Gaslighting

[Preety_India]

14 minutes ago, Notnow said:

no one is entitled to label anyone a gaslighter.

The victim is entitled to label the person who is gaslighting them because they got evidence to prove that they suffered it with the person who gaslighted them. 

But in order to decide that someone is not a victim, the burden of proof lies on you to prove that since you made that accusation. 

Remember it is always innocent until proven guilty and not guilty until proven innocent 

So if I call you a killer and then tell you to prove that you didn't kill. If I call you that, then it should be my duty to prove it.. 

Similarly if you're trying to deny someone their victimhood the burden of proof lies on you  to prove how you came to such a conclusion. 

 

Edited February 4, 2021 by Preety_India

[Dancer]

1 minute ago, Preety_India said:

There are diagnosable ways to know if abuse as happened or not. There are a ton of signs and red flags. Don't assume that all victims are simple people running around with pitchforks just wanting to go on a hunt. 

If someone is abused, often times they will have evidence to prove it like voice recordings or text messages or the styles of communication on the basis of which it can be determined whether the person was abused or not. 

So there is no form of entitlement in deciding whether someone is manipulative or abusive or not because such things aren't randomly drawn out of thin air but are based and backed by solid psychological research and a body of evidence to back it up. 

 

Such things are randomly drawn out of thin air all the time. Specially from hobby-psychologist that has read 1 article on gaslighting on the internet and then are diagnosing all their exes.

Collecting proofs and evidence is great. Take it to court and let it be decided there.

But don't throw accusations that are not true.

If you are in an emotionally abusive relation. Get out! You hold the power. If you are physically threatened, call the police.

A good psychologist may help you realize that you hold the power.

[Preety_India]

Just now, Dancer said:

Such things are randomly drawn out of thin air all the time. Specially from hobby-psychologist that has read 1 article on gaslighting on the internet and then are diagnosing all their exes.

Collecting proofs and evidence is great. Take it to court and let it be decided there.

But don't throw accusations that are not true.

If you are in an emotionally abusive relation. Get out! You hold the power. If you are physically threatened, call the police.

A good psychologist may help you realize that you hold the power.

There are a lot of people who don't know understand what gaslighting is to begin with. They remain stuck in confusion for years until someone tells them that what they are experiencing is gaslighting for example children who get gaslighted by parents. 

The thing that you're talking about where someone is simply throwing accusations is an example where they come up with zero evidence to prove it. It is easily understandable that the person might be bluffing about it because when told to show any proof they come up with nothing. 

 

[Preety_India]

22 minutes ago, modmyth said:

Oh, like you take what they say very personally, but it's beyond that. Like they tell you what you are, then they say something like "you're too sensitive" (I actually got this one a lot from my mom) or "you're just paranoid" or something. And on some level, you're more than just hurt because they're rude, insensitive, or an asshole, or something. You identify with what they're saying as truth, like yea, I am overly sensitive or paranoid, or maybe I'm not (so you feel profound self-doubt). You prioritize their truth over yours pretty much instantly, which you might not even be aware of so much at the moment. If you are, you might feel like something is off, or maybe you become aware of it later.

And then say you bring this issue up to them, maybe they shoot you down again. I get why this is called gaslighting.

In the first case, I would generally call this just being dismissive based on my own perspective. Because if you bring it up and that person acknowledges how you feel... well, sometimes people are just dismissive or nonattentive, but they'll acknowledge your feelings and empathize with you later.

And then there are people who just WILL NOT no matter what. Or they pay lip service, but it ends up being fake.

 

The first case obviously looks like a dismissal to me. Lack of being attentive or lack of listening. 

The second is a case of gaslighting because even after being confronted with what was being done, they chose to deflect accountability rather than own their actions. Also casual lip service is just another form of lack of ownership or downplaying the level of damage caused by minimizing it. 

