The Woman You're Becoming...

Commit To Evolving

Blanket Forts

Kind Versus Nice: The Baby Bird Test

While doing research on the internet, okay, while trying to avoid work, distracting myself with cute animals, I came across this little guy right here.

Yes, the image of a baby bird, being spoon-fed, can make even the hardest of hearts melt I bit (at least, I hope it does).

Attached to the image was this statement: “You will never regret being kind.”

I started thinking about that concept. Like many abuse survivors out there, I’ve been exploited and taken advantage of, simply because, many times, I was trying to be kind. Add to that reality, the message pressure of “Be nice” we so often hear, especially as children, and the whole expression of humanity becomes muddy.

We can ask ourselves, “Am I being kind?” “Am I being nice?”

What’s the difference between the two? Which one should I choose?

The baby bird image simplifies the issue. So, let’s return to that little budgie.

First, this little guy is helpless, practically bald, as his pink skin barely has enough “peach fuzz” to cover his body. He must be freezing. Someone, please get him a sweater!

But there are no warm sweaters for baby birds found in nature.

Instead, we see the vulnerability of this creature, perhaps, eliciting our innate caregiving response. So, the picture appears quiet, calm and gentle. There is no force feeding. A spoon is gently presented to the helpless, hungry guy. I’m quite certain music from ACDC is also not playing in the background (nothing against the band, ACDC).

I mention this to illustrate how, for the greater good, meaning, the survival and well-being of this baby bird, all focus goes to taking care of him. There is no fanfare, no attention seeking. Perhaps, that is the essence of kindness.

Now, let’s contrast that with “Being Nice.”

There is a difference.

For, in this instance, we go back to our baby bird and the “spoon feeder.” Here, this person declares, “I’m a nice person.”

But it’s not quite that simple.

The image in this scenario would probably be dramatically different. The focus would be changed.

Perhaps, this picture would be all hand, all spoon, with absolutely no emphasis on the baby bird. Maybe, you’d see a beak in the photo, at most.

Maybe.

This “nice” approach may be that way, because the nice agenda dictates it be a birdfeeder spoon photo op. It has nothing to do with keeping the helpless being alive. It has, instead, everything to do with the perception surrounding the spoon feeder.

Isn’t he/she such a great person? Just look at what they’re doing!

Yes, “Nice” has an agenda and a superiority to it. It can be self-directed, or it can be externally achieved, via other people, outside of the situation.

The kind person, however, says nothing. There’s no need to be validated with “How great thou art.” There’s no need for accolades. The spoon feeder is too busy spoon feeding the baby bird, to pay attention to what everyone else is saying.

In this instance, perhaps, this photo would have the feeder make every attempt to not be in the picture. There would be no identifying characteristics. It’s more than enough to see the tips of his/her fingers.

Kind just is.

But, again, Nice is concerned with appearances.

There is the glory of the photo op. If a nice deed happens, and it is not caught on camera, does it exist?

Who knows? Without a camera present, the person might be captured tormenting the bird.

Kind doesn’t think that way.

Kind doesn’t entertain manipulation and abuse. Nice, perhaps, does.

Kind is concerned with the kind act they wish to perform.

It’s a Deliberate Decision.

The difference between Kind and Nice doesn’t need to be confusing. It can come down to decision making. And we all engage in decision making.

Kind makes a decision to be Kind. Nice makes a decision to be Nice.

It’s intentional, whether we know it or not. What drives us? What compels us? And how will we respond to that honest answer?

How will we feed that baby bird?

Copyright © 2020 by Sheryle Cruse

Boundaries

Not really how it works...

Decide...

Be the Reason...

Self-Doubt: A Study in Gaslighting

As we become more aware of gaslighting, as a manipulative tactic of Narcissistic abuse, we see how self-doubt is often used as a weapon against us. And it doesn’t always show up in an obvious manner of someone telling us we’re crazy.

The self-doubt approach, on the behalf of toxic individuals, if often more toxically subtle than that.

I once encountered a family dynamic that, of all things, employed my school yearbook as evidence that no, I was not crazy.

I know. I need to explain a bit.

In this incident, my blood relatives spoke from a place of authority, about the birth order of a certain person. This person attended my high school. Hence, they were in my yearbook at the time. I had proof of their graduating year, as well as documentation that there were no younger siblings coming down the pike. I presented my information, dispelling how this person was, in fact, “the baby” of the family, not the older siblings amongst the group, my blood relative held firm to their assertion.

And I proceeded to go quiet.

Even more troubling? I doubted myself. I doubted if I, in fact, knew what I knew. I needed to look no further than my yearbook; this person was confirming what I knew, there, in black and white.

