Do Not Feed the Monster |
In my early twenties, I was more than ready to hear all
this. I had been an uneasy Feminist for a number of years—Feminist because I
had first-hand experience of the way our supposedly advanced society treats
women as second-class citizens, uneasy because I never quite fit in with others
who adopted the label with rampant fanaticism. I also self-identified as a
religious Witch, and at the time you almost couldn’t do that without getting
involved in gender politics and the movement for societal change. And I’d never
been a person who thought in terms of black and white. From a very young age, I
looked for underlying causes and was interested in why people and cultures
acted the way they did. Despite being raised in a Christian household, I never
could incorporate a Good vs. Evil dichotomy in my world view. It simply didn’t
make sense to me (and still doesn’t).
The Safehouse training encouraged all of us to move away
from conflict-based thinking and problem solving and toward better
communication and seeing all people as individuals with individual needs, and
that’s a good thing to do, in general. I, as is often my pattern, took the idea
somewhat too far. I made a conscious decision to start creating the world I
wanted to see—one that contained less conflict—by applying the Safehouse
lessons to my daily life. To see people as individuals, and realize that people
with whom I disagreed and those I perceived as downright enemies or even
horrible individuals in their own right had lives and problems of their own,
reasons for acting the way they did. I resolved not to judge, but to listen and
support as much as possible, in hopes of modeling behavior that these people
would miraculously recognize as superior and adopt. (The fact that I was
attending a Buddhist college at the time reinforced my decision to do this.) I
also decided to carry the attitude into my work as an aspiring Fantasy writer.
I would create a world without conflict, where my characters worked everything
out in sensible, non-violent ways and glitter dropped from their tongues with
every word (not really).
Of course, I caught on pretty quick that trying to tell a
coherent story without any kind of conflict in it is a losing proposition. You
don’t have to have a huge Apocalyptic war of Good vs. Evil to have a good
story, but there has to be some kind of tension, some dispute to be settled or
problem to be solved. Also, there’s a place for violence. Nature is raw and
bloody and violent, and human beings are animals, part of nature. Sure, we can
work at curbing or understanding some of our instincts and shape ourselves into
less brutish patterns. But though refraining from the actions that increase
your Karmic load and thus condemn you to more time on the Wheel of Samsara is a
value of many Eastern religious systems, it is, in my belief, a good goal to
keep in mind but one that can never be achieved in any practical way. Besides,
violence and conflict make more interesting reading than a bunch of people
sitting around having intelligent conversation.
In my actual life, however, I continued to let my dislike of
conflict turn me into a doormat. Over and over again, I formed relationships
with people who, if not physically violent, were manipulative, emotionally
abusive and toxic. Some of them were people I’d been friends with for years who
came back into my life, and some were people I’d met only recently. And it was
always the same. We’d hit it off right away—too quickly, one might say. We’d be
sharing confidences before a week was out. I always found the other person
charismatic and developed a kind of hero worship for her (it was always a
woman) for any number of reasons. Because she was (in my opinion) prettier, or
more experienced, or wiser, or had a better job. We became best friends.
And then she’d start the abuse. And it always looked the
same. She’d elevate me into a position of ostensible power—one coven High
Priestess “passed the wand” to me, for example—and then undermine my authority
at every turn. She’d use subtle techniques to get me to take responsibility for
her emotional health and well-being. She’d sulk and throw tantrums when I
wouldn’t concede on an issue, often to the point where I’d give in just to shut
her up. Or, if I held my ground, she’d ignore me and go her own way anyway,
often lying and telling me I had never expressed any disagreement with her when
I had, more than once.
I knew this was abuse. I KNEW IT. And yet, it often took me
years and years to get out from under it. One relationship, with a woman I had
known since middle school, went on past the point where the stress literally
put me in the hospital. It took my therapist telling me, “You have to break it
off with this woman or the relationship will kill you,” before I could shut her
out of my life. And I still feel guilty about doing it, though it was nearly
ten years ago.
Why? I’m a smart woman. I’m educated. I’ve studied
psychology virtually all my life. So why couldn’t I get out of these
relationships before they damaged me?
Lots of reasons. I grew up in a family where this kind of
emotional abuse was a daily occurrence, and though I questioned it, I also
thought of it as normal. At the time, emotional abuse was not really recognized
or addressed by the therapeutic professions. I was brought up to put everyone
else’s needs above my own. When I was bullied in my expensive, private school,
I was told to stay silent and ignore it instead of making an issue of it. As a
woman, I was taught to have fluid boundaries. I suffer from low self-esteem
myself, so on some level maybe I thought I deserved the treatment. I am always
ready to question myself, less ready to address the behaviors of others. But
most of all, I sympathized with my abusers. I understood them. I knew where
their behavior was coming from. My early therapists preached forgiveness and
understanding: “They’re doing the best they can with what they have,” rarely
going on to condemn the actions that were driving me insane. Those confidences
my abusers shared with me gave me insight into their actions. They also felt
powerless. They also had been abused. They needed to be loved and accepted unconditionally.