 

[tsuki]

Giving gaslighting a label and talking about it gives the impression that it is a deliberate action taken by the other person to achieve some goal, win a discussion, or assume power. Gaslighting is a defense mechanism. It is a mechanism buried underneath conscious experience that guards the person that "does" gaslighting to you. The goal of denying the reality of the other person (gaslighting) is primarily to prevent oneself from acknowledging something too difficult to acknowledge. It happens when the conversation is touching upon a subject that would probably shake the whole worldview of the gaslighter, sometimes uncovering things within him/herself that have been denied because of self-preservation. For example, people that have been traumatized, routinely gaslight others to steer the conversation away from topics that are too difficult to handle. I strongly believe that all of the so-called narcissists are very deeply traumatized, to the point of being reduced to basic survival instincts. No conversation that brings gaslighting to light will ever be acknowledged by them unless we acknowledge the fact that they are using it to guard themselves from their own hurt.

The other issue is about the distinction between being a victim and having a victim mindset. Being a victim is characterized by being hurt, physically or emotionally. It is about damage and wounds that have been inflicted, not about retribution, vengeance, or even justice. If you have been hurt, and are hurting, then you are a victim. Physiologically, victimization is about bruises, broken bones and blood. Psychologically, victimization is about trauma. These two are interrelated, but there is just one thing that leads out of being a victim and it is healing. Healing is distinct from justice, revenge or retribution. Breaking the oppressor's arm does not help to mend yours, neither does traumatizing him help to heal your trauma. Retribution, revenge and justice are ways in which a person with a victim mindset seeks to advance his or her cause.

A person is said to have a victim mindset, when being an actual victim has been incorporated into the self-image and a survival mechanism has grown around it. The purpose of the survival mechanism (mechanism=unconscious process) of a person with a victim mindset is to divert attention away noticing the actual damage that needs healing. It is primarily done via gaslighting, projection and denial. This trauma-blindness often causes trauma victims to repeat the traumatic experience by not taking necessary precautions. For example, a woman that is physically abused may repeatedly enter relationships with men that abuse her. Please note that abusers are usually traumatized victims themselves. There is no way out of these cycles other than processing one's psychological trauma. Changing partners will not help. Solitude will help only to the extent that external abuse will stop, but other self-harming mechanisms will arise. Processing trauma is done via accepting the traumatized parts into conscious experience, renouncing the denial, seeing with clarity, spending time with psychological wounds.

To make it clear, in all of this I am not excusing abuse. The stable cycles of abuse are a mutual tragedy that is apparent only to the outsiders and understood only in relation to one's own trauma and shadows. One cannot see past the depth of one's own healing. Our parents will not understand their abuse towards us because they did not process how their parents abused them. In some sense, their job is twice as difficult because not only they have been abused and have to live through that pain, but also they have abused us and they genuinely love us. This is why very few people go through this process.

Ultimately, we cannot control the behavior of other people and telling them that they abuse us will not make them stop. In my experience calling people out for "their" bullshit in a heated argument helps rarely, if ever. it usually only heats the discussion up even more, so the correct way of doing these things is to talk about what you, personally, feel. "I feel personally attacked" is worlds apart from "you are attacking me personally". If the other person cannot make space for the expression of how you feel, and tries to tell you that you should feel something else, then disengage immediately. It is a sign that they have no respect for who you are and are not interested in what you have to say. It's okay if it happens from time to time, but if it is a common occurrence, then it is a HUGE red flag for a relationship. 

Edited February 4, 2021 by tsuki

[Preety_India]

Just now, Notnow said:

You can't prove that other people have caused the hurt because other people don't exist, psychologically.

If you think so. But not everyone thinks in an ultra spiritual way where they think others don't exist psychologically. 

And yes you can prove things. Look into cases of abuse where there are tape recordings or written text conversations or multiple occasions of same behaviors repeated by the person and people coming forward about it. 

