The Mandelbear&#39;s Musings

I read that post too, and I believe C was expressing her sorrow about missing the convention AT THE SAME TIME as she was accepting the consequences. After all, she said that she would not violate the Judge's order even when N had invited more contact.

People do have conflicting feelings, you know.

But it's more than that.

Learning to control your behavior when angry or frustrated so that your actions are constructive rather than destructive is a big challenge for a lot of people--adrenaline is a very powerful drug, even if it is created by your own body. People who have a flood of adrenaline are faster and stronger than they are normally--witness the people who single-handedly lift cars off of loved ones in emergencies, or manage other such unlikely feats in emergencies. That extra speed and strength makes any physical actions you might take potentially more dangerous than you consciously realize at the time, because when it's happening, you don't feel stronger or faster.

Another factor is that anger left unexpressed causes all sorts of harm--too much to go into here, but physical and mental harm within the self as well as harm in relationships.

One of the things someone who has anger management problems MUST do is learn to express their feelings, even "negative" or contradictory feelings, in constructive and safe ways. Expressing feelings in a journal is definitely safer than physical action.

From the little bit I know C in person and from reading her journal, I do not doubt that she did not wish to cause harm--and I do not doubt that she did cause harm. I also do not doubt that she's hurting over the harm she caused. I'm sure she's angry at herself for both her actions and the consequences, and anger at yourself can be a very hard thing to deal with when you're bad at expressing anger constructively!

I'm also pretty certain that C needs ways to be in contact with her friends very badly right now. Anybody who has suffered this kind of consequence for bad behavior needs to be reminded of their good qualities so that they can build on them, even as they work to change the things about themselves that need changing.

Please don't be hard on C for expressing her sadness, frustration, and even anger at the consequences of her actions, since her most important job in life right now is learning to express her "negative" feelings in safe, socially acceptable, and eventually constructive ways.

If you think the _way_ she is expressing them is hurtful to someone, that's a fair thing to address. But their existence--feelings aren't logical. Feelings are chemical. They happen based only in part on the logic of the situation. She has no access to people she loves--regardless of the reason, being cut off from people you love hurts a lot. That hurt is a consequence of her own actions, which I'm sure also hurts. But no matter how much she might deserve to hurt, if she can't learn to express those feelings safely, she won't get better.

As to acknowledging her feelings quietly in her own private space? That is a good thing. Feelings expressed, sorrows shared, frustrations recognized--those are less likely to lead to blind action than feelings suppressed.

Try comparing this to your own experience--once you learned to recognize feelings of depression and introversion, you became able to choose to do constructive things about them, at least some of the time.

Anger is a feeling that something is wrong and must change. Violent action is generally a very bad way to try to create that change (It will create change, of course, but rarely the changes you want.) However, when someone accepts that anger is a valid emotion, with a valid meaning, they have at least a possibility of learning to choose what to do about it, to think logically about what changes they want to create, and what actions they can take to create a change without hurting people. (Sometimes, in our imperfect world, that means choosing the least possible harm. Someone's feelings might well be hurt if you suddenly turn your back on them to go for a walk in the middle of a conversation, but that's better than hitting them.)

I'm sure you will have a chance in the future to again offer friendship to C, if that's what you want. If you do, however, I urge you not to berate her for what her feelings are--she probably can't control that any more than you can control your introversion--but instead focus on whether she expresses them with love and kindness in mind, and cheer her on every time she gains skill in expressing them in a way that is constructive and not hurtful.

$mdlbear: blue fractal bear with text "since 2002" (Default)$

From:

mdlbear

Thank you -- this, also, needed very much to be said. I still like C, a lot, and I was quick to forgive her momentary lapse -- horrific as it was -- and tell that I was still her friend. Probably before anyone else besides Colleen.

But she's also been avoiding -- for two months, now -- being served notice or going to the hearing on a permanent order of protection, in spite of having been told repeatedly when it's happening. She's taken me off her friends list twice after I suggested that she might need more intensive therapy than she's been getting for the last couple of years.

