as if these are and always have been the rules of engagement, no defense, we'll just act like nothing here is controversial and lay down the law, yes that's how I see it and it's the sort of thing that makes me see red.
But those nine basic rights, just to mention the ones that upset me the most, and if you don't want to hash it out that's cool, but you made it personal, you spoke of how you want things to be in your own life, even implying that your husband misses the mark, and I've been defending their characteristic aofishness so of course this is a can of worms.
Right #3: Not to have her 'reality' challenged. Their quotation marks. I think that's revealing. Also, this rule was italicized. Must be very important. To someone.
Not having your reality challenged is one way to stay crazy. Outside perspectives being the thing that influences one's reality. I just don't understand what they mean by this rule, but it brings to mind imagery of a spoiled princess.
Lots of decent people have supported nefarious social policies, until confronted w/ other views.
Therapy is all about challenging fixed beliefs, what are they doing in therapy if they want to circumvent confrontation?#4: The right to have her feelings and experiences acknowledged as 'real'. Again,their quotes. As opposed to what? Again, it conjures up images of stone tablet veracity surrounding all her stuff.
#5: To receive a sincere apology if she experiences verbal abuse. Italicized. Compulsory sincerity? There's no such thing. They would rather have an appearance of contriteness than a mutual exchange. It's a projection-Revenge of the Stepford Wives.
It makes my blood boil to hear these restrictions defined as a means to intimacy. That is typical feminist cant. Intimacy and policing do not go together. Policing of behavior is a defense against intimacy.
I don't like the word RIGHT used in this fashion. It's ham-fisted hyperbole and intimidation. Do they know what rights are? I think they do. Do they care? No, I think they don't.
Finally, the right not to be criticized or judged. My mind reels.
But you agree w/ these terms of engagement? Well, I don't think you do. Just from reading your posts, nope, and I'm good at spotting women who follow this code of behavior and I don't get that from you. But I'm bewildered, I don't know what else to do but take these rights to my therapist today and see if he can help me see the light.
trouble
> I'm still working on my husband though. Of course, he isn't a paid professional.
poster:trouble
thread:18403
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20020214/msgs/18444.html