 

[Preety_India]

12 minutes ago, tsuki said:

The other issue is about the distinction between being a victim and having a victim mindset. Being a victim is characterized by being hurt, physically or emotionally. It is about damage and wounds that have been inflicted, not about retribution, vengeance, or even justice. If you have been hurt, and are hurting, then you are a victim. Physiologically, victimization is about bruises, broken bones and blood. Psychologically, victimization is about trauma. These two are interrelated, but there is just one thing that leads out of being a victim and it is healing. Healing is distinct from justice, revenge or retribution. Breaking the oppressor's arm does not help to mend yours, neither does traumatizing him help to heal your trauma. Retribution, revenge and justice are ways in which a person with a victim mindset seeks to advance his or her cause.

I'm sorry but victims need justice. That's why law and justice exists or else perpetrators will keep doing what they do, knowing that they won't be brought to justice. 

 

[Preety_India]

Just now, Notnow said:

The point is that recordings or texts or anything else of the sorts will always be interpreted by YOU, and there is no other way around that. You can blame others for your suffering, but ultimately you're the creator of your reality. The texts or recordings aren't abusive in and of themselves. A cat, for example, does not get hurt by hearing the recordings or seeing pictures or texts.

In a court of law, such pieces of evidence are actually analyzed by independent experts, jury and psychologists. 

By your logic, the whole field of psychology should be thrown out. 

It's not just interpretation by the self alone but by everyone who knows how abuse functions. 

 

[tsuki]

11 minutes ago, Preety_India said:

I'm sorry but victims need justice. That's why law and justice exists or else perpetrators will keep doing what they do, knowing that they won't be brought to justice. 

You don't want a discussion. You want a hug.

[Preety_India]

@tsuki you too. Hugs. 

[Preety_India]

3 minutes ago, Notnow said:

@Preety_India The court of law cannot really heal you. They can only take you so far. If you feel hurt, by all means, do your best to heal, but the reality is that no amount of judges or lawyers can make you feel better.

We are discussing feelings here. I mean you can win the case in the court but still feel miserable. How could that be even possible? What can the court do about that? How can the court heal a victim if they're not willing to heal in the first place?

You're not getting my point. Someone who is healing might be feeling better for example a child who has been in foster care. Yet thy want justice for whatever emotional abuse they went through with their parents or bullies. When the said perpetrators are punished for their abusive behavior that also helps in knowing that such people won't be getting away with their actions. 

This assurance  also greatly helps in healing. 

Edited February 4, 2021 by Preety_India

[Preety_India]

7 minutes ago, Notnow said:

@Preety_India and what if there's still suffering after all that?

They might need to invest into therapy for healing. Despite therapy if they don't heal then they're in damage mode. Nobody can help them at that point. Even they themselves can't help themselves because they are stuck in trauma mode and are unable to get out. 

Trauma processing is no magic. It needs a lot of hard work and patience. The mind is also like a body. 

If you hit the body, then at a certain point your muscles will break or tear off, then it's a damaged body and the damage can be temporary or permanent. 

The mind is also like the body. If the abuse is strong, the mind reaches a point of no return and the damage done to the psyche can be severe and sometimes permanent. 

Such people are like basket cases. They usually get obese over time, give into self destruction finally leading to death because the mind's impact on the body is huge where ultimately the body stops functioning normally because of extreme stress caused by the traumatized mind 

(but this only happens in severe cases of abuse, normally most people recover with lots of patience and therapy) 

 

Edited February 4, 2021 by Preety_India

[Preety_India]

Hey I participated enough in this thread. Time for me to do journal. Bye bye. 

[Surfingthewave]

@tsuki  Excellent analysis of gaslighting thank you. Particularly how trauma can be passed on. 

Your views on having victim mindset however: be careful as I think you're stepping into the realms of expressing assumptions about how a victim may feels. This is a very complex and individualised thing and shouldn't be linked so quickly with the experience of gaslighting. 

Summing up:

As I become more conscious through this work I am aware of a previous experience of gaslighting (years ago in a relationship) which I wasn't aware of at the time. 

