Spiritual trauma: did you have any?

[_Yoda]

Coggins...there are times when it's appropriate to be a smartass, and times when it's better to shut the hell up. In this case, I would strongly suggest the latter.

That's funny, I wouldn't suggest anything of the kind.

Fine. Throw yourself to the wolves. It's your funeral.

[_Coggins7]

TD doesn't know what she is talking about. There are different schools of thought in psychotherapy. In fact, a vast plethora of them. Charity comes from one, and TD from another. Doubtless, the "experts" of one school may not agree with the experts of another.

Psychotherapy is not science Liz. Whatever it is, it isn't a science of human behavior change in the sense of the natural or hard empirical sciences. Its a discipline and an area of study, but the vast quantity of theories and models of human behavior, personality development, and behavior change are a testament to the deeply speculative and ever evolving nature of the field of psychology, as well as the fertile ground it provides to intellectual fads and trendy therapeutic fashions.

If TD wants to essentially brand Charity as a liar and fraud, then fine, but many of these schools of thought in the field do not agree with one another at all on basic principles. If TD wants to pretend that her school of thought is "the true church", then fine too, but she should be clear that she is arguing form one school of thought within counseling psychology, not "the true" school of thought (unless she believes it is, in which case she should just let us all know instead of branding Charity as a charlatan because she comes from a different theoretical orienatation).

[_Coggins7]

Fine. Throw yourself to the wolves. It's your funeral.

My real last name Liz, is Kruger. I always come back.

[_Yoda]

TD doesn't know what she is talking about. There are different schools of thought in psychotherapy. In fact, a vast plethora of them. Charity comes from one, and TD from another. Doubtless, the "experts" of one school may not agree with the experts of another.

Psychotherapy is not science Liz. Whatever it is, it isn't a science of human behavior change in the sense of the natural or hard empirical sciences. Its a discipline and an area of study, but the vast quantity of theories and models of human behavior, personality development, and behavior change are a testament to the deeply speculative and ever evolving nature of the field of psychology, as well as the fertile ground it provides to intellectual fads and trendy therapeutic fashions.

If TD wants to essentially brand Charity as a liar and fraud, then fine, but many of these schools of thought in the field do not agree with one another at all on basic principles. If TD wants to pretend that her school of thought is "the true church", then fine too, but she should be clear that she is arguing form one school of thought within counseling psychology, not "the true" school of thought (unless she believes it is, in which case she should just let us all know instead of branding Charity as a charlatan because she comes from a different theoretical orienatation).

I don't consider Charity a liar or a fraud. She has a Master's degree in Psychology, and taught on the college level for quite some time. She obviously has expertise in the field.

However, TD is a practicing counselor. In addition to a Master's in Psychology, she also has additional counseling credentials, and has practiced clinical psychology.

Both ladies were a little catty in their responses to one another. And, I agree that both are coming from different schools of thought.

I am perfectly willing to let them battle it out. They are the experts. Not me, and certainly not you.

I wasn't criticizing your disagreement with TD. I was criticizing the fact that your smartass comment trivialized the entire topic. And when you start trivializing the subject of abuse, you are going to have a hell of a fight on your hands.

Like I said, my friend. It's your funeral. ;)

[_charity]

You never responded to me as far as explaining how a victim of abuse "growing a spine" and "confronting the abuser" factor into the cycle of abuse. If you did, I have missed it and would appreciate you pointing me to that response. Because, Charity, those are the comments you made for which you are being taken to task.

I have been trying to answer at least three of you. 3 to 1 is pretty much tag teaming me. So here goes on this shotgun pellet.

No one can get a woman out of an abuse situation unless she decides she wants to be out of it.

Now before someone yells and screams that abuse victims don't want to be abused, and I said they did, just stop right there. Abuse victims stay in abuse situations because they don't know how they can support themselves, they think the abuser will track them down, they think marraige should be until death do you part, etc. But whatever, they think the reason to stay is more compelling than the reason to go. No one can make the woman change her mind about which reason is more compelling. She has to do that herself.

