Spiritual trauma: did you have any?

[_Coggins7]

Could you discuss that a bit further, charity? Are you saying that the precipitating event DOES NOT cause the abuser to become violent?

What do you think causes the abuser to become violent?

This is all a part of an ideology within counseling psychology, a set of disciplines that have taken on much of the baggage of the culture of the past 35 years or so into its philosophical precincts. The idea that a woman never is involved in the aggravation of physical abuse is a remnant of the insertion of radical feminist ideas into psychology. The same factors are at work in claiming that Black human beings can never be racists or that children, in court, having recovered "repressed memories", never lie.

The imposition of ideology into psychology is a dangerous thing, as we saw during the Satanic child abuse hysteria within the helping professions (especially social work) during the late 80s to mid 90s. Of course, physical abuse is never justified, but in being clear about nonjustificaition, there is no reason to assume that woman cannot and do not incite the kind of anger that can lead to violence. I've known personally, woman who would egg on and egg on a man and dare him to hit her, cutting him down in the most vicious ways she could with personal intimate knowledge and biting sarcasm. I've known woman who like to see men get in fights at bars, and would start verbal wars with other men in order to get a conflagration going.

This, of course, justifies nothing, as far as the man is concerned, but its pure fantasy to paint all woman, as a matter of ideological axiom, even when they are victims of violence, as passive participants.

[_charity]

Now, prayer probably does produce a placebo. The problem you're going to have, if you're coming from a secularist position, is the problem of whether all prayer is gold prayer. That a placebo exists doesn't tell us anything regarding the range or depth of its effects, or where and at one point actual divine intervention takes place within the context of prayer. You would have to find the interface, and unfortunately this is quite beyond the means of any secular methodology, including scientific.

As to therapy, I've gotten into CBT over the last couple of years as a new approach to my own addiction problems (as well as general thinking patterns that tend to self sabotage) and I find many of their ideas quite helpful. I also like, not necessarily in any particular order, the Family Systems model, Rational Emotive, Reality Therapy, and some ideas garnished from Maslow. Humanistic ideas are nice because they have tended to concentrate on psychological health and optimum functioning and were an antidote to the dreary traditional Freudian medical model. Unfortunately, although Psychodynamic theory is now passe, a remedicalization of psychology has taken place over the last 20 years or so, and much of it (especially addiction counselling), has descended into sheer biological determinism and preoccupation with social control (ADD, ADHD, and the present rage for Ritilin).

The idea that there will eventually be a pill that will 'cure" alcoholism, Cocaine addiction, gambling addiction, or that sociopathic behavior is genetically (or environmentally) determined and is medically definable and treatable as a part of a series of "personality disorders" are a part of this general trend.

Were you one of my students?

[_Coggins7]

If you don't have a degree and/or you don't work in the profession, it's a hobby, oh prince of compost.

Quote:
In any case, I'm in the process of putting in work, over the next five or so years, to achieve a Master's degree in Political Science with a minor in philosophy, so I don't have time for Psych.



Then stay the heck out of conversations that would require a degree of knowledge of psych that you simply don't have.

A credentialist is someone who cannot debate points on their merits, cannot muster the critical thinking abilities needed to hold their own in the marketplace of ideas, and hence, must retreat to a credentialist bunker in which they can safely wait out the shelling.

I'll gladly debate or discuss any points in counseling psychology you wish, and I'll be happy to do it quite without a degree. Its the knowledge that counts Harmony, not the degree. The degree is only useful, as you yourself point out, for professional (vocational) purposes, and even that has nothing necessarily to do with depth of knowledge. I'm after the Political Sciene and Philosopy degrees because I want to do something with them professionally, otherwise, I wouldn't bother with that either. I can read all the same books (and for less money) by not going to university.

[_Coggins7]

By definition, women cannot provoke a battering incident. That is what TD is getting at. Just like victims of rape, victims of domestic battering cannot be blamed for what happens to them. The battering is not their fault. It is always the fault of the batterer, not the victim of the violence. Don't you understand that the batterer always has the choice between not battering and battering, and that is a private choice? One in which the victim has no voice?

Thank you, uh...this is Feminist ideology folks, not serious psychology. By definition, no woman can ever provoke being battered? As I pointed out, by definition, black people cannot be racists. Harmony here confuses fault with incitement. Its equally my fault if, when someone cuts me off at an intersection, I get out of my car and smash his windshield with a crowbar. Its equally true that if, prior to this, he escalated the situation by calling me every four letter word in the book in strings of vicious demeaning profanity, that an influence would have been created that incited passions beyond what they might have been. The fault is still all mine, but the interpersonal dynamics between us were still a factor. Fault has noting to do with aggravation that may come from the one who ends as the actual victim.