I needed to prove to them that they
were valued as human beings and that they did not need to resort to bizarre and
destructive patterns to participate in relationships. That’s my own ego
investment. Mea culpa.
I sympathized with the monster.
In fact, I empathized. I have always been an unusually
empathetic person. When I got bullied in school, I did not immediately turn my
frustration on someone weaker. I remember thinking, even at a very young age,
“Wow, this feels so horrible. I am never
going to act this way to another person.” And later, when I learned that
abusers have usually themselves been abused, it was easy for me to associate
their acting out with those horrible feelings I had experienced, with that
pain. And because I empathized, I excused the behavior, even when it damaged
me. I was incapable of addressing it, of saying, “No. This is wrong and I won’t
put up with it. You need to stop, or I’m leaving.” If you understand someone so
deeply, if you train yourself to refrain from judging their actions because you
know the root causes, how can you give up on them? How can you distance
yourself from someone who has such a deep need?
Of course, “Battered Women” have been asking themselves this
since the Dawn of Time. I was just late getting on the train, possibly because
this pattern never appeared in any of my infrequent romantic relationships. I
like to think if it had I would have been out the door. But I can’t say.
For years I have struggled with the question: How can you
understand a person (or a system) and still have boundaries? How can you label
behavior as repulsive without dehumanizing the person perpetrating it? It’s
easy for me to sympathize with the monster, with the eternal Other. I have,
myself, been “Othered” at various times in my life—for being fat or female or
too tall or not having the right clothes or income or for expressing
uncomfortable ideas. Any number of things. I seem to live my life at the edge
of the acceptable. In my work, I am constantly rewriting folk tales from the
point of view of some minor character or making my protagonist someone who does
not quite fit in to what’s considered normal society. I love this shit. In
fact, I don’t think I do it enough. I like making the dark places a bit
lighter, making the creature under the bed someone you can talk with over
cookies and milk. I like “de-Othering.” I like reducing that conflict.
(I see an interesting pattern here.)
But you can take it too far. Far enough that your therapist
tells you, “Get out or it will kill you.” And you need to listen to that. You
really do.
I didn’t really begin to come to terms with all this until I
read the novel Grass, by Sheri S.
Tepper, an incredible writer of speculative fiction. One of the themes in the
book is the existence of evil, presented in an alien race that in its
adolescent stage suffers from congenital xenophobia. This race can grow into an
adult form that is beautiful and wise and super intelligent. The adolescent
form, however, wants nothing more than to wipe out all life that differs from
itself, and it nearly succeeds. They are monsters, and sympathizing with them
will get you killed. Help them evolve and transform into their adult phase, by
all means. But do not lose track of this fact.
Sometimes I think that progressive thinkers have lost track
of this fact. Too much popular culture now hinges on sympathizing with the
monster. We have sparkly vampires and cuddly werewolves. Little animated kids
go to the land in the closet and hang out with friendly night terrors.
Villains
are depicted as bumbling idiots, and this makes their plans for the subjugation
of “inferior” beings more palatable. And sure, there’s always been some of
this. The attraction for the “Bad Boy” or “Bad Girl” is a cliché. Serial
killers on death row get a huge number of letters from “fans” of all genders
who find them irresistible. And sure, it’s easy to say, “We reasonable people
can recognize the difference between a TV show or a book and reality.”
Not At All Dangerous |
Except, we can’t. Our minds do not distinguish between
vividly imagined reality and concrete reality. When something in a book or film
moves us, we experience the same emotions and emotional process as we do when a
real-life situation moves us, sometimes more intensely. So when you forget
about the monster, when you excuse the abusive behavior of a stage character
because “it’s about love,” or dismiss the fact that a handsome vampire is
self-centered and manipulative because underneath is all he’s really kind and
devoted to the heroine, you are bringing those attitudes into your own life.
You are subscribing to the kind of thinking that can endanger you, and you are
responsible for perpetuating it in society. This needs to stop. Putting a
pretty wrapper on abuse doesn’t make it acceptable. It just makes it harder to
see.
The truth is, for time out of mind we have sympathized with the monsters. We’re all too ready to justify
and excuse their behaviors, whether we’re talking about the untutored golem who
kills his maker and incurs the wrath of the uncaring local villagers or the man
who, due to the stress of his job and family responsibilities, lashes out at
his wife and beats her bloody. The point is, the abuse has to be confronted or it will never end. Yes, perhaps none of
the monsters in our lives are inherently evil. Perhaps their behaviors can be
understood. It doesn’t mean what they do is acceptable. As individuals and as a
society, we need to focus less on the underlying causes and more on the
actions. Stand up and say, “This is wrong and you need to stop.” And take
whatever steps necessary to enforce that boundary, whether that means
supporting someone in getting therapy or leaving a relationship. It’s no crime
to put yourself and your safety first. That’s one of the first lessons the
women coming to the Safehouse had to learn.
Sympathize with the monster, by all means. But never forget
it has teeth.
[i] I am well aware that men can be victims
and women perpetrators of Domestic Violence. The shelter I worked with served a
female population, so that’s what I’m talking about.