The reasons to stay are fear based and negative, denying growth.. The reasons to leave are life promoting. That's what I mean by "growing a spine." "Confronting the abuser" isn't in the physical sense, standing toe to toe. To leave she has to commit herself to oppose him

Women who were abused in years past were in a different time. Since the 1960's society has done a turn around. You will not be able to find an abuse victim who has not been exposed to the counter-violence culture.

[_truth dancer]

TD doesn't know what she is talking about. There are different schools of thought in psychotherapy. In fact, a vast plethora of them. Charity comes from one, and TD from another. Doubtless, the "experts" of one school may not agree with the experts of another.

This discussion is not about various schools of thought in psychotherapy of which I am very well aware exist. It is about what is appropriate counseling for survivors of abuse. Telling a survivor to "grow a spine", "showing pity and patting a them on the back," are not a part of any theory or technique of which I am aware. Charity is free to correct me if she has some sort of documentation to suggest otherwise.

This discussion is about appropriate therapy for survivors of abuse and Charity's made up versions of what she thinks is therapy... either patting them on the back, or telling them to grow a spine. Neither of which are part of any theory of which I am aware.

If TD wants to essentially brand Charity as a liar and fraud, then fine,

Nope... just someone who has never worked with anyone who is abused, nor is familiar with what is appropriate therapy for anyone involved in abuse. This is quite clear.

If TD wants to pretend that her school of thought is "the true church", then fine too, but she should be clear that she is arguing form one school of thought within counseling psychology, not "the true" school of thought (unless she believes it is, in which case she should just let us all know instead of branding Charity as a charlatan because she comes from a different theoretical orienatation).

And which school of thought do you think I embrace? The only thing I have mentioned is that I do NOT believe in the school of thought that tells survivors of abuse to "grow a spine" one that tells therapists to "pity a victim" and "pat them on the head." Again, I would challenge Charity to show where this is any part of a psychological theory.

I have not discussed my personal experience working in this field, but let me just say that I have read the majority of research on this topic, I have attended dozens of conferences, learned form the experts in the field, known scores of therapists who specialize in abuse. I've worked with law enforcement, the medical community, and literally hundred of people whose lives have been harmed by abuse.... have never, ever, EVER, come across anyone who thinks therapy is about patting a survivor on the back, or telling them to grow a spine.

Again, Charity is free to share information if there is some reputable theory embracing either of these techniques she seems to believe are part of appropriate therapy for survivors of abuse.

Liz writes,

"Both ladies were a little catty in their responses to one another. And, I agree that both are coming from different schools of thought."

I appologize if my comments come across as catty. That was not my intent. I must say I am baffled by what I read from Charity.

I take abuse seriously. I have known women who have been killed, abused beyond anything I can describe, children harmed for life. This is not a topic for me that can be reduced to telling a woman to grow a spine... and suggesting any therapist in this field just "pats a woman on the head" as a form of therapy is ridiculous beyond belief.

I have devoted much of my life to stopping the cycles of abuse, helping men and women reduce violence in their home, helping children manage life after abuse. I have a difficult time hearing someone pretend they know something about abuse while suggesting the appropriate response is to "grow a spine."

Again, this is NOT about differences in what psych theory one embraces. This is about violence, abuse, and healing.

One more thing... suggesting a therpist's role is to, "try to convince a woman to leave," (paraphrasing), is NOT a dicussion about theory... it is about ethics.

~dancer~

[_ozemc]

This has got to be one of the most arrogant pieces of tripe I've seen posted here.

How dare you presume to know what my spiritual life is, and my accountability to God, or whoever I believe God to be?

What is "truth", Charity?

Something in a book that you "believe" is true?

Something someone told you?

Something you have a "witness" for?

Humbug.

You've been so brainwashed by spin, fantasies, and half-truths, you couldn't see the real truth if it spit in your eye.

The real "truth", if you want it, is nobody knows!

It's all guesswork, and it's all based on faith.

You can't "know" the truth, anymore than anyone else can.

Now, this post began thus:

This has got to be one of the most arrogant pieces of tripe I've seen posted here.

