Russell Bishop writes about criticism-vs-excessive criticism

Russel Bishop: Are You Criticizing, Evaluating, or Judging?

My favorite ideas: "One of my mentors puts it this way: a negative situation is already sufficiently negative without having you add negativity to it."

Have updated my "All About Me" section

Check to the right. Notice my Facebook name, "Murry Vincent"

Another interesting post of Psych Today

Your baby SHOULDN'T learn to read

Psychology Today article discusses evolving definitions of child abuse

Good article: What is child abuse? Research categories, laws, and opinions

Altering my "About Me" section. But saving what I wrote

Just to keep a record. This is the former "About Me" section. Currently, that section (to the right) is blank.

For the archives, the previous About Me:

I am a young man who is the son of toxic parents. I am almost 30, and my mother wouldn't allow me to date or find my own way in life. Things have since calmed down, but she hasn't changed that much. Possibly her mind is focused elsewhere and I haven't mentioned my girlfriend since Christmas (we broke up in March, but not to please mom). Still I am grateful things have moved forward, my dad's been very good to me in recent years (except for some incidents this summer), I've moved out of their house, and I'm looking towards to future. Part of that future means using my intellect and position as a social psychology researcher to expose abuse and authority for those daughters and sons who are still fighting. And to challenge a society that seems to tolerate so much from parents that they wouldn't from other authority figures. I am here to process my thoughts and offer support to those who comment. I am called "legacy5942" on the blog "The Experience Project", where I have visited the section, "I am a child abuse survivor".

Interesting thinker talks about bullying and toxic parents

His name is Ben Leichtling. Here are some of his works:

About Ben

Stop Toxic Parents and Grandparents: Shine a Light

Golden Rule does not stop real-world bullies

Also, the last link on the "golden rule" theory makes reference to a psychologist who writes for Psychology Today. His name is Izzy Kalman, and Ben criticizes Izzy's assumptions about the golden rule being a solution for bullying. Read about Izzy Kalman, and see some of his works on Psychology Today's site, under his own blog: A Psychological Solution to Bullying, where he writes works criticizing the use of anti-bullying laws. Such as this one.

A good post

Adulthood and the Right to Make Our Own Choices

Mental health counseling for minors, without parental permission

California State Senator, Mark Leno, is proposing state (not federal) legislation that would allow minors, aged 12-17, to get mental health services without parental consent. The concern is that requiring parents to give permission for the counseling will prevent the minor from getting that counseling or lead to abuse of minor by parents. Here are facts and links about the bill, SB 543

One of those links has a section titled "Issue" where it talks about reasons why parental consent can block minors from getting services. I believe this list of reasons shows the wisdom of the mental health advocates who are behind this bill. Two such reasons:

"Youth whose parents come from cultures that do not condone mental health services."

"Youth that feel shame, embarrassment or fear of disappointing their parents"

The above reasons can also apply to minors seeking reproductive and sexual health services, like birth control, abortion, STD testing or information on these.

**Note: while the links make references to LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) minors, the language of the bill does not restrict these benefits to LGBT minors. Read the links, and you'll see how the bill is structured to apply to all minors.

The aunt gives an update

Her nephew arrived safely.

An aunt stands up for her gay teen nephew

A good story. Her nephew got outed and kicked out of a religious high school. He was this close to graduating. The boy's parents are want to send him to a place to "cure" him. The aunt has taken him in. It was an emergency situation to help the boy, and the aunt actually asked commentors what do. They gave good advice. Here was a favorite of mine:

"Take care of the boy, get him stable and on his feet again with love and support. Take your time dealing with the extraneous stuff. His mental health comes first.
Your relationship with your sister will heal in time. She is an adult. He is not (despite what the law says)." ---by commenter "itsallme"

And that's a main point: the parents are supposed to be adults, meaning they have to deal when life doesn't turn out the way they fantasized it. They had a hetero son in their mind. They have a gay son in reality. They can deal with reality or face the strength and resistence of this aunt and her support system.