She's been trying, through the Conflikt concom, to persuade N to leave the con early so that she can perform on Sunday. I wouldn't mind that so much if it wasn't also in a general context of trying to shift the blame for the no-contact order and everything else to Naomi, as if a crumbling relationship somehow reduces her own responsibility for losing control.

And those offers she mentions in her post? I forwarded those in email; her response was not to suggest going to court and trying to get the orders modified to accommodate them, but to angrily accuse Naomi and me of conspiring to entrap her into committing a felony.

It wasn't the assault that created the distance between us, but her words and actions afterward. I don't want her to deny her feelings; I just want her to take responsibility for them.

From:

You do know C and the situation better than I do. I can't guess whether she is actually trying to shift blame or if it just seems that way to you--and I really don't need to hear all the details. I don't want to make this more difficult for the people involved by prompting people to post stuff publicly that might be better kept private.

I mention the possibility of misunderstanding because there is a possibility that C may need to learn some important communication skills. After all, a lot of fans are challenged that way.

I also note that there is still good will for C, who obviously has good qualities as well as bad ones for this good will to remain in people she has hurt, and so I assume there is a good person there (which was my impression when I met her in person and is my impression in her journal) who is having some serious problems right now. I'm also remembering that another wise friend noted that it's exactly when we are at our most unloveable that we are most in need of love.

I don't know about "taking responsibility for your feelings"--feelings happen. People don't have much, if any, conscious control over them, even when their brains and bodies are perfectly healthy. If there's any mental illness--even situational depression--they have less control over how they are feeling. Sometimes feelings are generated by brain chemistry or body chemistry being out of whack.

I know too much about stuff like that, having a partner who at one point needed her meds changed because she couldn't manage her anger without help (though she didn't hit anyone, and refuses to hit anyone unless they hit her first), and who periodically has incredibly painful bouts of depression for no reason whatsoever. I've compared it to A having a hurricane in her brain. I've looked into A's eyes when this happens--the pain shows in her face far more than it does for her chronic back pain or than it did for her huge tooth abscess. Those feelings that she can't control hurt her far more than mere physical ailments--and that is a hard thing to see happening and be totally unable to fix.

That experience is at least part of why I object to the idea of trying to make someone take responsibility for their feelings. Controlling your feelings may well be impossible.

What you can control and take responsibility for is your words and actions.

It might seem like a picky distinction, but I think it's a very important one, not the least because if you're already frustrated because you are unhappy with the emotions you're experiencing, it just makes you more frustrated to be told repeatedly to control them. Being given a goal that is possible--learning to express feelings without hurting anyone else--or yourself--is better.

$mdlbear: blue fractal bear with text "since 2002" (Default)$

From:

mdlbear

"What you can control and take responsibility for is your words and actions."

Point taken. There are two things I was trying to get at, and I appear to have failed at both of them:

1. She needs to do something about her violent temper. I don't know what to call that "something", but I think it starts with accepting the fact that it's there, and both dangerous and unpredictable. She mustn't just pass it off as something that couldn't possibly happen again; she has to plan around the possibility that it could and, until she does a lot of potentially painful work on it, probably will.

2. She needs to take responsibility for her actions, which means not trying to shift half the blame N for helping to create what they've both called a "toxic" environment. It doesn't matter how toxic it was; C is the one who lost control and became violent. So far she has shown no appreciation for this, though it probably came out a lot more clearly in her emails than in her posts.

I agree that learning to express feelings without hurting anyone is the main thing. I hope she can do it. It may involve dealing with the fact that she really does not remember what she did, and I think that terrifies her.

From:

It would terrify me if I did something terrible and couldn't remember it.

I hope that C isn't "passing it off as something that couldn't happen again". I hope instead she is willing it to never happen again, and doing all in her power to make it so.

