Whereas in the first stage of recovery survivors deal with social adversity mainly by retreating to a protected environment, in the third stage survivors may wish to take the initiative in confronting others. It is at this point that survivors are ready to reveal their secrets, to challenge the indifference or censure of bystanders, and to accuse those who have abused them.
Survivors who grew up in abusive families have often cooperated for years with a family rule of silence. In preserving the family secret, they carry the weight of a burden that does not belong to them. At this point in their recovery, survivors may choose to declare to their families that the rule of silence has been irrevocably broken. In so doing, they renounce the burden of shame, guilt, and responsibility, and place this burden on the perpetrator, where it properly belongs.
Family confrontations or disclosures can be highly empowering when they are properly timed and well planned. They should not be undertaken until the survivor feels ready to speak the truth as she knows it, without need for confirmation and without fear of consequences. The power of the disclosure rests in the act of telling the truth; how the family responds is immaterial. While validation from the family can be gratifying when it occurs, a disclosure session may be successful even if the family responds with unyielding denial or fury. In this circumstance the survivor has the opportunity to observe the family’s behavior and to enlarge her understanding of the pressures she faced as a child.
Please please please stop saying things like “If I had a physical illness instead of a mental one you’d take me seriously!” or literally anything to that effect.
This is a really common misconception but I have no idea where it comes from as the reaction pretty much all chronic illnesses get, mental or physical, tend to be roughly the same. Some illnesses have more stigma or are treated with more ableism than others, yes, but as general categories the way they’re treated are the same.
I’ve gotten the exact same comments about both my mental and physical health, including
- Aren’t you too young to have that?
- Are you sure those meds wont turn you into a zombie?
- Did you try yoga?
- Have you tried sleeping better?
- Try this diet it’ll totally make you better!
- I’m pretty sure thats not a real thing
- You’re just using that as an excuse
- no, you’re just lazy/[insert ableist slurs here].
Additionally, I’ve been physically sick literally over 5 years and do not have any diagnosis, which is not uncommon. Being physically ill is not some magical difference from being mentally ill where doctors suddenly aren’t ableist towards you, know exactly how to diagnose you, and do so immediately.
Its also not a magical land where people take you seriously, ever. Believe me. I can’t even count the number of times I’ve been told I’m too young to be chronically ill, and I’ve been chronically ill since I was 13 so its like, clearly it can happen a lot younger than 18. and yet I get those comments constantly anyways.
if you’re mentally ill but otherwise abled PLEASE don’t make these kinds of statements anymore because its just not true. They WOULD and they DO act the exact same ways to ppl who are physically ill. unless you’ve had experience being treated as both physically and mentally ill please stop comparing the two as if you have any idea what its like. you clearly don’t because no, it wouldn’t be different if you were physically ill. it wouldn’t be different at all.
Don’t be distracted by terms like “rioting”. Whether you’re for or against uprising and rebellion (side-eye if you’re against it, though), it’s a tool, not the issue itself. The issue is yet another Black teenager murdered by police. His name was Mike Brown.
ferguson rly teaches a lesson in the lengths police will go to protect each other and white supremacy. they’d rather do all this than arrest one man.
because he is a cop, and he’s white.
they ‘have each other’s backs’ so doggedly and determinedly that they would sacrifice a town of black people for one white cop
We live in a society that’s sexist in ways it doesn’t understand. One of the consequences is that men are extremely sensitive to being criticized by women. I think it threatens them in a very primal way, and male privilege makes them feel free to lash out.
This is why women are socialized to carefully dance around these issues, disagreeing with men in an extremely gentle manner. Not because women are nicer creatures than men. But because our very survival can depend on it.
The whole article sadly hits very close to home.
I’d like you to remember the last time you found it difficult to give an explicit “no” to somebody in a non-sexual context. Maybe they asked you to do them a favour, or to join them for a drink. Did you speak up and say, outright, “No?” Did you apologise for your “no?” Did you qualify it and say, “Oh, I’m sorry, I can’t make it today?” If you gave an outright “no,” what privileged positions do you occupy in society, and how does your answer differ from the answers of people occupying more marginalised positions?
This form of refusal was analysed in 1999 by Kitzinger and Frith (K&F) in Just Say No? The Use of Conversation Analysis in Developing a Feminist Perspective on Sexual Refusal. Despite the seeming ambiguity in question/refusal acts like, “We were wondering if you wanted to come over Saturday for dinner,” “Well, uhh, it’d be great but we promised Carol already,” they are widely understood by the participants as straightforward refusals.
K&F conclude by saying that, “For men to claim [in a sexual context] that they do not ‘understand’ such refusals to be refusals (because, for example, they do not include the word ‘no’) is to lay claim to an astounding and implausible ignorance of normative conversational patterns.”
This is a really interesting application of conversation analysis, an approach to interpersonal interaction, which is used across linguistics, sociology, anthropology, speech-communication and psychology.