As it can be subtle and the person my not be doing it, it can be self perpetuated if the person being gaslighted is not aware and doesn't call it out. It can potentially be damaging for both parties involved so honest and open discussions need to take place. 

Edited February 4, 2021 by Surfingthewave

[tsuki]

1 minute ago, Surfingthewave said:

Your views on having victim mindset however: be careful as I think you're stepping into the realms of expressing assumptions about how a victim may feels. This is a very complex and individualised thing and shouldn't be linked so quickly with the experience of gaslighting. 

Fair enough.

I have observed this connection between victimhood, trauma and gaslighting within me, the family I've been raised in, my wife, her family and how it impacts our marriage. I may have overgeneralized it to other kinds of abuse.

[Etherial Cat]

45 minutes ago, tsuki said:

Giving gaslighting a label and talking about it gives the impression that it is a deliberate action taken by the other person to achieve some goal, win a discussion, or assume power. Gaslighting is a defense mechanism. It is a mechanism buried underneath conscious experience that guards the person that "does" gaslighting to you. The goal of denying the reality of the other person (gaslighting) is primarily to prevent oneself from acknowledging something too difficult to acknowledge. It happens when the conversation is touching upon a subject that would probably shake the whole worldview of the gaslighter, sometimes uncovering things within him/herself that have been denied because of self-preservation. For example, people that have been traumatized, routinely gaslight others to steer the conversation away from topics that are too difficult to handle. I strongly believe that all of the so-called narcissists are very deeply traumatized, to the point of being reduced to basic survival instincts. No conversation that brings gaslighting to light will ever be acknowledged by them unless we acknowledge the fact that they are using it to guard themselves from their own hurt.

The other issue is about the distinction between being a victim and having a victim mindset. Being a victim is characterized by being hurt, physically or emotionally. It is about damage and wounds that have been inflicted, not about retribution, vengeance, or even justice. If you have been hurt, and are hurting, then you are a victim. Physiologically, victimization is about bruises, broken bones and blood. Psychologically, victimization is about trauma. These two are interrelated, but there is just one thing that leads out of being a victim and it is healing. Healing is distinct from justice, revenge or retribution. Breaking the oppressor's arm does not help to mend yours, neither does traumatizing him help to heal your trauma. Retribution, revenge and justice are ways in which a person with a victim mindset seeks to advance his or her cause.

A person is said to have a victim mindset, when being an actual victim has been incorporated into the self-image and a survival mechanism has grown around it. The purpose of the survival mechanism (mechanism=unconscious process) of a person with a victim mindset is to divert attention away noticing the actual damage that needs healing. It is primarily done via gaslighting, projection and denial. This trauma-blindness often causes trauma victims to repeat the traumatic experience by not taking necessary precautions. For example, a woman that is physically abused may repeatedly enter relationships with men that abuse her. Please note that abusers are usually traumatized victims themselves. There is no way out of these cycles other than processing one's psychological trauma. Changing partners will not help. Solitude will help only to the extent that external abuse will stop, but other self-harming mechanisms will arise. Processing trauma is done via accepting the traumatized parts into conscious experience, renouncing the denial, seeing with clarity, spending time with psychological wounds.

To make it clear, in all of this I am not excusing abuse. The stable cycles of abuse are a mutual tragedy that is apparent only to the outsiders and understood only in relation to one's own trauma and shadows. One cannot see past the depth of one's own healing. Our parents will not understand their abuse towards us because they did not process how their parents abused them. In some sense, their job is twice as difficult because not only they have been abused and have to live through that pain, but also they have abused us and they genuinely love us. This is why very few people go through this process.

Ultimately, we cannot control the behavior of other people and telling them that they abuse us will not make them stop. In my experience calling people out for "their" bullshit in a heated argument helps rarely, if ever. it usually only heats the discussion up even more, so the correct way of doing these things is to talk about what you, personally, feel. "I feel personally attacked" is worlds apart from "you are attacking me personally". If the other person cannot make space for the expression of how you feel, and tries to tell you that you should feel something else, then disengage immediately. It is a sign that they have no respect for who you are and are not interested in what you have to say. It's okay if it happens from time to time, but if it is a common occurrence, then it is a HUGE red flag for a relationship. 