This was followed by one of the most arrogant, vacuous, nihilistic rants I've yet seen on this board. And in all this it doesn't dawn on our intrepid voyager to the very limits of philosophical depth that he has done exactly what he claimed Charity was doing to him. "How dare you presume to know what my spiritual life is, and my accountability to God, or whoever I believe God to be?"

Well ozmec, how dare you?

You just don't get it, do you?

My spirituality does not include statements that says all others are wrong, and apostate.

My spirituality does not include old men that try to have sex with young women, some teenagers, because "God" told them to.

My spirituality does not include people who think that blacks were made that way because of some sin in their "pre-existence", whatever the hell that is. How can you exist before you exist?

Along those same lines, how degrading and racist is it to say that you'll become more "white and delightsome" if you just follow the church? What BS.

The point is that for anyone to say they have the "truth", and everybody else is wrong is just plain ludicrous.

NO ONE knows what happens after you die, no one. It's all conjecture and belief. I could just as easily say we're all just a big alien DNA experiment by an old race on the other side of the galaxy.

[_charity]

If TD wants to essentially brand Charity as a liar and fraud, then fine,

Nope... just someone who has never worked with anyone who is abused, nor is familiar with what is appropriate therapy for anyone involved in abuse. This is quite clear.

It is only clear in your own mind.

And which school of thought do you think I embrace? The only thing I have mentioned is that I do NOT believe in the school of thought that tells survivors of abuse to "grow a spine" one that tells therapists to "pity a victim" and "pat them on the head." Again, I would challenge Charity to show where this is any part of a psychological theory.

I didn't say it was a part of any psychological theory. I said it was a mistaken idea to do the pity thing. And too many therapists get caught up in that.

I have not discussed my personal experience working in this field, but let me just say that I have read the majority of research on this topic, I have attended dozens of conferences, learned form the experts in the field, known scores of therapists who specialize in abuse. I've worked with law enforcement, the medical community, and literally hundred of people whose lives have been harmed by abuse.... have never, ever, EVER, come across anyone who thinks therapy is about patting a survivor on the back, or telling them to grow a spine.

And yet you never before heard of the phenomeonon of the victim deliberately provoking an attack to end the UNBEARABLE tension?

Again, Charity is free to share information if there is some reputable theory embracing either of these techniques she seems to believe are part of appropriate therapy for survivors of abuse.

Just tell me which type of therapy does NOT work with victims to get them to the point where they can make the decision to leave the abusive situation? Or do you only deal with women who have already left the abusive situation? Do you have any clients who are men who have been in abusive situations where the female is the abuser?

Liz writes,

"Both ladies were a little catty in their responses to one another. And, I agree that both are coming from different schools of thought."

I appologize if my comments come across as catty. That was not my intent. I must say I am baffled by what I read from Charity.

I apolgoize if I have been catty. But it is a little hard when I have had to take the abuse that TD has been dishing out. Questioning my credibility in every post.

I take abuse seriously. I have known women who have been killed, abused beyond anything I can describe, children harmed for life. This is not a topic for me that can be reduced to telling a woman to grow a spine... and suggesting any therapist in this field just "pats a woman on the head" as a form of therapy is ridiculous beyond belief.

I, too, take abuse seriously. I haven't known any woman who was killed. But I have known both women AND men who have been abused by their spouses.

I think we come from two different ends of the spectrum. I follow Maslow and Ellis. You seem to follow Freud. "Harmed for life" is the Freudian thought. If traumatic events occur, then the opportunity for a happy life is gone. The other end, my end, is that EVERYONE has life challenges. We don't all have the same ones. You take what happens to you, deal with, and be happy. The Freudian thought is that everyone is a victim. The Maslow/Ellis side is that your allow yourself to be a victim. I chose to treat people as organisms with the ability to chose NOT to let people victimize them. And that is a valid perspective.

I have devoted much of my life to stopping the cycles of abuse, helping men and women reduce violence in their home, helping children manage life after abuse. I have a difficult time hearing someone pretend they know something about abuse while suggesting the appropriate response is to "grow a spine."

You are perseverating. I have told you what that means. If you have not been trying to help men and women make healthy decisions, then what have you been doing? Patting them on the head and telling them how sorry you are that their lives are ruined?