Part of this issue is that the kid needs to get to another school to finish his senior year, and hopefully get a scholarship. Often it's the case that a son or daughter must still cope with real-world responsibilities like school or work while dealing with psycho-world "responsibilities" in toxic parent land.

The anxiety and outbursts of such parents are for the back seat:....

The aunt: "My sister has called me since I wrote this diary and commanded me to tell her son to go to a Tampa church that can 'cure' him. I told her he didn't need to be cured and she hung up on me."

The entire post with 980 comments is here, on Daily Kos.

Dear Prudence gives advice to a daughter-in-law. My thoughts

Here is the exchange (scroll down), copy and pasted:

Topeka, Kan.: Do you have any advice for a gal who despises her mother-in-law? We got along great until she decided that what she (and her daughter—my sister-in-law) wanted at the birth of my child was more important than what I wanted and threw a fit at the hospital. That was a lack of respect I couldn't forgive. (Just so you know, my husband defended my desires to the end. I gave in to their demands to lessen the stress so I could, you know, give birth.)

Almost two years later, I still hate them. I do nothing to get in the way of them seeing my child (despite the fact that they don't deserve the privilege), but unfortunately, I see them frequently, and to see my child bringing them such joy just kills me. And I'm bitter because, due to proximity, they see my child more than my family does.

I tried faking it for the first few months, but that made me feel worse. Right now, I barely speak to them. But soon my child will be old enough to notice that Mommy doesn't like Grandma, so I need to change my tactic. Do you have any advice?

Emily Yoffe: What did they demand at the hospital——that Grandma perform the episiotomy and sister-in-law cut the cord? I agree that anyone who makes demands of a woman in labor and then throws a fit deserves to be firmly put in her place—which should be in the hospital parking lot. But you say all of you got along great until the maternity-ward unpleasantness. Now you have not only nursed your child, but the past two years you have been nursing a grudge, and guess what, the person it's hurting is you. "To see my child bringing them such joy just kills me" is a very disturbing admission. If you don't get over this, you're only going to poison yourself and your child's relationship with your in-laws. I think you should seek some short-term therapy so you can talk this out and come up with a plan for getting over it. Maybe you need to have a conversation (not a confrontation) with your mother-in-law that allows her to acknowledge that her actions caused you pain so you can move on. But it's possible you won't get that from her, yet it's imperative you find a way to heal this wound. This has become an obsession, and you need to find a way out.

........

My thoughts

first off, anyone who says the phrase "get over it" is spitting out something akin to a punch in the stomach...at least to a sizeable number of us. Maybe we are a minority, and most can hear that phrase and be ok. Such differing possibilities make it hard to craft any consensus view that this phrase belongs in the dirt pile, so (unless a better idea comes along) we probably have to tolerate it now and then.

The good thing is that Topeka, Emily, and I all agree that what the mother-in-law did was wrong.

After that point, my views on Emily's advice get a little nuanced. She says that Topeka has been "nursing a grudge" that has been "hurting her". I can agree that every person who suffers at the hands of a parent, sibling, or anyone close will feel two things: 1. they will feel the direct effect of that person's hurt 2. they will feel the effects of what they themselves might create in their own heads. However, one antidote (or treatment) could simply be to get better at managing your emotions, thoughts, behaviors. This may not require "faking it", but it does require controlling yourself enough not to do anything bad that would truly "poison" anyone around you. I kind of hope Emily is not saying that carrying these things inside is itself poisoning anyone, but on the other hand we have to be aware of how the things we think we carry inside do come out whether we want it or not.

But still, I wonder about the idea of confronting/conversing with the mother-in-law about what she did. The hope is that she would realize it was wrong - and it seems obvious to anyone that her behavior is not wht you do to a woman in labor. She, being a mother should know that especially. But there is no mention of her ever apologizing, so we may doubt whether she would apologize now. I'm fearing she's going to say "you're still not over that!". The fact that Emily the advisor is sharing that sentiment does not help.

