///

I've been writing about the idea that you can't forgive someone until they're sorry.  Obviously, this isn't a rule, it's just something that can be really hard to do and, I think, damaging to require.  I was reading some comments on a post about a parent who tried to murder her disabled child; obviously there were endless calls for compassion, and the commenters who wanted to focus on the crime were being told that they should focus on compassion for the criminal instead.  To me it's a similar thing.

The focus on dealing with any kind of abuse or violence cannot be that we should be nicer to the people who commit it.  It just can't be.

That doesn't mean that murderers, rapists, etc. aren't human, or that their behavior may not have partially come from something bad happening to them, or that maybe if someone had been a little nicer to them or made things easier they wouldn't have committed the crime.  Those things might be true in some cases but it's not an appropriate thing to focus on and in some contexts, it's downright terrifying.

It's terrifying because it implies that non-perpetrators should be walking on eggshells in dealing with perpetrators.

Maybe if people provided more help or compassion to this parent, the parent would not have committed a murder.  (There's also the fact, rarely said but undeniable, that if the victim hadn't needed so much help we wouldn't be having this conversation.)

Maybe if people dressed differently, drank less, or expressed themselves more clearly, someone would not have sexually assaulted them.

Maybe if people were more nice/open/compassionate to someone, that person would not have behaved abusively.

No.  Wrong.  This frames things so what happened is the fault of either the victim, or people who were not involved, instead of the person who actually perpetrated what happened.  People do a lot of bad things to each other and the way to address that is not to focus on how other people should be nicer or more understanding to people who do bad things.

For one thing, if the perpetrator is not sorry and plans to keep doing similar things, then being compassionate just makes it easy for them to keep on doing those things.  For another, if there's a big focus on how victims or other people should have behaved differently, then the perpetrator can use those things to get away with their behavior or even to control their victims.

I'm not against being kind or compassionate to people, even people who have committed violence or abuse, but there's a difference between personally feeling compassionate, and trying to tell other people that they're wrong if they're not compassionate for people who have done bad things.  They are not required to be.

Confusion and forgiveness

Content warning for gaslighting type stuff, I guess.

In November I made a few posts about how I have to be harsh with people sometimes because I have boundary issues and might take on their feelings by accident.  I'm not sure I do have boundary issues.  What happened is, at the beginning of November I ended my first serious romantic relationship.  Over the course of the relationship I had started to feel very confused about things like who I was, what I felt, and how I behaved.  I felt like I couldn't clearly remember incidents that had happened between my girlfriend and me and I was constantly straining to understand what was going on.

There was a possible explanation for this, but I didn't want it to be true.  My girlfriend refused to ever apologize or acknowledge doing things that hurt me.  If I brought up something I thought was a problem she would either claim she didn't understand, tell me I was confused about what was happening, tell me I was contradicting myself, or bring up something bad I'd supposedly done to her.  Along with whatever her response was, she also would get upset and it was awful because I knew it was my fault for criticizing her behavior.

This was all really disorienting.  When something hurt me, I had to either put up with it or risk something worse happening if I talked about it to her.  I worked hard to convince myself that she wasn't doing anything wrong.  I also worked hard to believe that the things she said made sense even when she was attributing feelings to me that I didn't have or distorting things that had happened.  Over time she caused more and more problems for me, but I had to believe it was my fault because otherwise, I would have to admit that my image of my girlfriend as a kind, well-meaning person was completely wrong.  It was past the point where she could just be doing all this by accident.  There was a long-term pattern of her distracting, punishing, and confusing me out of asking to be treated fairly in our relationship.

I don't think she set out to do this to me--I think she was desperate for closeness and terrified of criticism.  But it was still very wrong and shouldn't have happened.

When I ended our relationship, I knew that I had to turn off the parts of me that had focused so much on trying to keep my ex from being upset.  I had to stop trying to always see her point of view.  Instead, I needed to focus on the fact that what she did to me was wrong.