I do disagree with one bit though--I feel it does matter how toxic it was. We all--all humans--have a potential for violence, if things get bad enough. It's not my favorite aspect of human nature. I'm not trying to make excuses for C or for anyone else who breaks in a toxic environment, especially one that they had a major part in creating. I'm just saying that one of the skills needed to avoid doing that is to recognize when things are getting bad long before they are more than you can bear, and doing something constructive about the situation.

Oh, well, the main point of all these words is that I wish you all well, you and C and especially N and the kids. If my words help any of you, I'm glad--and if they're not helping, feel free to ignore them.

$mdlbear: blue fractal bear with text "since 2002" (Default)$

From:

mdlbear

*hugs* They help a lot. Thanks.

N says that what C is really afraid of is change -- in some twisted way some deep part of her mind thinks it's the same as death. Possibly the same part that really needs to change, though that's pure speculation on my part.

There was a lot of good in their relationship. But they were also really good at pushing one another's buttons, often without realizing what they were doing until it was too late. Sad.

From:

Hugs back to you too!

From:

gingicat

I think I'm going to have to cut contact with her as well. I called her on a post where she wrote a letter to a friend and took out pretty much all of the blame she should be assigning to herself, and she wrote me a PM in which it was as though she had never made the post in which she realized how badly she had hurt Naomi.

$mdlbear: blue fractal bear with text "since 2002" (Default)$

From:

mdlbear

From what I've seen recently, and from what N has told me, that's her standard operating procedure.

She was the one who cut contact with me. Twice! She's still on my "friends" list, though; I want to keep track of her, if not keep in touch, and if she ever changes enough to want to listen to what I have to say, it'll be here.

From:

As soon as she realized that apologizing would mean she was going to be expected to follow it up with real changes, she backtracked and threw the apology out the window. She has shown no willingness to take any blame at all since that challenge to change was issued.

From:

smoooom.livejournal.com

I'm lucky I have friends who tell me when I'm messing up. If I was totally honest I was they'd also tell me when I'd done well also. I don't always get when I've done well.

It's hard to watch a friendship go the way things have gone for you. I know you can get lots of hugs where you are, but if one extra helps consider your self hugged.

From:

admnaismith.livejournal.com

I'm concerned about what happens at the next convention that they both want to go to. If it's OryCon, I have no idea what to do.

A court (in my state, anyway; for all I know, Washington may be completely different) has the power to modify a restraining order in specific ways, for example to allow specific nonoffensive contact with the children at a given time (which I know N. would like), or to allow both parties to attend a specific convention if certain conditions assuring safety are met (no Idea what N would think of that idea). A court is very much influenced by the wishes of the victim.

Of course, she has to show up and ask for what she wants first, and make a case why it would be safe and best for everyone.

$mdlbear: blue fractal bear with text "since 2002" (Default)$

From:

mdlbear

Naomi has already made assurances that she'll give plenty of advance notice if she plans to go to, or skip, a convention. She won't be going to Orycon or Vcon this year.

Good to know about the possibility of formal modification.

Edited Date: 2012-01-14 09:25 pm (UTC)

From:

I've already said -- publicly and repeatedly -- that I will not attend either Orycon or V-Con, so she has plenty of opportunities to attend regional cons with good filk tracks. I have asked for ONLY Conflikt for myself, and even there she's gotten the conchair to try and strong-arm me into leaving early she she can have one day of it.

As for showing up, I've been the one showing up in court prepared to ask for what I want. But there are two orders involved: the NCO, which is already nailed in place for at least the next year (so I'm told, I haven't been allowed to see it), and which permits no contact with me (but says nothing about the kids); and the OP, which is currently in its temporary stages and which I'm asking be extended to cover the next year, because that does also protect the children. I would be willing to allow some modifications... email, for example, and visits with the kids under conditions in clear sight of a police officer or someone trained to supervise visits with violent parties. But I can only ask for modifications to the OP, not the NCO, and if I modify one but not the other it doesn't help. The NCO is part of the state's case against her, and I don't get a say in it at all, or even informed of exactly what's in it.

From:

There is a lot of truth to what you say here. However, I'm not certain how helpful this post actually is.