I'm wondering if the husband might share that sentiment. He was definitely on her side when it happened - and we should give him kudos for that. But he might be of the "get over it" mentality, even if he avoids explicitly using that hurtful phrase.

If we think about what it may have been like for Topeka, we might understand her case more. First, what the mother and sister in law did was obviously wrong to anyone. We generally know that when a woman in labor needs to do her thing what anyone else SHOULDN'T do is demand to have their way with her.

And how should she feel about this event, the birth of her child, which was supposed to be a great thing where she was supposed to count on the support of anyone who was family? Instead the moment got tarred by her having to capitulate in a way no woman in labor would ever have to (again, don't we all know that it's us who are supposed to serve the woman in labor, not the other way around?).

On the other hand, perhaps we might entertain skepticism of what specifically was asked of Topeka by her mother. Maybe it was something small or something reasonable. I'm entertaining these thoughts because 1.) the devil's often in the details 2.) Emily entertained these thoughts with her own question, "What did they demand at the hospital——that Grandma perform the episiotomy and sister-in-law cut the cord?". The fact that this sentence was all the time Emily spent entertaining those possibilities before taking her stand - that yes, the mother was wrong for all those reason we all agree - means that Emily is giving the benefit of the doubt to Topeka. Sounds right to me. I may have entertained the thoughts in this paragraph more than Emily did, but you all know how I love to be thorough.

.....

Things can change when a child is in the picture. I don't have one. And yes, we need to be concerned about not "poisoning" the child's relationship with anyone. I might wonder what specifical behaviors classify as poisoning if you choose to keep your thoughts to yourself. Yes, we have to consider that thing kept inside can find away out, but then again, people aren't mind readers, and the fact that we spend a lot of time advocating others to think before they speak, means that yes some good number of things never reach the awareness of others if we keep them inside. Can keeping this inside "poison" you? Possibly. But, there are a lot of things we don't tell others, and in fact are advised not to. Is that poisoning us? Could it simply be a matter that each individual has different levels of strength to carry things inside, the same way we differ on how much physical weight we can carry?

The thing that makes me even wonder about a "need" to keep keeping the stuff inside is that I'm not sure, for reasons I've suggested above, that the mother and sister are going to realize their wrong if Topeka tells them. We might advise her to try, because even if she fails, she will at least never have to wonder. Susan Forward may say the same thing, though I suspect that Susan's idea of "confrontation" differs from Emily's (who advised Topeka to "converse" rather than "confront").

I spent a short time in a grad school class on family therapy before dropping out. I did take one principle before my quick departure: that therapy prescriptions often must differ for different adult children. Because it seems different things "work" for different families, and what seems bad to one set of eyes could be a workable family way for the family itself. I recommend reading "Bungee Families" by Martha Strauss. The main point of all this suggests that it is really hard - if not impossible - to find a single theraputic model that works for all, or even most, families. Even "most" may not be good enough, because every person or family counseled is an individual case. And many therapists don't necessarilly attract clients that are representative of most families. The people that go to Susan Forward might be very different than the people who might go to a therapist that Emily would approve of. Not that I'm saying I know what Emily would approve of. She might think Susan is good sometimes.

Going to post this post in the comment section of the link I gave. Hopefully if she and/or the commenters write back, they keep their "get over it"s to a minimum. But I can only hope.

Update: Go to the link, and see at comments. Mine as "MV" should be at the top (most recent comments are at top)

One more thought: They say the difference between madness and genius is measured by success. In a nutshell, I think that means is that your "grudge", "obsession", or what some might call memory for injustice, is only as justified as what you can create from it. Perhaps the way to avoid the poison is to avoid the destruction...by being constructive. Getting creative.

Working on new post, but in meantime...