I cannot punch someone because they continue calling my mother a filthy whore. If I do, I will go to jail. However, it is equally certain that, in an ethical sense, many observers would say that the other person had it coming to him. That doesn't justify my violence, but it does point out an obvious fact: human beings create volatile situations in which violence becomes more and more likely, with certain individuals, then if they deescalated and stood down. Woman are just as capable as men of such behavior.

[_Coggins7]

I'm reminded of a scene in late seventies film called Kentucky Fried Movie, in which a Evel Knievel type Daredevil prepares himself for his ultimate stunt (the whole scene was a send up of an early seventies show hosted by Chuck Conners, the title of which escapes me at the moment). He puts on his helmet, tightens his straps...and walks over to a group of black males playing dice in an abandoned industrial section of what is obviously an inner city area. Positioning himself amongst the black men, he steadies himself, and then yells "Niggers!" as loud as he can, and runs away.

What do you think happens? Yes. the black men yell "Get 'em" and give chase. The moral of the story? If they catch the guy and beat the living crap out of him, well, they should all go to jail. But would not someone who actually did something along these lines receive little sympathy or shoulders to cry on? Now, by definition, Harmony must here say that a white male behaving in such a manner can never provoke assault and battery by a group of black males. Fault and the interpersonal dynamics of the situation are not the same thing, and by any definition, a woman, a man, anyone, can provoke rage and physical abuse. Fault lies with the one who acts upon his rage, or allows his rage to fester uncontrolled, but there is also incitement. We don't allow practical jokers to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater or run through the streets yelling "Kill the Jew Apes and Pigs" because of its potential to create conditions in which some people will act when otherwise they would have not. Fault here legally lies both with those who acted and with the one who incited the action.

That's not going to be the case in domestic violence cases because domestic violence does not happen in public, and because it can never be proven in court who said what to whom or if anyone did. The woman's black eye will be enough to send hubby to jail. Regardless, the imposition of ideology on couneling psychoilgy only muddies already murky and troubled waters.

[_Coggins7]

Were you one of my students?

No, but I play one on television.

[_charity]

charity

It is not the FAULT of the victim, anymore than the precipitating event CAUSES the abuser to become violent. It is a fact.

Could you discuss that a bit further, charity? Are you saying that the precipitating event DOES NOT cause the abuser to become violent?

What do you think causes the abuser to become violent?

The precipitating event would not cause a non-abuser to become violent. The reasons given for the violence are usually trivial acts on the part of the victim--dinner wasn't ready when I came home, she made apple pie and she knows I only like berry pie, she was talking to the neighbor and I told her never to talk to her, etc. But the thing is, in those cases the victim knew he didn't like apple pie, knew he insisted on dinner being on the talbe when he came in the door, etc. because he had used those excuses for his anger in the past.

The abuser becomes violent because he has become angry at someone or something else that he cannot vent his anger on and she is his target. Or because he is feeling that he is losing control (not of his temper) but of his life and he can exert control over her. Or he thinks he has a reason to be jealous.

[_beastie]

Charity,

You keep focusing on one small subset - that is the victim who attempts to trigger the event to get it over with. I do not believe that this represents the majority of victims, and for you to hyper-focus on this one small subset gives the impression that there is actually something the victim can do to prevent the abuse, (ie, not provide the trigger), when the reality is there is nothing the victim can do to prevent the abuse. Other than, of course, exit the relationship, and that isn't a guarantee, either. The most dangerous time for a victim is immediately after she exits the relationship.

[_beastie]

by the way, you and coggins have completely distorted what TD and Harmony actually said.

As I have understood their comments, they are saying that the victim of abuse did not CAUSE the abuse. There is nothing she can do or change to prevent the abuse.

The "trigger" is just an excuse. It's a justification given by the abuser for the abuse.

Perhaps you, Charity, understand this, but Coggins has taken your comments and run into an entirely different direction. Look at this subsequent responses to you. He is now comparing what you keep focusing on - the subset of victims who provide a trigger to get it over with - to a biker shouting "Nigger" and then getting beaten up.

Since Coggins cannot "hear" anything we say, it would be helpful if you clarified the situation for him, Charity. Do not let him insist that a victim of abuse has "triggered" the abuse in the same way that a biker shouting "nigger" triggered his beating.

The trigger that a small subset of abuse victims provide is not the actual reason for the abuse. It is a justification given by the abuser, who actually has no idea what is going on inside of him (or her) to create this cycle.

[_charity]

Charity,

The most dangerous time for a victim is immediately after she exits the relationship.

I respond to questions that are asked of me.

And this is the reason I support shelter homes for women who are leaving abusive relationships.

But I am becoming wearied of the way in which parts of my posts are totally ignored and the sportlight falls on only selected parts.

I think this topic has about run its course for me.