Again, this is NOT about differences in what psych theory one embraces. This is about violence, abuse, and healing. [.quote]

And the way you approach that depends on what you think the causes and cure are. THEORY.

One more thing... suggesting a therpist's role is to, "try to convince a woman to leave," (paraphrasing), is NOT a dicussion about theory... it is about ethics.

~dancer~

Therapy is to help people learn how to make HEALTHY decisions for themselves. At least according to Maslow and Ellis. Of course, Freud wants to listen to people talk about horses and cigars and what their mother's did or didn't do.

[_truth dancer]

It is only clear in your own mind.

Are you telling us that you have indeed been a counselor working with survivors of abuse?

truth dancer wrote:

I didn't say it was a part of any psychological theory. I said it was a mistaken idea to do the pity thing. And too many therapists get caught up in that.

You mentioned two approaches... pity and back patting, OR, telling a woman to "get a spine." Neither approach are part of any therapy or theory of which I am aware.

And yet you never before heard of the phenomeonon of the victim deliberately provoking an attack to end the UNBEARABLE tension?

I never said any such thing and you know it. I stated that abuse is never the victims fault. Your version of the cycle of abuse is not the norm and suggesting abuse is the woman's fault is not part of any therapy or theory of which I am aware.

Enough folks on the board have addressed this and have attempted to help you understand.

Just tell me which type of therapy does NOT work with victims to get them to the point where they can make the decision to leave the abusive situation?

This is much different than your previous statement... "trying to convince women to leave." Do you understand the difference?

Therapy for survivors of abuse, is NOT about telling a woman what to do, trying to convince her what to do, or giving a woman one more person to whom she must please. It is about helping a client be safe, supporting her as she makes decisions which SHE feels are most healthy. You may want to read up on empowerment counseling.

Or do you only deal with women who have already left the abusive situation? Do you have any clients who are men who have been in abusive situations where the female is the abuser?

I have done everything from extensive crisis intervention work, to helping women who have been in an abusive relationship for decades. Yes I have had clients who are men in an abusive relationship where the female is the abuser. I have also worked with hundreds of men convincted of domestic violence and abuse.

I have yet to know of even one situation where a woman or man survivor of abuse could benefit from a therapist telling her/him to get a spine, OR a pat on the back with lots of pity. Neither is therapy Charity. And I feel quite certain if I were to do such a thing I would not have a job in the field of abuse.

I apolgoize if I have been catty. But it is a little hard when I have had to take the abuse that TD has been dishing out. Questioning my credibility in every post.

I do not think questioning your credibility is abuse. It is quite clear to me you have not worked in this field. I truly do find some of your statements unbelievable, even shocking. I appologize if this offends you.

I think we come from two different ends of the spectrum. I follow Maslow and Ellis. You seem to follow Freud.

What could possibly give you the impression I follow Freud. NOTHING can be farther from the truth. I have no idea what gave you this idea. Again, you make up stuff so you can find some sort of argument... or something. Maslow and Ellis are two of my favorites!

"Harmed for life" is the Freudian thought.

Yes, a child who is caught in gunfire, by a man trying to kill his mother, and becomes paralyzed is harmed for life. Nothing Freudian about this. (I started a program for children in seriously abusive homes hoping to stop the cycle of abuse).

The woman whose body was mutilated by her abusive husband is harmed for life. The woman who got HIV when she was raped by former boyfriend, is harmed for life.

It happens Charity... we all wish it were not the case but all the therapy in the world is not going to cure HIV, or take away the knife wounds.

If traumatic events occur, then the opportunity for a happy life is gone.

Charity... harmed for life does not mean they never have an opportunity for a happy life.

The other end, my end, is that EVERYONE has life challenges.

OF COURSE THEY DO. When have I suggested otherwise. When has ANYONE suggested otherwise? See Charity, again you make up these arguments to fight against.

We don't all have the same ones. You take what happens to you, deal with, and be happy.

Yes, I do not know of anyone who would disagree.

The Freudian thought is that everyone is a victim.

Please tell me when I have used the term "victim" as opposed to survivor? I know of no abuse counselors who look upon survivors of abuse as victims. None. I look upon survivors of abuse as strong, amazing women (and men) who have found a way to stay alive.