Here's a quote from Bill Maher, whose Real Time HBO show will return in February:

"We have to stay loyal to principles, not people" - Bill Maher

Happy New Year everyone!!!

Canadian woman of Indian descent murdered by her family for not conforming to traditional roles

Her name was Jassi Sidhu.

This story was made into a documentary on DateLine. I watched it several months ago. The friends and family members who supported Jassi have created a website to continue fighting for a full investigation into the actions of those still not prosecuted, including the family members who participated or planned the murder.

Those friends and family members on Jassi's side have created Justice for Jassi. It has a petition, and I have signed it. I hope you will too.

Fight everywhere.

Re-thinking "abuse": word choice and concept analysis

In my very first post on this blog, I posited a definition of "abuse" that expanded on the views of society and law. I used this expanded definition in my post, Child abuse: Not understood at all, but affecting every human rights issue (as noted here)

Since then, I've had a lot of time to think, and second-guess, these earlier attempts at expanding the definition. These days, I'm thinking that I'd prefer using other words to describe parental oppression (or at least potential oppression, questionable behavior, things worth examining, etc.)


Examples:
unnecessary criticism,
excessive criticism (criticism that may be justified in moderate doses),
yelling,
parents lying to their children,
social normalization of parental excesses: ("all families are psychotic", dysfunctional family comedies, etc)

What I'm proposing is that we examine the differing behaviors that parents do and ask "is this justified?" And sometimes the answer may be "yes, if...no, if". Other times we don't have a yes/no, but only commentary. Really, the behaviors exist on a continuum.

Perhaps we should address some behaviors separately rather than place them under the banner of "abuse". That is not to say that such behaviors are definitely right or non-harmful, but that we need to give them names other than "abuse", at least for now, because otherwise the word "abuse" comes to mean too many different things to mean anything knowable.

For example, I heard a MySpace friend and Bill Maher suggest that letting your kid eat high-fat foods that make him fat should be considered "child abuse". I would rather it be called "neglect" or "overly-permissive", though you can argue that since the parents are giving the kid the food, they are actively inflicting the harm, thus fitting the definition of abuse. Maybe that's good enough reasoning. But I think of abuse as denying your kids too much freedom, as opposed to letting your kids have too much freedom. Too much freedom can fall under the "overly-permissive" category.

I should concede that the mindset of this blog biases me towards viewing abuse as a greater evil than over-permissiveness. It's the libertarian in me: "give me liberty or give me death", "I'd rather have the inconveniences of too much liberty than too little of it". Patrick Henry, and Thomas Jefferson respectively. I want to think there is a wisdom in this bias, at least for those of us who claim to support free societies.

But ignoring the damages of over-permissiveness puts me in no camp of wisdom. Yes, letting your kids have too much freedom is the cause of many young people acting out. Ideally, good parenting steers away from over-permissivness as much as from abuse. Though decisions come up where a parent may have to weigh on one side or the other. And we can't demand perfection.

Though I am hoping we can demand correction over time. What was done today need not be done next time. To do this requires a willingness to question and examine the behaviors of ourselves and others acting as parents...and a willingness to let ourselves be questioned and examined including by our own children.

After all, those whom we have authority over have a right to question us, the ones who have authority over them. An authority holder who reacts with a "how dare you!" is one that wants to be an unquestioned authority holder, even if she does not think that way consciously. We must walk the walk.

Long time, many busies

Hi gang,

Been out there for a loooooong time. Sorry for the MIA. The easy answer is that I'm prepping for grad school this fall. Housing and what not. And with mom discouraging me from leaving her house - saying it'll never be cheap enough, you'll never find a place - getting out of here is a top priority...though of course these feelings always have to be balanced with a rational temperament as I maneuver through many demands: my (hopefully last) undergrad summer course, taking a diagnostic test for grad school, trying to remember my online friends, jogging, therapy, flossing, budgeting, thinking about doctor visits, etc, etc, etc, etc.