I read C's posts, and I feel that I can see her frustration. I trust her intent, as well as her horror at herself at what she's done. Is she in denial? I think so. Did she hurt N? By her own admission, yes. Are there consequences that she can't anticipate, and that she will have difficulty living with? Probably yes. Has she been able to really internalize this yet? I honestly don't know. She does have to get a handle on her anger; as well as the dangerous issues that have arisen because of the way she expresses her anger. However, I sincerely do not believe that bringing this to a public forum is helpful to her, or to N.

I've known C for over ten years now. And, as happy as she has been with N in the past; my personal opinion is that this relationship brought out the worst in both N and C. When I was last at Consonance, I saw behaviors from C that would *never*, *EVER* have occurred to her in earlier years- but those behaviors were both supported and and appeared to be enabled by N.

This isn't to say that C isn't responsible for her actions with me at Consonance- she absolutely is. And I called her on it. And, after a moment of real anger and hurt- she took it. And we're still in touch.

What I see missing here is balance- and sadly, that balance is not going to come quickly, or easily. The court will initially decide what is fair and balanced- and both C and N need help.

There is a currently a nasty call and response cycle of action and reaction happening between them. And frankly, when we get involved publicly (like your post above), I think that it muddies the waters, and distracts both parties from what they should be focusing on.

Or, let me put this another way. :) I feel that you are taking statements C has made, and inferring an entire set of possibilities and actions that have not taken place- simply by comparing them to actions of convicted criminals. I do believe that you are trying to be helpful. However, when your statements are presented this way, how is C not supposed to interpret this as an attack? And if that's the way she does see it, how does this help her?

What is your goal with this post?

I'm sorry, but this is me trying to be truthful with you. I'm fully willing to discuss further, offline.

$mdlbear: blue fractal bear with text "since 2002" (Default)$

From:

mdlbear

I'm really glad you took the time to reply at such length; it's been helpful. You may very well be right about muddying the waters -- I sometimes get carried away by my own rhetoric, and lose sight of my actual goals. "What is your goal with this post?" is a very insightful question indeed. Thank you for making me think about it some more.

I really did have a goal, which is primarily to give C's friends and supporters some information that they're not getting from her. In particular,

1. Whatever her intentions and lack of ill-will may be, there is no reason to think that she's any less dangerous to N than she was the day before the attack. She hasn't had a psych evaluation yet, let alone treatment based on one, and has repeatedly and angrily rejected suggestions that what she's been doing up until now hasn't worked.

2. Apart from her one post expressing her horror at what she had done (and which is no longer accessible to me), everything else I've seen has been aimed at shifting attention away from what she did and what that implies, back to how bad the relationship was and how N is just trying to punish her.

3. Rather than continuing to say how much she is inconvenienced by the orders of protection, she could easily have come to one of the two hearings that have been held so far and tried to explain to Naomi and the judge why they should be modified. She could easily come to the next one, and I'm really hoping that one or more of her friends would try to explain to her why it would be a good idea.

I was also trying to present a somewhat more balanced view than I saw in Naomi's last three posts; I undoubtedly wasn't clear enough about that.

As you say, I'm trying to help C, not attack her. To be honest, when I wrote this, I wasn't expecting her to read it.

No need to apologize. Thank you.

From:

Ahhh, my friend- you bring out the Libertarian in me. :)

Remember the purpose of LJ? It is a journal that you can use to share your thoughts, right? Using it as a medium for PSA's about an individual (IMO) completely fail, and end up generating flame wars (like the nice little brush fire that has sprung up 'twixt the principals in this drama).

For anyone that has known C well, none of the above is necessarily news. We can read between the lines, too. :) And, well, this feels to me like you have to take it on yourself to be the interpreter- because you don't necessarily trust others to come to the same conclusions you do. And the Libertarian part of me says that I want to reach my own conclusions, dammit! :)

And in the end, to me, it does not help the two that are actively at the center of this.