I chose to treat people as organisms with the ability to chose NOT to let people victimize them. And that is a valid perspective.

Again I have no idea why you think there is some psych theory that suggests a therapist should approach their clients/patients with pity. I have never come across this theory you seem to know. Nor have I come across ANY therapists dealing with abuse who approach therapy with this mindset. I have never attended a conference, read a book, heard a speaker suggest such a thing... in fact the opposite is true.

If you have not been trying to help men and women make healthy decisions, then what have you been doing?

Of course I have tried to help men adn women make healthy decisions.

There is a big difference between trying to help people make healthy decisions, and trying to convince them or tell them what they must do.

Patting them on the head and telling them how sorry you are that their lives are ruined?

You have a way of making up stuff that is seriously amazing. How many times must I repeat myself. I have never heard of any theory that supports patting a survivor on the head and showing pity?

Must I bold and enlarge the font for you to take note?

YOU seem to mistakenly think this is some approach therapist use.. again, I HAVE NEVER HEARD OF SUCH AN APPROACH.

Do you understand this? Unless you can show me otherwise, I think it is something you made up Charity.

Therapy is to help people learn how to make HEALTHY decisions for themselves.

Of course... I would highlight the, "themselves."

Telling survivors of abuse to, "grow a spine," is not taking abuse seriously.

The thing is Charity, therapy is more than repeating what is in a book. It is more than knowing Maslow, Freud, Ellis, Rogers, or anyone else. It is more than understanding theory. It is about real people, real situations, real families, real lives.

~dancer~

[_Coggins7]

This discussion is not about various schools of thought in psychotherapy of which I am very well aware exist. It is about what is appropriate counseling for survivors of abuse. Telling a survivor to "grow a spine", "showing pity and patting a them on the back," are not a part of any theory or technique of which I am aware. Charity is free to correct me if she has some sort of documentation to suggest otherwise.

As Charity mentioned, some 70% of abused woman do not stay in those relationships. What is the differences, as far as intrapsychological dynamics, between those that confront the situation/abuser and leave/hold the abuser accountable, and those who do not?

Nope... just someone who has never worked with anyone who is abused, nor is familiar with what is appropriate therapy for anyone involved in abuse. This is quite clear.

Its apparently quite clear to you. However, with hundreds of psychotherapeutic modalities out there, it would be difficult to discern just what it might mean for one psychologist to determine what is the "correct" form of therapy for various kinds of problems. The problem here is that abused woman are not a homogeneous lot, but involve individuals, each with unique ways of perceiving and dealing with a situation like physical abuse. The one size fits all approach of one form of therapy may be inadequate or even destructive for another woman in essentially the same situation. I've personally seen the kind of relationships in which a woman who clearly has the means and support to leave an abuser and hold him legally accountable will not do it. I understand the theoretical reasons for this, but also understand that their are many woman out there who will not take that kind of crap from the get go. Those woman may not respond to your paradigm, nor may the woman suffering from a kind of learned helplessness and destruction of ego respond to a single form of therapeutic intervention that makes a certain kind of broad theoretical assumption regarding what she is experiencing.

And which school of thought do you think I embrace? The only thing I have mentioned is that I do NOT believe in the school of thought that tells survivors of abuse to "grow a spine" one that tells therapists to "pity a victim" and "pat them on the head." Again, I would challenge Charity to show where this is any part of a psychological theory.

I don't know, as I don't ever recall you mentioning it, but it does seem to be rather victimology oriented, painting woman, in a very general manner, as passive receptacles of male violence helpless in the face of their oppression. Its a philosophy that fits well within the framework of much of the pop (and academic) psychological teaching of the last 35 years or so.

Much of what psychology, in a broad sense, has done over my lifetime is to create self fulfilling paradigms and expectations regarding human behavior and relationships that had no substantive justification but were a part of the Zeitgeist of the era. The fact of the matter is that, perhaps ten or twenty years from now, your own modality will be in retreat from new theoretical frameworks or subsumed by them.




_________________
"There came a time when the risk to remain tight i