NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/alt/recovery/3848

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-28 | 10.7 KB

Xref: sparky alt.recovery:3848 alt.support:1654
Newsgroups: alt.recovery,alt.support
Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!amdahl!rtech!pacbell.com!sgiblab!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!The-Star.honeywell.com!umn.edu!lynx.unm.edu!SantaFe!sfi!dgs
From: [e-mail] (David G. Simmons)
Subject: Re: RFD: Codependency (Third Attempt)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 00:54:20 GMT
Organization: Santa Fe Institute
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (David Simmons)
Lines: 187



In article <[e-mail]> you write:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David G. Simmons) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Angela I.) writes:
>[Forgive me, I'm going to paraphrase to shorten this]
>Angela suggests:
>   ... there is nothing for recoverying children of addicts or codependents.
>
>David responds:
>We don't need a separate group -- traffic on that topic is light ...
>                               ^^^^
What I said was *group*, not topic.  In 2 days, there were 9 articles
posted to alt.recovery.  Not high by any means.
>>
>>I strongly disagree with the premise that addicts cause co-dependents, even
>>partly.  Codependents *find* addicts to be with *because* they are co-dependent,
>>and addicts fill a place in their disease process.  Addicts do not cause normal
>>people to become codependent, except in the case of small children. (most
>>"normal" people won't have anything to do with addicts *or* codependents) Recovering
>
>I chime in again:
>David, you are seriously blocking here.  The whole concept that Angela
>is talking about is ACoA - Adult (now) Children (then) of Alcoholics (or
>Addicts, if you want to be more general).  I didn't have a choice to
>not be with my abusive parents.  Further, your statement "Codependents
>find addicts to be with because they are codependent ..." proves that
>the ACoA discussion should be separate from the alt.recovery discussion,
>since further exposure to addicts only adds to the codependency.
>
Um...not to belabor the point, but I am not "seriously blocking" here.
I understand the co-dependent as very few do.  I worked with them
in an intensive in-patient treatment center, as a therapist, for
years.  I understand that the children did not have a choice, and that
parental alcoholism/religion/abuse/etc. is the ROOT of the problem.
However, placing blame on what caused the problem does not solve it.
It merely identifies the source, which is ONLY THE FIRST STEP in the
process.  Next comes the grieving over what was lost, and dealing with
where we, as ACoA's, are TODAY.

>It's attitudes like yours, ready to blame the victims for the abuse
>perpetrated by addicts that caused me to abandon participation in
>alt.recovery.  Your statement "most "normal" people won't have anything
>to do with addicts *or* codependents" is just more abuse heaped on
>INNOCENT people who were victimized by addicts.  Your whole post is
>an expose' on the kinds of emotional abuse that addicts dump on the
>people in their lives that turns them into codependents -- a child has
>no power to fight back those kind of statements, and they can destroy
>the fragile self-esteem of the child.
>
What?  Blame the victim for the abuse?  I'm sorry you have such a victim-
mentality that you felt I was blaming the co-dependent.  I was not.
I was simply pointing out that non-codependents, as a general rule, do not
get involved with alcoholics/addicts/etc.  Co-dependents are NOT
innocent people on which abuse was heaped, as you state.  Co-dependents
are people that, because of their particular disease process, choose to
engage in destructive relationships with people who will, most likely
abuse them.  I will say again, that adult alcoholics dumping on children
DOES cause co-dependency.  Adult alcoholics dumping on ADULTS does not.
We are all adults here (I assume, since I have seen no posts by
children).  You are right, a CHILD has no power to fight back.  However,
YOU, and others here on alt.recovery, DO.  We need to LEARN to fight
back against abuse, or we will never be able to do it.  It is a
LEARNED skill, which healthy children are taught by health parents.
As ACoAs, we, by definition, were not taught this skill.

One of the MOST USEFUL things to do, to remind yourself that you are
NO LONGER a helpless, defenseless child, is to look down at your hands.
Really look at them.  Are they the hands of a *child*?
>>from codependency requires that we learn to exist in the same world with
>>addicts without it negatively affecting our lives. If we run away from all
>>addicts, even those in recovery, all we are learning is to run away, not
>>to change, grow and recover.
>Again, your perspective is twisted.  In early 1992, when I was posting
>to alt.recovery, I frequently requested that abusive behavior and comments
>toward recovering victims of abuse/codependency be curtailed in the
>group.  Those attempts failed, because the participants would not accept
>that their actions were abusive -- typical of abusive addicts.  To
>recover from our abusive backgrounds, we need a place where we can talk
>about our pain without fear of ridicule or further abuse.  I found that
>alt.recovery was not that place -- it was full of abuse.
>
When dealing in an electronic forum, I think it is very difficult to
decide about subtle forms of abuse.  The way you read something may
not be the way someone else reads it, and neither one may reflect what
the writer intended, and felt they were conveying.  Maybe you are
right, *very* fragile people should probably stay off of alt.recovery.
But *very* fragile people should also probably stay out of a LOT of
places until they get treatment.  It takes a lot of recovery to be
strong enough to have someone disagree with you, even get angry
with you, and still not feel like a bad person.  It takes a sense
of self, of self-worth.  Few ACoA's have this, because they were never
TAUGHT this as children.  We need to teach ourselves this in adulthood,
because no one else is going to do it for us.  This was the hardest thing
(one of them anyway) for me to grasp: No one is going to do it for me.

