The Mandelbear's Musings - Indirect comment to cflute's recent post - REDACTED
Jan. 14th, 2012
12:34 am - Indirect comment to cflute's recent post - REDACTED
I'm not really sure how to go about this. And it's getting late. So I'm going to take the easy way out...
REDACTED: That was bloody stupid of me, wasn't it? Bears can be clumsy sometimes. I'm leaving this in place for the sake of the comments, which I found very valuable, but if you want me to remove yours just let me know.
This post should have been sent in email or a private message. I'm really sorry about any damage I caused with it, and will try to be more careful and less clumsy in the future. In particular, I need to stop posting about what I think is going on in other people's heads -- I'm extremely bad at it.
I will, however, stand by what I think is the point I ought to have been making, which is that when somebody has demonstrated that they don't have full control of what's going on in their own head, it will take more than a few weeks of good intentions to get it back. It may take a year or two of hard work.
And that I think such a person's friends would be doing them a service to remind them of that fact.
[Crossposted from mdlbear.dreamwidth.org, where it has comments. Comment wherever you prefer.]
sad and wistful
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.
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.
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.
Good to know about the possibility of formal modification.
Edited at 2012-01-14 09:25 pm (UTC)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. :)
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.
Can we call this closed, at last? As
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.