Thanks for writing this extremely valuable post @tsuki.

The only thing I would like to comment is that if it's true that gaslighting is a defense mechanism on the end of the gaslighter, it is also an offense mechanism on the receiving end.

In a nutshell, what is so problematic about it is that is keeps the gaslit in a position of being routinely hurt, which prevents their healing. And the gaslit can rarely just substract itself from the influence of the gaslighter, because the gaslighter leverage various power move and means to keep the gaslit into the desired position. So before any type of healing can occur, it is important that the gaslit escape the reach of the gaslighter so its attack on him/her stops.

In general, having social norms enforced as such as through justice or even policing shouldn't be overlooked as a mean to stop the flux of brutality through neutralization. It's true that justice (at least not the retributive type) won't help heal the trauma but it can make it stop by enforcing boundaries between an oppressor and an oppressed. And tell the oppressor he's been out of social standards.

I also do totally agree on the fact that abusers and narcissist are deeply traumatized individuals. And instead of being vilified they should be absolutely helped and understood. But the violence needs to taken cared wherever it currently occurs in the social chain to stop further trauma on victims, which could then also end up traumatized and going through the circle after integrating stress.

So an abuser, whether he is been both a bully and bullied, needs first to be neutralized if he's bullying and then healed.

[mandyjw]

Gaslighting is a form of vague lying. Truth is power and the only reason anyone avoids it is in favor of lies is fear and insecurity which comes out of misunderstanding. The lie is a way of perpetuating misunderstanding. While it appears that the person telling the lie DOES know how things really are and that can be infuriating, misunderstanding is still the name of the game. Both parties are focusing on their own inadequacy. The difference is that in identification one looks like the abuser and one looks like the victim, but those judgements are very short sighted. People deny and reflect different behaviors out of fear. Some become aggressive, some become shy and passive in response. It's as impersonal as a color appearing as the color that it reflects or rejects, all colors are born out of and seen in white light, in all potential of the separate colors.

One of the major issues that comes up in communities like this is that encouragement to drop what we know in order to let in a deeper Truth, Love or clarity often is first judged or passed off as a kind of gaslighting or avoidance. It's not. You, only YOU, know it for yourself by how it feels. The whole point is to connect YOU with your own inner power, which turns out to be quite impersonal and therefore... unlimited. We don't see clearly or allow this power unless we are in a relaxed, allowing states. You could say that sitting to meditate is gaslighting yourself, but if you've done it for very long you've seen it as an opportunity to let insight and new perspectives in that truly heal rather than perpetuate the feeling of inadequacy that brought the gaslighting. When you pay attention to how you feel, you go immediately for the healing you seek and you also allow the specific healing you seek to find you. Concepts of abuser and abused prevent this. Healing is wholeness, if you keep defining the separation, you don't allow the healing to occur on its own. 

That doesn't mean that we don't sometimes hold people accountable or call them out. We do. But your own inner view of the situation and your role in it is critical. Healing does not come from believing that your relief comes from the other's suffering. There's no eye for an eye in healing, just two lost eyes. You're thoughts are more powerful than you realize. You are more powerful than you realize. 

 

 

[tsuki]

1 hour ago, Etherial Cat said:

Thanks for writing this extremely valuable post @tsuki.

It's been a pleasure to have the opportunity to write it

1 hour ago, Etherial Cat said:

In a nutshell, what is so problematic about it is that is keeps the gaslit in a position of being routinely hurt, which prevents their healing. And the gaslit can rarely just substract itself from the influence of the gaslighter, because the gaslighter leverage various power move and means to keep the gaslit into the desired position. So before any type of healing can occur, it is important that the gaslit escape the reach of the gaslighter so its attack on him/her stops.