I might be more likely to identify with other people than the average person, but the degree to which I was identifying with my ex's feelings by the end of our relationship didn't come naturally.  I had to be trained into putting her comfort ahead of my needs.  I may be suggestible, but I didn't start out as suggestible as I was by the end.

So, yeah.  It's not me, it's you.

I also wanted to write about forgiveness a little bit.  I usually lean toward forgiving people but I think it's important to acknowledge that in some situations, certain kinds of forgiveness aren't possible.

Let's say Molly's boyfriend, Steve, steals money from her and she forgives him.  There are a bunch of different ways this could play out:

He steals money from her and then apologizes.  She forgives him.

He steals money from her and apologizes.  She forgives him.  He continues to steal money from her and apologize.  She forgives him every time.

He steals money from her and when she confronts him, he gets mad at her and says she should care more about his problems.  She apologizes and gives him as much money as he wants.

He steals money from her and she is going to confront him.  Then at church one day, Molly resolves to be a more forgiving person and decides she will be okay with Steve stealing money from her and she won't confront him about it.

He regularly steals money from her and she can't stop him from doing it and she resents this.  She decides to forgive him and not resent him for stealing her money anymore.

Molly says Steve is not allowed in her house.  She isn't angry at him for what he has done, but she's not willing to deal with him stealing her money.

So, what most of these situations have in common is that Steve doesn't see his bad behavior as wrong and he plans to continue doing it.  I'm not sure that you can really forgive someone like this unless you are doing it from a distance.  I feel like trying to be forgiving, compassionate, etc. to someone who is repeatedly hurting you is less about forgiveness and more about accepting that you're getting hurt and trying to have a good attitude about it.  I'm not criticizing people who try to have a good attitude about getting hurt but I don't think anyone needs to try to forgive someone who is hurting them.

I think forgiving someone who is sorry can be a really positive thing.  I don't think forgiving someone who isn't sorry is really something that needs to be done.  For real forgiveness to happen, the boundaries have to be in place--it has to be acknowledged that there's something to forgive.

when loving your enemies is hating yourself

Some more about the stuff the other day.

I think having compassion or trying to understand someone's point of view is a luxury.  Well, luxury is the wrong word but I mean it should never be your first priority in a conflict.  Other things are more important, and compassion/seeing other people's point of view should only be attempted if other things are there first.

Lia left this comment on my pop culture blog where I had reviewed a glurgey YA novel about bullying:

"i can say this as someone who often tries to cope with things by being sort of detached but also outwardly optimistic and upbeat even if i'm not really feeling that way, it's not actually desirable or emotionally healthy to react to everything that way. a person who acts like that in response to bullying in real life is still going to be affected by the bullying, but they're more likely to turn their feelings about it inward on themselves. instead of (rightly) getting angry at the bullies, they might get angry at themselves for being bullied, for being unable to stop the bullying, and for being angry/upset about anything in the first place. sometimes these are people who have been taught, or have decided, that it's morally wrong to feel or express negative emotions. sometimes these are people who can react really calmly to being mistreated because they are very used to it and honestly believe that they deserve it or that it's normal. and that's less inspiring than it is depressing."

Lia is pretty stellar.

My mom has been visiting me and tonight we were having dinner with the family I work for.  We got on the subject of different illnesses and injuries I had when I was a kid and how usually people did not realize what was going on because I didn't have the level of distress they were expecting.

Not having enough visible distress is something I really hate about my life, to the extent that I've always assumed it was some kind of trauma reaction.  There's not really a ton of evidence for this so it might just be that I'm projecting/imagining that because it has been such a bad experience for me.  It's obviously been going on since I was really little so the list of possible traumas is pretty narrow and it's nothing obvious.  Also, it is a common problem for people with autism so it's either that it results from a traumatic experience that a lot of us have, or it just is part of autism.