Perhaps all my triggering on this is due to the fact that I really don't care for the dirty laundry of people I know being aired in public- which is definitely one of *my* issues. However, I have to admit that I have never seen posts that discuss someone's internal personality in detail work out well. There simply isn't enough communications bandwidth in text-only channels to effectively convey the entirety of what needs to be said.

$mdlbear: blue fractal bear with text "since 2002" (Default)$

From:

mdlbear

You're probably right -- I will keep that in mind. I would have preferred to have posted this as a (probably much shorter) comment on C's post. But she's not allowing non-friends to comment.

But... "We can read between the lines, too." One of my hidden disabilities is alexithymia -- I can't read between the lines; I have to work these things out the hard way, and getting feedback from people like you is the only way I have of knowing whether I'm anywhere close in my analysis.

From:

Maybe you can, but precious few people have said any such thing to me, and even fewer have hinted at it in anything they commented to C. What am I supposed to think, when all I hear is how she's done nothing wrong, she never really attacked me in the first place, it's all my lies, and I'm trying to ruin her life if I ask for one local convention out of three that I'm allowed to attend?

From:

Because an LJ is, first and foremost, a journal. And people have a right to think what they do, right or wrong, in their private space- whether they make it public or not. And therefore, others have a right to be supportive of the principal of that journal, whether or not it triggers your paranoia.

You are in a situation now that requires the court system. This is not an appropriate forum for these discussions (imo); and you need to be following the advice of your attorney.

If C is violating (not merely objecting to) the the legal restrictions you've placed on her, *then* you have a justification.

From:

So the only people who don't have a right to say what they want in their own journals are me and

mdlbear? I don't understand that part.

From:

*smile* Not at all.

At no time have I said you *can't*. I have merely been trying to point out that it isn't *wise*, and that it never appears to actually have the end result you really desire when you take these kinds of intensely negative personal stances in public forums.

Mdlbear understood- and when you make an honest effort you earn the right to say something poorly until you can express it well, and be listened to.

He's a very good man, and I am honestly glad for you that you have him as a friend.

Mdlbear understood.

From:

Apparently he didn't, because he tried again and was told he still shouldn't be saying anything at all on the matter, not just "..until he can express it well." I don't know whether he's still trying to understand, but I am. I've apologized for speaking negatively, assured people I'm not going there again, and am wondering what on earth I can do from here that you won't condemn. Even my attempts to find out what I could do to make things better in your eyes get condemned. This one probably will too, but I hope not. I've taken the last three steps toward what I thought was what you wanted me to do. Will you take the one small step of telling me in so many words what that is?

$mdlbear: blue fractal bear with text "since 2002" (Default)$

From:

mdlbear

Actually, Naomi has been urging me to pull out of this discussion for the last couple of days. And as she points out, even my rephrasing has gathered some flames.

And yes, I'm still trying to understand.

Tell me, too. Don't worry about making me feel uncomfortable because it's a "public forum" -- my therapist tells me I need to get more comfortable with being out of my comfort zone. It's good for me. If it makes you uncomfortable to say it in public, go ahead and send me email -- mdlbear at livejournal dot com.

From:

Whoops! Missed this one! :)

Come back to your journal and read my followup to this post from N. in case you haven't seen it yet.

To me, this sub-thread has never been about N/C; it has been about clear communicating and trying to get your point across in a non-triggery way; which helps guarantee that your message will be heard. Whoever needs to hear it. The current situation was just the convenient McGuffin at hand to fuel the discussion.

And yeah- really- you *did* get it right.

IMO, at least *this* subthread never descended to flames. :)

From:

Most of his last post on the subject was actually quite good, imo. It's still a bit triggery; but not nearly as flammable as the earlier ones.

The general guidelines I go by are:

1. Don't post about a person when you are angry with them.

2. If the courts are involved, don't post about it to LJ at all (or post it to a VERY small list of highly trusted friends)- you can hurt your case.