This paragraph contains a point that I've seen circulating many times and it ventures into the dangerous territory of gender wars. I know you well enough to know that you don't do this intentionally and I know myself well enough to recognize that I'm sensitive to this. With this disclaimer laid up front, let me make my point.

When it comes to the oppressor vs the victim, there is a distinction to be made here. There is abuse where things are clear cut, like the slave owner vs the slave, or parents vs children, or China's Uighur reeducation camps. In these instances, the abuser holds power over the victim's life and exercises it to mutilate their spirit. From the POV of the abuser, the purpose is to "teach" them the "healthy" way of living so that victims would "fit in" with the oppressor. In effect, this kind of abuse is about making the other person into a psychological crutch that serves to fill the gaps in the oppressor's psyche. I will repeat myself here, this is clearly a very misguided and deluded way of trying to "heal" oneself on the part of the oppressor. It is so twisted and warped precisely because it is a defense mechanism on their part - it is not conscious, reflected and deliberate. No human would do this with full clarity and understanding of the repercussions. Oppressors can only do this because they themselves have no concept of personal boundaries. This concept is a huge step in the process of healing because people are only able to hold boundaries when they recognize that there is something precious within them. "Hold" is highlighted because this is distinct from being defensive, or offensive with respect to boundaries. The moment the person is able to recognize their own inherent value, they simultaneously recognize the value of all others. A person that can truly appreciate boundaries, also appreciates the boundaries of others and understands that they are the precondition of all personal freedom that we all deeply seek. Abuser does not understand this, narcissists never learned their own value so they expand their boundaries indefinitely, having no regard for others. There also are the imploded victims that are always okay with whatever happens without understanding their buried anger.

This boundary-less condition is what causes enmeshment trauma. Families in which abuse happens, create children with no understanding of their inherent value. This is where the other kind of abuse happens, with no clear distinction between the abuser and the abused. When two adults of equal power meet, and neither of them understands the concept of personal boundaries, abuse is imminent. This is the so-called toxic relationship and where this ventures into the territory of gender wars. In abusive relationships, the victim and the oppressor swap places in different contexts. Calling one a victim and the other an oppressor is adding fuel to the fire, because both of them fulfill both roles. They are also victims of their own parents, usually with no understanding of this fact. It is not at all clear "who started it" because both partners were attracted to each other, symmetrically. A healthy person that understands the value of boundaries would not be attracted to a person that abuses them. It is normal and healthy to postpone having sex in the early stages of relationships and screen for red flags in the other person to see if they understand what it means to be human.

As an example in the political context, I could use these to illustrate my point:

• the first kind of abuse is China vs Tibet, or Nazis vs Jews
• the second kind of abuse is the cold war, or Israel vs Palestine.

I am not a political expert, but this sounds about right to me.

I agree that when there is a clear line between the abuser and the victim, like in the first paragraph, external intervention may have a positive effect. Recognizing who is the abuser is helpful to both and isolating him/her to prevent further damage is crucial. In the other example, calling one an abuser and the other the victim is the injustice itself. Seeing the difference between the two cases takes wisdom that is rarely seen in the judicial system. Usually, women are automatically labeled victims and men are automatically labeled as the oppressors. Punishing either one is a crime on the part of the judge because it sends them off further into the spiral of abuse. The right way of getting out of this problem is to make them both see that they are both creating this spiral. This is immensely difficult because it requires coordinated effort and a deliberate decision to trust (to assume good intentions of the other). 

Edited February 4, 2021 by tsuki

[Surfingthewave]

1 hour ago, mandyjw said:

Gaslighting is a form of vague lying.

The difference is that in identification one looks like the abuser and one looks like the victim, but those judgements are very short sighted. People deny and reflect different behaviors out of fear. Some become aggressive, some become shy and passive in response. 

you go immediately for the healing you seek and you also allow the specific healing you seek to find you. Concepts of abuser and abused prevent this. Healing is wholeness, if you keep defining the separation, you don't allow the healing to occur on its own. 