In addition to less visible distress I also have more trouble noticing and identifying my feelings than other people do.  To make things even more annoying, I sometimes develop obsessive fears about having certain feelings and because my feelings aren't very concrete to me in the first place it can be really easy for me to get convinced that I'm really feeling those things just because I'm worrying about feeling them.

I really confused someone recently by talking about how far I'll go to avoid situations where someone downplays my disability or refuses me services.  I basically have chosen not to ever pursue any kind of services because if I was not able to get them, I would get too upset, and to me that's more important than a chance to get help I need.

I guess it doesn't make that much sense to other people why it affects me so much if someone doesn't think I have a significant disability*, even if the person isn't a close friend or someone who has a lot of power over me.  The reason it affects me is that I don't feel secure/distinct about my disability but it's very important for me to know that I'm disabled in order to manage and cope with my life.  I surround myself with people who either support this, or don't talk about it.  If someone says that I don't have a significant disability then that idea is introduced to my brain and even if I know the person isn't that smart or doesn't know me that well, it introduces a lot of doubt and I start seeing myself as a liar and a faker and can become suicidal or otherwise be affected in my day to day life.

*(I know some people use the term "significant disability" to mean a "profound" disability like my boss has, but I'm literally using it to mean a disability that is significant, i.e. it affects my daily life in a lot of major ways even though I can work, talk, etc.)

If someone says I'm not disabled or says something else that demonstrably isn't true, but would be threatening to my quality of life if I believed it (for example, saying that the family I work for hates me), I immediately want to remove myself from that person and see them as an enemy.  I don't want to engage with the person about this or even think to myself about why they think what they do or why they said it to me.  If I think about it too much, I will definitely start believing it so I just have to be brief and rational--it's not true, they were wrong, it's a harmful idea, and I'm rejecting it and the person who introduced it.

By the way this can be pretty unfair because someone who is perfectly nice might just make some uninformed statements about my disability or something else, and they might even see their mistake if I just talked to them about it, but I can't talk to them because I can't risk being convinced by them.  If I did talk to them, it would be very brusque to just give them the information about why they're wrong in case they want to think about it, and then end the conversation.  I probably wouldn't do this with most people, because it obviously seems mean and hurtful, but it's the only way that I would be able to engage without potentially hurting myself.

I'm going a bit off track here--the original thing I was thinking about was being secure in knowing when someone has hurt you, and being secure in the idea that it's wrong for someone to hurt you.  Some people are secure in this and some aren't including me.  In my opinion, if you are like this and immediately attempt compassion (or you encourage someone like this to immediately attempt compassion), what is really happening is that the person could hurt themselves.

For example, let's say Emma and Shirley work together.  Emma is very brusque with Shirley, makes fun of the way she walks, talks, and looks, never thanks her for anything she does, and is patronizing.  Shirley is hurt by the way Emma acts and finds it to be insulting.  She doesn't like Emma because of it.  Shirley decides to try to see the good in Emma and treat her well even though she doesn't like her.

On the other hand, let's say Shirley never gets to the point of being insulted and not liking Emma, even though Emma is treating her disrespectfully.  Trying to be compassionate, Shirley always makes excuses for Emma or tries to think of reasons that she has done something wrong to provoke Emma or reasons that she is wrong to be upset by the way Emma acts.  When Shirley has negative feelings toward Emma she tries hard to make herself feel the opposite and see Emma in the most complimentary light.  Shirley works so hard to be nice to Emma that she comes off like she particularly likes her, even though Emma is extremely rude.  I have been in this situation a few times and I think it damages me when instead of focusing on seeing that someone is treating me badly, I focus on seeing the good in them.

I have to assume that most people (or at least people who have tried to encourage me to be more compassionate/educational/thinking about other people's feelings) take it for granted that they will see it as wrong for someone to hurt them and that nothing can change that.  Then when they talk about compassion, maybe it's like they're skipping the foundation that should be in place; they always have it so they barely notice it and don't mention it.  But to me, because the foundation isn't there, they're advocating something quite different.

Without the foundation, loving your enemies is just hating yourself.