Of course, many of you out there probably got it tougher. But whether you do or not, I'm happy to listen to all your stories in dealing with controlling/toxic/abusive parents and on your personal journeys to build and define your own lives, neither complusively obeying nor compulsively rebelling against the endless commands, irrational or excessive, which they have no right to speak (no matter how much money their giving you).

My head has never stayed on earth for very long, but I'm still here, and I will still listen.

Onward, to the next assignment...

UPDATE: Never forget to take mental and physical breaks. They are necessary for success, survival, and flourishing.

Rob and Arnie have transgender journalist Autumn Sandeen

They actually introduce the discussion in a way suggesting they've been enlightened:

Rob/Arnie (don't know which): "For those of you out there who think that free speech means you can say anything, without any consequences, this show is not for you. Conversely, for anyone here who thinks the solution is to silence all discussion, this show is also not for you....

"For anyone [who is a fan of me] who thinks that this situation is about silencing opinion, like my opinion, let me tell you: If I honestly thought that this was about my opinion being silenced, I wouldn't be here".

Damn. This did disarm me. But don't let your guard down too easily. The devil is in the details of what they will acknowledge and won't acknowledge, AND how they truly feel, or might feel, REGARDLESS of what they say.

I have not listened to the show beyond these first few lines. I got a train to catch. But, I will listen later, and you folks can listen here:

A series of podcasted segments, start with the first one.

Rob and Arnie capitulate, according to Pam's House site

Have the parental-violence-endorsing bastards given up? Check it.

Pam's House Blend has post on Arnie and Rob's violent dialogue

Autumn Sandeen writes, "Nonviolence In Response to the Rob, Arnie & Dawn in the Morning Tirades On TransYouth"

Autumn Sandeen is a transgender person and a primary journalist for the murder trial for victim Angie Zapata. Angie was a trans-woman who was beaten to death by a man she dated who found out she used to be a man. He was charged with both first-degree murder AND a bias-motivated crime (another word for hate crime). He is now serving life without parole.

Justice was done for Angie, but we need to keep an eye on those whose words may incite others to committ violence, especially violence of parents against their own children.

I had written an email yesterday to the the Vice President and General Manager John Geary of the radio station, KRXQ-FM.

You can write him, or Arnie & Rob, or anyone else you can find - please tell me!

Two radio hosts encourage parental violence against transgender children

The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) examines the media's portrayal of gay and transgender people and the political and social issues surrounding the gay/trans communities. Today in my email, GLAAD sent me an action alert about two radio hosts who had this to say about children who question their gender identity:

ARNIE STATES [13:27]: If my son, God forbid, if my son put on a pair of high heels, I would probably hit him with one of my shoes. I would throw a shoe at him. Because you know what? Boys don’t wear high heels. And in my house, they definitely don’t wear high heels

ROB WILLIAMS [17:45]: Dawn, they are freaks. They are abnormal. Not because they’re girls trapped in boys bodies but because they have a mental disorder that needs to be somehow gotten out of them. That’s where therapy could help them.

....... ARNIE STATES [21:30]: You got a boy saying, ‘I wanna wear dresses.’ I’m going to look at him and go, ‘You know what? You’re a little idiot! You little dumbass! Look, you are a boy! Boys don’t wear dresses.’

-------

Their transcript plus the audio clip can be found at this GLAAD action alert, which also gives contact information for the radio hosts and the radio station.

Links on restraining orders

Since many of our toxic parents are (currently) non-violent, we may not qualify for the domestic violence restraining order. Specifically, we might need the harassment restraining order.

But for violent situations, try the order for protection, or the domestic violence restraining order.

Also scroll down for other links.

For those of us in non-violent situations, it would seem that employment and an affordable place (ideally in that order) may likely be first steps before attempting the harassment restraining order. And for those starting school in the fall (like me), you will want to focus now on finding a place for the fall, supported with the right financial aid and/or employment.