Great insights here @mandyjw

Perhaps the abuser /gaslighter is resisting healing because it means facing the trauma that is subconsciously influencing and perpetuating the behaviour. 

@tsuki Thanks for these insights. You clearly know your stuff. The points about boundaries are key particularly when it comes to families and how this impacts on the child sense of self and value. I have experience of this. Why do you think the oppressor isn't aware of the need fill the psychological gaps? Presumably trauma /lack of awareness or a sense of control? 

Why do you think judicially women labelled victims in certain cases? I'm aware of lots of court cases where the woman is "blamed" for being the victim,  again a form of gaslighting. 

 

 

 

 

[tsuki]

1 hour ago, Surfingthewave said:

Why do you think the oppressor isn't aware of the need fill the psychological gaps? Presumably trauma /lack of awareness or a sense of control? 

This is the survival strategy that we've been built to use. Let me use an analogy.

There are things that the physical body is meant to do, and there are limits to it. There are degrees to how you can move your ankle. You can twist it few degrees around your calf, but don't twist it 180 degrees. Your psyche is like this to some degree. There are things that you can freely experience, but there are things that are too extreme. Seeing your father hit your mother is like twisting your ankle 180 degrees. It will "sprain" your spirit, leave a trauma. So, let's say a soldier sprained his ankle under fire and ignores it to keep moving. This tactic works well short-term, but is lethal long-term. It is very difficult to live your whole life with an untreated sprained ankle, you gotta do this. Moving about with it will make it worse, so you are forced to stop and heal. Psychological trauma is similar. When you are three, you don't have the mental capacity to process the experience of being abused. You have no framework of evil that accounts for the possibility for your father to hit your mother. As a child, your father, by definition, cannot be evil. You fitting in with your family is absolutely crucial if your want to survive. So what is the way out? Denial. You deny that you have seen this and keep on like a soldier. This is a good strategy short term, but lethal long-term. This will haunt you like a sprained ankle you ignore. You have to stop and heal, to go back in memories and actually understand what was happening and express the stored emotions.

The question is, how long can you keep ignoring your sprained spirit until it is unbearable? It depends on the depth of the wound that has been inflicted. Paradoxically, the deeper the wound, the longer you have to deny it. For example, how long does it take for a Jew to process the experience of seeing their loved one raped and killed in a gas chamber? Some wounds are too great to heal in one lifetime, so they are passed on to the next generation. Each generation does some of the work until it can be properly processed. You could say that we are, psychologically, one organism. We are still haunted by the shadows of the world war II.

1 hour ago, Surfingthewave said:

Why do you think judicially women labelled victims in certain cases? I'm aware of lots of court cases where the woman is "blamed" for being the victim,  again a form of gaslighting. 

This is a fault of the judicial system that has no understanding of how trauma works.

I'm guessing that it's because men are more likely to lash out physically against women and bruises are easier to prove, so women are automatically called the victims of oppressors to close cases. In my experience, no more lethal force exists than a woman that knows your triggers and is dead set on making you feel miserable as a man. This is all I'm willing to say before people get triggered.

As for victim blaming, nobody deserves abuse, regardless of what they believe, how they feel, dress, or act. This is the biggest mistake people usually do with their trauma. Your behavior has nothing to do with me. You can speak whatever you want and it has nothing, zero, to do with me. If I feel anything in response to this, these feelings are my own doing and they are telling me things about me. If I feel sexually aroused in response to a girl that is frivolously dressed, this tells me about me. Not about her. She is not a slut because I am aroused. She may have known that I will be aroused when she dresses like this, but my arousal is my thing and gives me no right to do anything. This usually goes over people's heads. People are at the mercy of their own emotions, they can't stand them, so they have to shout or hit when they are angry, to stop feeling angry, etc. 

Edited February 4, 2021 by tsuki