>It is not a matter of running away, it is a matter of not accepting
>abuse.  When you cannot stop someone from abusing you in any other way,
>then you distance yourself from that person.  By calling this running
>away, and saying that by doing so we will not grow, you are playing out
>the "trap" set by addicts for their victims -- you are trying to make
>abuse sound like it is good for us.
>
I am doing no such thing.  I did NOT say to stand there (or sit there)
and take abuse.  I said we need to learn to STAND UP FOR OURSELVES to
stop it.  Leaving alt.recovery will not teach us to stand up for ourselves.
Addicts are stubborn people. They do not learn  things quickly (neither
do co-dependents).  Neither of us changes our behavior quickly or
easily.  And NEITHER of us does it if no one pushes us to do it.

>>
>More from Angela:
> ... a separate ACoA group might be a good idea ...
>
>>I think we should stick it out here in a.r and a.s.  If an addict gives you a
>>hard time, learn to stand up for yourself.  I know that the first time I was
>>able to tell an addict "that behavior is *not* acceptable, and it is you, not me,
>>that has to change" was a major turning point in recovering from codependency.
>
>Oh, sure.  You can copy the tactics of the abuser when you are physically
>capable of enforcing the threat or defending yourself.  You can even
>convince yourself that you have recovered.  But what I have seen you
>showcase in this post is not healthy behavior in my book.
>
I am NOT talking about "physically enforcing the threat". I have no idea what
you are talking about.  Where did I say *anything* about a threat?  Standing
up for yourself does NOT, and should not, involve threats, violence, etc.
It does not even have to involve anger or resentment (in fact, it is better
and more effective if it does not).  As for your aspersions on my state of
recovery...I will not dignify that with a response.

>>Besides the "opportunity for growth" here, it turns out that most addicts are
>>*also* codependents (I'm ducking after that one! ;-), and we may be able to
>>spread the message better, and farther, if we stay put, and speak our own
>>truth about what we know and believe.  I think that all the proposed functions
>>of a.r.d are already provided by a.r and a.s.
>
>Wrong.  The longer we "hang out" with addicts (in various stages of recovery)
>and subject ourselves to their abuse, the more we inhibit our own recovery.
>We need to be with people like ourselves who are aware of the pain of abuse
>and recovering from that.  We need a safe place apart from the abusers so
>that we can heal and go forward to live a normal life.  Our problems are
>distinctly different from addicts.
No, they are not.  The form of the addiction is different.  Most co-dependents
are addicted to abuse/neglect.

> Addicts chose to deny what the addiction
>was doing to them and their families -- victims were forced by their
>abusers to keep silent about the abuse and the abuser.
iYes, vicitms *were* forced to be quit about waht was going on.  However,
no one is forcing you to be silent any longer.  Co-dependents are jsut
as good--maybe better-at denying what their co-dependency is doing to
them and their families (it's so easy when you have someone with such
an *obvious* problem to point at).

> When you tell us things like "Take the cotton our of your ears and put
>in in your mouth." that's
>great advice for abusive addicts who don't hear the truth and spout nothing

I don't recall saying anything of the sort.  If someone says that to
you *please* don't listen to them.  Part of recovery is learning what
to listen to and what not to listen to.

>but lies.  But for recovering victims, it is a re-establishment of the
>enforced listening to lies and enforced silence from speaking the truth.
>For a recovering victim, the exact opposite advice applies:  "Take the
>cotton out of your mouth so you can voice the truth of what you experienced
>and put it in your ears to block out the lies being told to you."
>
>David, I'm going to pray for you because you need it.
>
I thank you for your prayers.  Your motives may be suspect, but I never
turn down a prayer.  You know almost NOTHING about me, so saying "I'm
going to pray for you because you need it" is, by your own definition,
abuse.  Thankfully, I have enough self-esteem, self-worth, and recovery
to know that when I judge another, I am not okay with myself, nothing more.
I am sorry you are not okay with yourself.
>>
>Peace,
>Mary Otto
>
>
>
Peace, too.
--
David G. Simmons    "New Mexico...Land of the flea,
[e-mail]      Home of the Plague..."