I had evidence, yet, I found myself “deferring” to their assertion… why? I was intimidated, ergo, groomed, not to trust myself. And this, therefore, made gaslighting all the easier.

How does this happen?

Gaslighting often presents itself from a position of authority.

My blood relatives, all older than me, gave the perception of being the wiser sages.

Like many of us out there, I was raised to respect and listen to “my elders.” I was surrounded by elders in this instance. I would have loved to say that these elders were wise and trustworthy. They were not. Instead, they were gossiping and not interested in hearing what I had to say. And, keep in mind, I was not a child here. I was a grown woman. However, they refused to regard me as such. They did not accept that I had anything worthwhile to contribute. They, fundamentally “knew better.”

There was no middle ground.

There was only me, filled with self-doubt, reverting to my childlike lack of confidence.

This can often be the response for many of us abuse victims, dealing with gaslighting and the behaviors of people who are unhealthy and controlling. These individuals are more interested in determining the narrative. There could be photographic evidence, like my yearbook, disputing their theories. Yet, they insist that their reality is the only reality. To argue with that reality, therefore, is tantamount to being labeled as crazy, difficult, this expletive or that expletive.

Somehow, we are the problem for daring to contribute our experience, let alone, truth, to a situation.

That is by design.

Gaslighting is not interested in being open and direct, only confusing and covert.

This form of manipulation thrives best in secrecy. It works best if we don’t know what’s going on.

Gaslighting, again, does not welcome unflinching truth. It does everything in its power to misdirect us and have us believing a lie to be the only truth we need to live by. Gaslighting doesn’t like open discussions. It doesn’t want discourse, with many different viewpoints being discussed and considered. It’s “my way or the highway,” as the saying goes.

Furthermore, gaslighting wants its intended targets to be off balance, unsure, insecure, confused and intimidated. This was me in this yearbook scenario. Indeed, I had proof; I know what I saw. I knew what I knew…until doubt crept in. Then, I questioned my own experience. I had this yearbook for years. I flipped through its pages numerous times. Yet, now, I was rethinking what I believed?

Gaslighting loves that. It’s a tactic that counts on us being unsure, especially, if we once were so certain. Our instincts are innately powerful. Yet, if we believe we cannot trust them, we’re more susceptible to being controlled by others.

And, again, that’s the position many an abuser wants us to be in.

Gaslighting doesn’t own up to anything; it only denies.

Plausible deniability. It’s the escape hatch used to get out of a sticky situation.

When an abuser is confronted by their behavior, they often whip out plausible deniability. “You misunderstood me,” “You must have misheard me,” and “I don’t remember/recall that” are all weaponized for maximum self-doubting on our part and minimum accountability on their part. They can weasel out of an uncomfortable moment by feigning ignorance.

Concerning my yearbook incident, by producing its very existence, my blood relatives were adamant about telling me I wasn’t seeing (or reading) the situation accurately. Seeing the actual person, in question, within the pages of the yearbook, confirming may data and disputing theirs was not allowed to happen.

I was wrong. I was confused.

How thankful, therefore, I should be that my relatives were there to show me the error of my ways! I needed to be grateful to them for that.

Gaslighting gets us to do all the work, by getting us to distrust ourselves and our experiences.

Concerning the yearbook incident, as discombobulating as it was, was not surprising to me. In fact, it was familiar. And that can be the problem.

I was “used to it.” I was used to be ignored, neglected, dismissed, critiqued, and mocked. I did not have the experience of being treated as an adult, worthy of dignity and respect. They had determined, already, many years ago, I had nothing worthwhile to contribute. Forget tangible evidence. Forget my personal experience. Again, there was only room for one way of believing, theirs, not mine. The group think was against the individual.

I learned that me, against their “mobbing” approach, was a losing battle. Hardwired, as a child, even as an adult, years later, I struggled to see any of way of existing in the dynamic.

And a yearbook certainly couldn’t save me.

Gaslighting is, indeed, insidious, from start to finish. It establishes much of its toxic agenda, early on, by disempowering us, through crippling second guessing.

No, we don’t trust ourselves. No, we don’t have confidence.

Yes, we, all too often, trust harmful, untrustworthy people, believing they know best.

For some of us, this template is set in childhood, a context in which we have no other frame of reference, let alone, personal sovereignty and agency. Dependence for our mere survival demands we “get along to go along.”

And that survival mode remains, long after we exit childhood and our family of origin.

For some of us, it’s a love relationship or a friendship. Again, we place trust in the wrong person, believing them to be honorable, trustworthy, responsible and desiring our best interest. Sadly, sometimes, we experience the exact opposite.

So, when the immediate damage of these kinds of relationships and situations has happened, we are often in the grips of complex post traumatic stress disorder. We’ve been sufficiently traumatized and now, we have to deal with the jarring reality of who and what we experienced.

If we don’t get further help to address what we encountered, we can be in danger of taking over the work of our abuser. These people can be out of our lives, even dead, yet their voice, unfortunately, can become our abusive, oppressive voice. They get into our heads. They get in our belief systems.

And our sense of self? Well, if it wasn’t formed in a healthy way already (most of the time, let’s get real, it was not), then it’s shattered and further torn from the pain, confusion, mixed messages we barely survived.

Self-doubt is highly profitable for the gaslighting person. The execution of one’s personal agenda can be intoxicating. Beware.

Yes, controlling another human being can be lucrative, extracting financial, relational, and personal resources from the target of abuse.

It’s not merely a question of “Why would an abusive person gaslight someone?”

It’s also needs to be asked, “How will we recognize when we, in fact, are gaslit?”

Copyright © 2020 by Sheryle Cruse

Suffice It to Say…

Many of us have heard this expression. It usually means we could say a lot more about a situation or a person, but we either won’t or can’t.

Therefore, suffice it to say…

As I have learned more about Narcissistic abuse and continue to make my way through my own recovery, I see how we could all benefit from this expression, especially those of us who are recovering from toxic dynamics, be they family, romantic, professional, or any other kind of dysfunctional and harmful interaction.

And here is where the Twelve Step principle of JADE comes into play as an emergency “go-to” for me.

JADE: an acronym, which stands for Justify, Argue, Defend and Explain.

It’s often employed as a recovery tool, as many of us, addicted to and entangled in our “drug of choice,” need a friendly reminder of our personal boundaries, of what we are and are not responsible for. Many of us have believed the lie we “owe” someone an explanation whenever we say one tiny little word: “no.” That’s a cornerstone of abuse: the refusal to accept anyone’s no on any subject matter or decision. If someone, who is acting in an abusive way, does not accept a person’s no, that usually indicates there’s a desire to manipulate and control. In the abuser’s mind, only a “yes” is acceptable, no matter how violating to the person’s well-being, dignity and safety it may be.

JADE helps reminds those of us caught in anything that dishonors our right to autonomy and respect that yes, we have a right to our no, without any further explanation of that no.

Justify:

When we feel pressured to justify ourselves and our actions, there’s an emphasis on proving ourselves worthy. The goal of the abusive person here? To make you and I feel wrong and to doubt ourselves.

And the main word we can often feel led to use, as we are tempted to justify ourselves, is “Because…”

“Because I’m busy…”

“Because I’m tired…”

We may believe that if we, indeed, prove ourselves to the demanding person, they will, therefore, be satisfied with our response, respect us and leave us alone.

Nope.

It, more than likely, will be more like this. They come at us even harder, becoming more violating, more abusive, employing more harmful strategies to squeeze that “yes” response out of us.

Suffice it to say…

Here’s where our “less is more” strategy meets us, if we’re willing to take the meeting. Say nothing. Do not offer any “because” reason. If the awkward silence (and yes, it will feel awkward) is too deafening for us, we can respond with the following…

“I am not able to do that.”

If we feel like being generous, we could even attach an “I’m sorry, but I am not able to do that.” And leave it at that.

Suffice it to say.

No further expounding is necessary. If we need to, we can walk away. However, according to our abuser, this discussion will not be over yet.

Yes, friendly warning: if you and I haven’t personally experienced it already, our abusive person will probably not accept any of our answer, shy of the desired “yes.” In fact, things may be ratcheted up to the next tactic.

Argue:

And here is often where arguing comes in, on the part of the abusive person. Again, in this situation, there can exist the need to prove ourselves in the heat of an argument. And that’s by design.

Yes, arguments happen in life. However, there is a difference when we are arguing with an abusive person, versus a non-abusive person. A non- abusive person may come from a perspective of trying to understand a situation or settle a disagreement. 

But the abusive person is not interested in that approach. When we argue with that individual, often, that toxic person’s modus operandi is to engage in dysfunction, simply to keep the negative exchange going, whether that’s the individual fight or the harmful relationship, itself.

Still, when we’re heated, it’s difficult to keep an objective perspective. We feel we need to make the point, asserting, “I am not this; I am this.”

But again, the abusive person is not interested in hearing, in understanding, in working a situation out. Instead, they are focused on “the win.” And sometimes, the abusive person gets a high from the flying sparks. They can even enjoy the process of wearing you and I down. They want us to submit. Period.

Suffice it to say, then, arguing with a person like this is pointless.

It’s not worth expending the energy. Disengage, as much as possible. Don’t get into it. It’s harmful. If the abuser is only focused on the dominating “win,” continuing with the dynamic only gives us various degrees of losing.

And we’re more valuable than that.

Defend:

Defend can be our knee-jerk response when things become more serious, dangerous or violent. Now, something feels at stake.

When we are in a toxic interaction with an abusive person, we can feel like our very lives are threatened. If that is the case, we need to get help and get out.

The National Domestic Violence Hotline:

1-800-799-7233

https://www.thehotline.org/

In terms of a less violent context, the abusive tactic of placing us in a position of defense still is serious and can cause us harm. Here, we experience the verbal, the emotional, the mental, the spiritual and the financial aspects of abuse, all of which are detrimental to our personhood.

We can respond, either outright or unconsciously, with the pleading statement, “Stop attacking me!”

And, adding further injury, the abuser can enjoy that reality, because we’re off kilter. They can assume they have the advantage over us.

Learned helplessness can often result. We feel powerless. And, because we feel powerless, we can often give our power away even more.

But JADE’s principle of never defending yourself, meaning, never pouring excessive, tiring energy into a dysfunctional dynamic, hinges on this premise. The abuser is only interested in attacking and having us in the struggling, one-down position.

And, just like “Justify,” just like “Argue,” to keep engaging in that is, at best, pointless for us and, at worst, harmful. It’s a rigged game, with it already decided, by the abusive person, that you and I will be the loser. Don’t play it.

If you feel you need to defend yourself, that’s an unhealthy relationship and/or interaction.

Detach. Walk away.

Explain:

I can prove myself to you; here’s my evidence.

And here’s the hoop-jumping, the auditioning, the desperate plea, “BELIEVE Me!”

I personally feel that this element of JADE is the most harmful to us: the pressure we may feel to “explain.”

When we refuse to justify, argue or defend ourselves against a coercive individual, indeed, that last resort may be to pressure us into explaining ourselves. It can even go so far as to demand we explain our very existence.

It’s demoralizing, dehumanizing. It’s abusive.

And it shines a spotlight on a core trait of an abusive person: his/her sense of entitlement.

After all, what could better drive the intense demand of such an individual?

It can be argued that’s the reason for JADE in the first place.

For, concerning the entitled person’s perspective, he/she believes they is “owed” something by us. And that can be anything under the sun, only subject to the abuser’s whims.

That abuser may feel we owe them complete agreement, acquiescence, control and decision making for our lives. We may feel we need to have their “permission” to exist. It is damaging… and often, subtle. It can creep up on us slowly, as, bit by bit, we give our power away, all in the hopes we will be loved and/or we will no longer be abused.

“Explaining ourselves,” therefore, places an unachievable onus solely on us. We can believe the lie that, anything short of a “good enough explanation” for ourselves rightfully leads to our punishment. We can absorb how our “imperfect” explanation is our fault, bringing any punishment upon ourselves.

What’s wrong with just explaining a situation?

It has everything to do with context.

Quick questions you and I need to ask ourselves:

Do I feel like I’m forced to explain myself?

If it were solely up to me, would I choose to explain this situation?

What are those answers?

Anything violating our basic free will and dignity is abusive.

If the context of an explanation involved a non-abusive party, that’s one thing. There is no agenda to dominate, subjugate or control a human being. If we choose not to give a full accounting to that person, the other party would accept that choice.

But, again, with an abuser, there is no “enough” involved. We could not justify enough, argue enough, defend ourselves enough, and, of course, explain ourselves enough. The abusive person is never satisfied with anything we give them.

We can point to immaturity, Narcissism, insecurity and even a more sinister need for power over us. It still doesn’t change the fact that no amount of our will, desire and energy expenditure will satisfy them.

And, just as importantly, it’s not our job to do that kind of hoop-jumping. None of it will get the person to love us or treat us better.

So, what are we left with?

Scripture, again, pops up for me, even with is “secular” JADE principle.

 “Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.”

Matthew 5:37

That’s what it is all about. In the realm of dignity, healthy treatment and basic human respect, how does someone view our expression on a matter?

Do they accept it? Do they reject it? Do they try to forcibly change it? Do they abuse us over it?

Are we respected?

JADE, perhaps, can remind us we must be exactly that.

Suffice it to say.

Copyright © 2020 by Sheryle Cruse

The Harmful Messages We Believe About Our Abusers

Concerning the abusive dynamic, I’m uneasily reminded of Abraham’s Lincoln’s statement about enemies…

“Do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends?”

That’s a lovely theory, and, in an ideal world, I’d be quite enthusiastic about it.

But life is un-ideal… and filled with abusive people who require a different approach from us… for our own safety.

With all due respect to President Lincoln, somehow, I don’t think he considered the toxic manipulation of some individuals. When someone is abusive, they are counting us having kind and generous natures. They are counting on us to forgive and freely allot multiple chances to them.

Overriding Our Instincts:

“The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

Ancient Proverb, “The Arthashastra”

Try thinking of this proverb this way: the gut reaction concerning my abuser is my friend.

See anything different now?

Yes, here’s, often, where it all gets started. We completely ignore our intuition. We dismiss our gut.

When we are involved with an abuser, we often don’t want to acknowledge that painful reality. We try to talk ourselves out of it. We convince ourselves that this kind of ugly stuff doesn’t happen to “people like us.” We reassure ourselves that this person is too attractive, too wealthy, too intelligent, too nice, too this-or-that, to be an abuser.

As much as we believe the abuser’s lies, we believe our own even more strongly.

The Harm: “Do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends?”

All of this can set the dangerous stage to sway us into wanting “to make things work” with an abusive, harmful person. We’re encouraged to make nice.  If we just believe our magical thinking, over unflattering reality, then everything will be okay.

And it’s not just that. We give more authority, more credence, to the “other” opinion, be it the abuser’s, the family and friends trying to talk us out of “acting too rashly,” and even systems like clergy and law enforcement, who encourage us to “think about what we’re doing.”

The translation of all of that is this: don’t trust yourself; trust them; trust us.

But, may times, by doing that, in matters like abuse, there is no destruction of the enemy, only the destruction of ourselves.

That’s not a fair trade.

Destructive Striving:

Speaking of destruction, there’s a lot of destructive striving. We reason, “If I can just do this, or stop doing that…”

And somehow, we never quite finish that sentence, other than to soothe ourselves with the hope that, “things will be better.” Again, it’s the magical thinking which woos us into accepting the faulty, dangerous core belief. Whether or not we know the exact language of that core belief, most of the time, it goes something like this:

“This is my fault. I deserved it. If I can just act right, then the hitting, the screaming, the pain (the abuse) will stop.”

The Harm: “Do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends?”

If we entertain Lincoln’s statement, while in this mindset, we can convince ourselves that being friends with our abuser, being accommodating concerning them, will solve things. All it takes is our willingness to be friends, and, again, “to make nice.”

But, often, when it comes to our striving, we’re the only ones doing the work. There is no two-way street. There is only the continuation of an unhealthy and unsafe dynamic.

The 4 F’s:

Most of us have heard about “fight or flight” coping strategy when it comes to crisis and an adrenalin response.

But there are two more “F’s:” Freeze and Fawn.

And, again, in the light of abuse, these reactions can be vain attempts to stop the pain, the violence and the unhealthy dynamic we suffer, at the whims of the abuser.

We desperately try to reassure ourselves, no matter which tactic we employ, “If I do this, maybe, they’ll leave me alone.”

The Harm: “Do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends?”

Again, the mistaken belief we accept, much to our detriment, is that the onus lies solely with us. It’s up to us, to fix and change things, never the abuser’s job. Make friends, “make nice,” do whatever it takes.

Fight… maybe we don’t fight our abuser, but we fight for the remedy which will change things. Flight… perhaps, we try to flee to safety, to avoid the harmful person and the ugly reality, any way we can.

Freeze… we can try not to be noticed; we endeavor to blend into our surroundings.

Fawn… we attempt to give in, hoping our acquiescence will prompt the abuser’s mercy.

Again, it’s all about us making things better, “friendlier,” for and with the abuser. However, during these attempts, we only exhaust and deplete ourselves. Nothing gets better, nothing changes, at least, not in the real ways we desire.

And, all the while, the abuser is comfortable, enabled, even rewarded as we are the ones doing all the heavy lifting.

Once again, in this situation, “friendship” is not the answer, just a harmful, codependent mirage.

Refusal of “What Is:”

The American Buddhist nun, Pema Chödron is famous for her concept, “Idiot Compassion.” It’s when we continue to participate in an unhealthy dynamic, situation or relationship because we feel obligation, responsibility, pity and yes, complicated love/enmeshment for the toxic person. We believe our involvement is necessary and helpful, even if it is to our own detriment. We believe that, if we keep “helping,” then things will finally be the way we long for them to be.

We pin magical thinking on “what if,” instead of “what is.”

The Harm: “Do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends?”

Repeatedly, we convince ourselves that it can change; they will change. It will get better.

We can do this for years, for decades, for our entire lives.

We can do that at the expense of our health, safety, marriages, families, careers, finances, relationships and personal goals.

Again, returning to the Abraham Lincoln enemy/friend quote, we cling to the hope that our hearts, our desires and efforts, somehow, will win the love of the abusive person, so much so, that they radically and permanently transform, love us back, and participate in a healthy, loving relationship that heals our wounds.

And, again, we take sole ownership of that unrealistic and unhealthy feat. We do not allow the other person to rise and fall on the realities of their own consequences. We rescue them before that ever has a chance of happening.

So, there’s no impetus, no need for change. Why would that person change? Things are working so well for them. We’re taking care of everything for them.

Keeping the Foe a Foe: Permission To Heal:

You cannot negotiate with abusers, much like you cannot negotiate with terrorists.

Ideally, yes, everyone would be able to get along, make amends, do the Kumbaya thing. But that concept is an unachievable Utopia, not the real world.

It’s to the abuser’s advantage, and to our disadvantage, to make them our friends, and a part of our inner circle.

We don’t need to be hostile or injurious about it, although, from the abuser’s perspective, that’s often how they’ll view our actions. This isn’t about seething hatred and bitterness, about plotting our revenge.

Rather, it’s about first granting ourselves the permission to keep harmful people out of our lives. This can start with a tiny word: “no.” This starts with boundaries.

Boundaries are the simple answer to a short question, “Is this person healthy for me?” Yes… or no?

It goes beyond the stories and the reasons why we insist on giving someone harmful access to our lives; it goes beyond every single extra chance, grace, forgiveness and opportunity.

Is this person harmful? Yes? Then that person is not a friend. That person is a rightful enemy.

Still wrestling with the question? Objectively how would you view someone outside of you, someone you care about, struggling with the same issue?

Would you advise them to stay, put up with it, keep getting hurt? No, you probably wouldn’t do that. You care about them too much to allow them to be harmed.

Well, now it’s time to care about yourself.

Be a friend, not an enemy, to yourself.

Copyright © 2020 by Sheryle Cruse

The Slap of Narcissistic Injury

Some of us out have been physically slapped. If so, you know how startling it is. It can leave many of us in shock, unsure about how to respond.

Years ago, I encountered the slap of Narcissistic injury. I didn’t know what to call it back then, other than painful and jarring. But now, I’ve been able to learn some more of the finer points of abusive behavior, beyond just the vague, generic labeling of it as abuse.

The specific encounter involved a group project within my church. There were people, divided into teams, in charge of different tasks and responsibilities. Of course, there was leadership involved, overseeing the various aspects of the groups and their execution of activities.

And herein lies a major part of the Narcissistic abuse: the value attached to status, title and power.

As we were working on these different tasks and projects, one group member, (let’s call her Melissa), walked away from our team and the work we were doing.

Where did Melissa go?

Like a moth to the flame, she was drawn to a small circle of pastors, engaged in conversation. With plans to be of that same position and title, she, naturally, saw herself flocking amongst these more desirable eagles, rather than, I guess, hanging out with the lowly buzzard churchgoers of this group assignment.

Soon, another separate pastor alerted each group they needed to assemble and work on their respective assignments. However, Melissa did not return to our team. She merely glanced at the pastor, making the announcement, barely acknowledging the directive. Perhaps, she believed that was meant for others, not her. She continued to bask in the glory of the leaders she aspired to be like. Within our group, itself, without everyone present, things were at a standstill. Nothing could get done.

After about five minutes of waiting for her, I walked over to the small circle of pastors, addressing Melissa, requesting she join our group and help with our tasks. The look of offense in her eyes!

She angrily spat, “I’ll be right there!”

I returned to the group and waited, with the other members, for her to eventually, casually, saunter over to us. She then started making passive-aggressive digs at me, targeting me as the fool, the idiot, the evil doer who dared to ask anything of her.

Hello, entitlement.

She repeatedly did this throughout the work session that day. Some of it was within earshot of the other group members and even the pastors. But no one said or did anything. In a state of shock, myself, I didn’t know what else to do, without inflaming things further. I tried to “go to my brother” (Matthew 18:15) with her at a later point, as Scripture advised me to do, but she angrily rebuffed me again.

Okay, got it.

In recent years, I have become more familiar with the term “Narcissistic injury.” It is when an entitled person, usually a Narcissist, reacts to a displeasing communication with their offended reaction. They perceive it as a slight, an affront to their high-status value.

“How dare you!” is often their driving response. It can also have the subtext of “You didn’t do things my way!”

It certainly felt that way concerning Melissa. Indeed, “how dare I” not see how much more important it was for her to hang around the VIP pastors than the mere mortals of our small group? She was, perhaps, “above it.” Therefore, I should respond accordingly.

And, because I didn’t adhere to the situation the way I should have, because I didn’t do things her way…

SLAP!!!

Yes, I had to be punished and corrected (shamed), rather than have her realize and respond to the original job at hand, the reason we were there in the first place. It wasn’t to hob knob with the elite. She was a member of a group, doing, yes, lowly, unglamorous tasks. But she signed up for that. It was not merely her entrance into the ministry career goals she had her sights set on.

How dare I?

Narcissists, inherently, have this expectation that the word will and should revere them as special, as important. When that does not happen, conditions are favorable the fury of that perceived injury. To the Narcissist, the perceived injury is as real as physically losing a limb. It is that painful to them. And, it is completely unacceptable, and, therefore, worthy of retaliation against us.

I dared to challenge/not recognize the Melissa’s higher status.

Furthermore, I dared to remind her of what we were doing. How dare I do that?

Let’s just be real here. At that time of this incident, Melissa was not a pastor. She was not a high-ranking member of ministry. She was a volunteering member of the church, who, supposedly, agreed to work within a small group setting for a common, shared goal.

But clearly, I saw the “preferential treatment” she subscribed to certain individuals, based on their titles and monikers. And, as time unfolded, I saw her climb higher on the ministry ladder. Eventually, she became a leader with a certain level of status and power.

And, once she reached that level of power and status, it seemed like her entitlement issues worsened. There was a lack of humility, she, instead, reveled in the power she wielded.

She was not as interested in doing “the work” of the church as she was interested in achieving the “perks” of church leadership.

And they are two very different things, indeed.

The Entitlement Ratio:

Entitlement is the engine of Narcissistic injury. It’s often what motivates the slap. It appears to be, the greater the entitlement of an individual, the greater the perceived injury will be for the offender. And then, the greater the slap, in response. It does not matter who the person is or what the circumstances are. In the case of Narcissistic injury, the entitlement, the offense, the injury and the slap are in a category of “when,” not “if.”

It will happen. Just wait.

And while you and I wait, with knowledge in hand, it’s equally important not to view this while this as personal against us. It is not. The Narcissist’s insecurity rests with them. It is not something we need to take ownership for.

Melissa, for her many goals of attaining leadership, power and status, inevitably, had issues that very same leadership. She argued with pastors, impeding the work of the ministry everyone claimed to serve.

Entitlement bumping up against entitlement, perhaps?

“When,” not “if?”

There are no sacred cows when it comes to the Narcissist’s perceptions on anything: truth, power, love, relationships, wants, needs. All are vulnerable to injury.

How important it is, then, for us to arm ourselves with that understanding. Application of this knowledge is the power, if not the appropriate “slap” response to any abuse attempt aimed at us.

Copyright © 2020 by Sheryle Cruse

If You're Unsure...

It is Rented...

Storytelling Affects the Brain...

Make Someone Happy?

The famous entertainer, Jimmy Durante once sang a song, “Make Someone Happy.” This was in an era in which, perhaps, we were less sophisticated about relationships. There was an emphasis on finding the love of your life, marrying that person, having children with that person… and then, living “happily ever after” with them.

If we play the song today, at first listen, it seems to be a happy little ditty, an innocent tune.

But I hear something potentially darker, even self-negating.

“It's so important to
Make someone happy,

Make just one someone happy;
Make just one heart the heart you sing to.

One smile that cheers you,
One face that lights when it nears you,
One girl you're ev'rything to.

Fame if you win it,
Comes and goes in a minute.

Where's the real stuff in life to cling to?

Love is the answer,

Someone to love is the answer.

Once you've found her, build your world around her.

Make someone happy,

Make just one someone happy,
And you will be happy, too.”

See anything?

Let’s explore these lyrics a little more.

“It's so important to
Make someone happy…”

Innocuous sentiment.

What’s the harm in that?

Can’t we all agree that, yes, it is important to spread joy to others? But do we make others happy, at our expense?

Ah, there’s the dilemma.

For how many of us sacrifice ourselves, hurt ourselves, all in the name of making someone happy?

What do we swallow, suppress, hide, lie about or refuse to discuss?

Think about it.
“…Make just one someone happy…”

Why can’t that “just someone” be you and me? Why does it always have to be someone else “other?”

Here’s where we seem to place tremendous value on external “other” validation. Something isn’t real unless and until it’s outside of us, garnering the impact and acclaim of someone else. “Making someone happy” falls under that heading.
“…Make just one heart the heart you sing to,

One smile that cheers you,
One face that lights when it nears you…”

Again, why can’t that be you and me?

Why does it always have to be someone else “other?”

And here’s another sticky point: why is there all emphasis placed on creating a happy moment? What if, for example, we needed to have a “come to Jesus” discussion about less pleasant, but necessary, issues like money and interpersonal challenges?

Many of us may have never heard Durante’s song lyrics, yet, how many of us place sole importance on making everything happy, at the expense of other important- and needed- emotions and circumstances?

How many times have issues not been appropriately handled because the jolly smile was what was viewed as the most important thing to achieve?
“…One girl you're ev'rything to…”

Oh, dear! Here we go! Unrealistic “Everything?” Really?

Yes, I suppose, once upon a time, there existed the concept that a person was your everything. And, in the first infatuated stages of love, that can feel real. It can feel doable.

But eventually, life (and love) moves on… at least it should move on, anyway. Bills need to get paid. Someone needs to go to the dentist. There are obligations, PTA meetings, someone needs to take Fluffy to the vet for her shots. The stuff of life.

And let’s not forget the other relationships we have in our lives: family, friends, co-workers, etc. There are numerous ways for each of us to find fulfillment, besides lumping it all on one single person. Doing just that is unfair and a recipe for failure.

Just wait. The “everything” promise, attached to any single human being, is a countdown clock for disappointment and heartbreak.

And, on a side note, expecting “the little woman” to fulfill every need, hope and dream, is misogynistic and unrealistic. Before we dismiss this as merely, an anachronistic lyric of its time, we still, if we’re honest, catch ourselves expecting nothing short of everything from the females in our lives: our mothers, wives, girlfriends, some “Superwoman,” who will magically swoop in and fix all of our problems.

Where’s that countdown clock of imminent failure? I hear it ticking.

“…Fame if you win it,
Comes and goes in a minute….”

Agreed.
“…Where's the real stuff in life to cling to?...”

Is “other” more real than us, all by ourselves?

What value, exactly, do we place on doing the deeply personal work involving ourselves? Therapy, facing issues, working on our personal growth? Any points for that?

Or, is it all about finding that perfect, “love of your life,” expecting him or her to perfect your “everything?”

Everything is meaningless and on pause until that happens? Really?
“…Love is the answer…”

Okay, sure. It is an answer…

But, as wonderful as love can be, there are other worthwhile things as well: personal development, goalsetting, discovery and adventure. These things can exist without the “love of a life” happening.

Just saying.
“…Someone to love is the answer…”

Again, if we pin all importance, all meaning of life, onto one sole individual to love, we’re setting ourselves up for disappointment. Loving connection with a person is important, but it should never replace us doing our own work, the hard work of personal inventory, growth, developing healthy self-esteem, spirituality, goals and talents. “Loving someone” isn’t going to cut it if we have nothing, in and of ourselves, to offer that someone.

And of course, we need to love ourselves before we seek that “other” someone to love. Doing that work is a big part of “the answer.”
“…Once you've found her, build your world around her…”

Again, could you please build your own world around yourself first?

Our sense of self must first be there. How will we know who is the fitting person for us to love if we are completely clueless about who we are?

We tend, especially in this culture, to believe that we are some unfinished half of a puzzle, just waiting to find our corresponding soul mate, the completing other half of the puzzle.

Our dream man. Our dream woman.

And they are out there. Oh, yes! We just need to keep looking for them. Meanwhile, we neglect to discover and know ourselves.

And because of that neglect, we are far from the dream, ourselves. In fact, if we’re being honest, our clueless puzzle pieces, woefully ignorant of what truly makes us tick, are NIGHTMARES to behold!

We have failed to build our own world around who we truly are, single, autonomous.

“…Make someone happy…”

How about having it be you first, without any other “them?”
“…Make just one someone happy…”
Again, how about having it be you, all by yourself, first?
“…And you will be happy, too…”

Let’s just eliminate the middleman.

It’s not about being selfish, self-indulgent or Narcissistic. It’s about taking care of who we are, in real ways, without involving someone else. There are certain things that are our responsibility… and no one else’s.

Unfortunately, we often abdicate that throne, while saddling someone else with the burden of “making us happy.” When we do this, inevitably, sooner or later, everyone in the picture will be miserable.

Love oneself.

Know oneself.

Tend to thine own garden.

You cannot pour from an empty cup.

We hear these things frequently because there is always truth in them. It’s about first things being first.

We need to make ourselves happy first… and then find ways to spread THAT around!

Let’s start singing those lyrics.

Copyright © 2020 by Sheryle Cruse