3. If someone isn't doing what you want them to, let it go- they're not likely to change

4. Always remember that text is insufficient. What you can say in 30 seconds face to face, takes 1 minute on the phone, takes 30 minutes in chat/irc, and takes over an hour in email/lj/letter (when there's no active response). And the further away you get from face to face communication, the exponentially higher chance you are going to be misunderstood- especially if the topic is emotionally charged.

5. If someone is vilifying you online, don't respond (unless they are breaking laws with said vilifying). Your friends know you well, and will either filter nuggets of truth or tell you to ignore it; and the rest of the world that doesn't know you can go hang- because they certainly don't care enough to expend the energy to get it right. (If you find you *do* need to respond, don't do it in the same method or forum that is being used to hang you. Respond in the real world.)

6. Even when attacked, strive to not attack back.

7. If you've apologized and it doesn't seem to be accepted, move on. There are better ways to spend your energy. If they come to you, be willing to have an open conversation, and be ready to hear things you don't want to (see #3).

8. These are all guidelines. This means that there are exceptions to all of them. The reason I use them is that I've learned from painful experience that you have to give respect in order to earn it. All of these are different methods of giving respect- even to those you don't feel deserve it.

At the end of the day, you're right- I don't know you at all. I do know C to a limited extent; but also not that well. I have some very strongly held opinions about all this- but I will not discuss those opinions in open forum for several reasons:

1. Since I don't know you, there are things that I likely have wrong. Posting these opinions can hurt you; and I'm honestly not interested in hurting anyone. The discussion to find a middle ground can create false impressions to any third party who reads it.

2. Private conversations can be shared. Public conversations cannot be unsaid.

3. It's none of my damn business. :)

Please keep this in mind. This is happening in mdlbear's journal because I saw him make a huge mistake that he normally doesn't make. He invited people to call him on it. I did. This is actually not about you or C at all- it's about clear communicating in a medium that is far, far too easy to be misunderstood.

Peace.

From:

Thank you; I appreciate the explanation. I'm not planning to say anything further about anyone's life except mine, and while mine is obviously affected by the situation I'm in, it doesn't directly involve C. anymore, and there's no reason I should have occasion to say anything about her in particular again. I think you have good advice about moving past people who don't accept apologies, and about ignoring the input of anyone who doesn't care enough about the facts to get them right, and I intend to follow it.

Can we call this closed, at last? As

mdlbear has said, I've been urging him to stop trying to discuss the matter for some days now, because it was only making things worse. As I have said, I can't control what anyone else says in their journal, but mine will remain about my own life henceforth.

From:

*smile* It's up to you- I'm willing to debate communication allllll day. *grin* But yeah, I think it's ok to be done here. :)

From:

Thanks. :) I can't afford to be debating anything right now; I'm in a lot of physical pain, and that's incredibly draining. I'm trying to save the energy I've got for basics like finding the doctors I need, and a lawyer who can help me with a disability application. It's going to be hard enough without getting sidetracked, even onto the more entertaining side of these discussions. But I'm glad we can leave it at boundary of debate-for-fun, instead of arguments in anger. I don't need to have anyone else angry at me than I can possibly avoid right now.

From:

I have never been angry with you. :) Good luck!

From:

I think you're missing something. Yes, I enabled some behaviors of C's in the past -- she was consistently and viciously verbally abusive if I did not. She would take other people calling her on things, but never me. If I tried to do anything other than support her viewpoint completely when she was upset, she'd turn on me, and I was too afraid to press the point.

I agree that the relationship was bad for us both, but you're missing a lot of the dynamic, even the part you saw from above-the-surface. There was a lot of abuse going on over the years, and a lot of fear, that I felt it would be disloyal to show. That was a mistake of mine, but it's given you and most other people who didn't see things from close up a skewed perspective.

From:

Sorry- but if you wish to continue this conversation, it should be in private. Cheers.

From:

Not interested in continuing it, thanks. I've learned what I needed to know.

$mdlbear: blue fractal bear with text "since 2002" (Default)$

From:

mdlbear

I think you're wrong about N. enabling C's behavior at Consonance, by the way; I remember that N tried to tell C that you were right, but backed off to avoid an attack.

From: